Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inland admiralty


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per author's copyright claims, in addition to WP:SNOW. SkierRMH (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Inland_admiralty
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can hardly make heads or tails of this article, given its orotund style, but it seems to relate to the "inland admirality" conspiracy theory discussed at Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and experience of this field could help out. George (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as borderline nonsense, no context, take your pick. I have NO clue what the author is shooting for here, but he or she missed it by a mile. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essay - it even says stuff like "But why ... ?". Contains original research.--Dacium (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I saw this when it was first listed and I'm sorry, but I admit that I couldn't finish reading it. This is an essay, comprised completely (100%) of original research, and honestly, I don't understand it.  How did it last this long? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

<!-- (c) claimed posting blanked *Comment: I am the author of this article. It was originally written for a specific target audience and may need to be reformatted for the wider and less literate wikipedia audience. The article is about the inland extension of the jurisdiction of courts of vice admiralty in the American colonies which was the real cause for the American revolution (instead of the bogus theory about taxes on tea) as clearly stated in the 1775 Declaration on Taking Arms of 1775 which you can read again below.


 * If you still think the inland extension of admiralty jurisdiction is a 'conspiracy theory' then go to the Yale website where all the documents are nicely archived and read them for yourself. It was what really provoked the revolutionary war and the colonists could not have cared less about having seats in parliament.


 * If you have no clue what I was shooting for here, it is probably because you are ignorant of the basic concepts of law, such as venue and forum, and thus cannot understand the objection of the colonists to living life under martial law where foreign officers of the vice admiralty were immune from prosecution for any crimes committed against American colonists. In legal terms, think of 'venue' as a physical place such as Cook County, the State of Illinois, or even the United States - whereas the 'forum' refers to the rules OR NATURE of the venue.  Since there are no ecclesiastical courts in the United States as there is no official state church like in European countries, in the United States there can only be three types of forums convened in courts: English common law, equity law, or admiralty law.  If you still don't understand it, think of venue as a stadium like 'Soldiers Field' while the forum is what is happening at that venue like 'football' or 'soccer' - the rules currently being applied in the venue.  Essentially, the colonists wanted courts in an English common law forum with it's cherished traditions such as trial by jury and habeas corpus, which did not exist in a forum admiralty law, because admiralty law is martial law.  It DID happen in the colonies, as clearly indicated by the citations in the article.


 * The article contains phrases 'But why' BECAUSE IT IS A QUOTATION FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY THE AMERICAN COLONISTS! What is really objectionable is that you believe an article that you didn't even finish reading should be deleted because you don't understand it.


 * Do you like living under martial law? Ask yourself?  Did you know that you live under martial law today?  Ask yourself!  Are you aware that under the doctrine known as 'ONE FORM OF ACTION' all courts in the United States today are forums convened under the nature of admiralty law?  This is the real reason why the state of national emergency outlined in Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973) is still in full force and effect.  Nevertheless, all courts in the United States that give notice the forum is admiralty law (martial law) with a military flag that has a gold fringe border (pursuant to Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865, issued by Dwight David Eisenhower) thus come under Article II of the Constitution instead of Article III as courts of martial law under admiralty jurisdiction.  Where the Constitution has failed is with the sheriffs that are charged with 'keeping order' in court.  If a judge tries to arraign a civilian under admiralty law, the bailiff from the sheriff's office should immediately arrest the judge for treason.  The veterans of the revolutionary war would never have thought that a sheriff in the United States would allow a judge to arraign a civilian under admiralty law.


 * It is clear from the comments that my article does not adequately explain inland admiralty simply enough for the mass wikipedia audience. The exact chain of historical events that re-established inland admiralty in modern America is complex and involves many citations from case law and the United States code and is beyond the scope of the article.  From the comments it seems that posting it would be counter productive since the simple main thesis itself seems beyond most readers.  I will work on a revision more inclined to the attention span of the modern intellect.  Again, this article was originally written for a specific target audience of a high degree of intellectual caliber to which the average modern American is almost completely unaccustomed.


 * Thank you kindly,


 * JEFFREY EDWARD MANDALIS COPYRIGHT MMVII ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


 * 'From the Journals of the Continental Congress Declaration on Taking Arms; July 6, 1775:


 * They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercized an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutues have been passed for extending the juris diction of courts of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property;


 * and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the murderers of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment;


 * It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.


 * But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.182.210 (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

- - (c) claimed posting blanked - -
 * Admins, please remove the above comment as its author claims copyright to it. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If the entire comment is deleted as not licensed under GDFL, I note for the record that IP 67.165.182.210, the author of the material, vigorously opposed deletion. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete long-winded nonsense. The length of the comment above mine from the author is also rambling. complete essay. Clubmarx (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Nothing more than nonsense. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 09:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, crankcruft. An article about the conspiracy theory is potentially notable, but this presents a "fringe" theory as fact. Mr. Mandalis, a suggestion that may help you go far in life: Don't insult the people judging your work.--Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It might be a notable conspiracy theory, but the article itself is hellishly badly written and just seems to trail off into ranting. It also contains a copyright tag like the author's comment above. If it is going to survive it needs to be rewritten from the ground up as it appears to be WP:OR at the moment. Alberon (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. I'm somewhat embarassed to say that I recognize the term as a reference to the Stamp Act 1765, which has its own article. With all due respect to the author, I believe the Stamp Act article discusses this issue in greater detail, with less emotion and fervor, than this essay does. Wikipedia's goal is for all information presented to be Neutral and Verifiable. There may be sources that support some of the essay's assertions, but they are not listed in the article. But the critical issue is that this article is not neutral. Even if it discussed the subject from a neutral point of view, as required, the full text of the Star Spangled Banner isn't really relevant to the subject. So, to summarize, the article violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV, is an essay, and contains no encyclopedic material. In its current form, the article must be deleted with, perhaps, a redirect to Stamp Act 1765. I suggest to the author that, if it is his/her intent to post this material to the internet, that another site be found for that purpose. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A factual account of the variety of legal quackery that claims that a gold fringe on a flag magically turns a court into an admiralty court might be worth pursuing as a subsection to some other article, like tax protester, Posse Comitatus (organization), or Sovereign Citizen Movement.  The common thread through all of these theories is that their advocates imagine that they have discovered some sort of magical document that relieves them from the duties of citizenship.  Reliance on the alleged legal significance of flag fringes is more of the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as soapboxing, original research, etc, etc. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.