Source: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/AdmiraltyJuris.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:24:51+00:00

Document:
One of my elective courses in law school was admiralty, and my professor was Admiral Hughes, an old Navy man with a great sense of humor and many interesting and entertaining tales of life on the seas. When one takes an admiralty course (no doubt typically taught by Navy or JAG men), he quickly learns its jurisdiction, which is basically limited to the high seas and navigable waters of the United States. Posted here is another professor's notes for his course (this is a Word document). As one Net source defines "the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, [it] extends to all waters, with or without tides, salt or fresh, natural or artificial, which are navigable in interstate or foreign water commerce, without regard as to whether the particular body of water is entirely within a state, and whether or not the transaction in question is confined to a single state. It follows that small bodies of water wholly within a state and not navigable in interstate and foreign commerce do not provide admiralty jurisdiction. The Great Lakes and the Mississippi, on the other hand, are clearly within admiralty jurisdiction as is the Erie Canal, which is wholly within a state but navigable in interstate commerce." But events and things having absolutely no relationship with such waters do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. See Herman Family Revocable Trust v. The Vessel Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 2001).
In re Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179 (1928): There is no admiralty jurisdiction when the deceased was struck and killed by a sling on a pier.
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972): Neither the fact that an aircraft goes down on navigable waters nor that the negligence "occurs" while the aircraft is flying over such waters is sufficient to confer federal admiralty jurisdiction over aviation tort claims.
Askew v. Amercian Waterways Operators, Inc.,411 U.S. 325 (1973): Rejecting claim that Florida pollution statute intruded into admiralty jurisdiction.
LeBlanc v. Cleveland, 198 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1999): Navigability for admiralty jurisdiction purposes requires that the body of water support commercial activity, thus there is no admiralty jurisdiction in a case arising from an injury that occurred on a body of water that was only used for non-commercial purposes.
Weaver v. Hollywood Casino-Aurora, 255 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2001): Party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a personal injury claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1333(1) and the Jones Act must satisfy conditions of location on navigable waters and connection with maritime activity; since the record indicated that the portion of the river where the casino boat was located may not have been navigable in fact, the case was remanded so that the district court could determine whether subject matter jurisdiction existed.
Notwithstanding the clear parameters of admiralty jurisdiction, there are some misinformed souls who have developed weird ideas that “the whole damn country is run on admiralty,” and "everything is admiralty." Even a popular work, Mercier's Invisible Contracts, is dead wrong about this matter. Torts and crimes committed on the high seas are within admiralty jurisdiction; contracts related to maritime commerce, including insurance, are also within admiralty jurisdiction. But, this does not mean that all torts, crimes, contracts and other matters are all admiralty, including matters terrene ("on land"). See United States v. Rizzo, 297 U.S. 530, 56 S.Ct. 580 (1936)(claim for taxes is non-maritime).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s characterization of the case, nothing in the complaint suggests that this case is within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction exists only if the complained of incident occurred on navigable waters or is substantially related to traditional maritime activity. See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995); Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990). It is plain from the face of Plaintiff's original and amended Complaints that neither admiralty nor maritime law is implicated here. There are no allegations in either complaint of any maritime activities, no allegations of any incident having occurred on navigable waters of the United States, and no suggestion that any maritime vessel (i.e., boat, ship, barge, etc.) is implicated. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff’s claims relate to the assessment and collection of taxes. This matter is, therefore, governed by the General Provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is frivolous and should be denied.
See also United States v. Flaherty, D. Hawaii 2010 ("Flaherty's arguments are without merit. Flaherty argues that this case sounds in admiralty. However, no incidents occurred on navigable waters, and the case does not involve admiralty or maritime law. * * * Accordingly, the court rules federal tax law, not admiralty law, controls. "); and Russell v. Caruso.
The latest "admiralty" guru conducting seminars around the country is Tim Turner. A maritime liens can arise when a company provides food, fuel, supplies, repairs, etc, to some ship. If payment for these services is not made, a maritime lien can arise. Such a lien cannot arise under any other circumstances. However, Turner runs around telling people that he filed "maritime liens" in a bankruptcy case in Alabama and prevailed. He certainly did this, but he did not "win" but was sanctioned heavily instead. Some have followed his advice, to their detriment. For example, Ed Parenteau and Jeffrey Burfeindt in New York filed baseless maritime liens advocated by Turner and got indicted. Richard Ulloa did the same and he also got indicted. Turner is promoting a "jump into jail" scheme.
If somebody starts hollering at you about "admiralty", walk away. It is nuts and unfounded.
Are Citizens "Vessels of the United States"?
Section 3. "Vessel" as including all means of water transportation.
I have heard bits and pieces of the argument that “citizens are vessels of the United States”, but only recently was provided something explaining its parameters. Now that I understand it, I wish to explain why it is wrong. (Note: The below links go to FindLaw and access is free, although if you have not signed up, you will have to do so; there is no cost).
A citizen is not a vessel of the United States. A vessel of the United States is defined as one “belonging in whole or in part to * * * any citizen thereof”.
18 U.S.C. § 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined.
18 U.S.C. § 229F. Definitions.
18 U.S.C. § 546. Smuggling goods into foreign countries.
Any person owning in whole or in part any vessel of the United States who employs, or participates in, or allows the employment of, such vessel for the purpose of smuggling, or attempting to smuggle, or assisting in smuggling, any merchandise into the territory of any foreign government in violation of the laws there in force, if under the laws of such foreign government any penalty or forfeiture is provided for violation of the laws of the United States respecting the customs revenue, and any citizen of, or person domiciled in, or any corporation incorporated in, the United States, controlling or substantially participating in the control of any such vessel, directly or indirectly, whether through ownership of corporate shares or otherwise, and allowing the employment of said vessel for any such purpose, and any person found, or discovered to have been, on board of any such vessel so employed and participating or assisting in any such purpose, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2191. Cruelty to seamen.
Whoever, being the master or officer of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, flogs, beats, wounds, or without justifiable cause, imprisons any of the crew of such vessel, or withholds from them suitable food and nourishment, or inflicts upon them any corporal or other cruel and unusual punishment, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2192. Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny.
Whoever, being of the crew of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, endeavors to make a revolt or mutiny on board such vessel, or combines, conspires, or confederates with any other person on board to make such revolt or mutiny, or solicits, incites, or stirs up any other of the crew to disobey or resist the lawful orders of the master or other officer of such vessel, or to refuse or neglect his proper duty on board thereof, or to betray his proper trust, or assembles with others in a tumultuous and mutinous manner, or makes a riot on board thereof, or unlawfully confines the master or other commanding officer thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2193. Revolt or mutiny of seamen.
Whoever, being of the crew of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, unlawfully and with force, or by fraud, or intimidation, usurps the command of such vessel from the master or other lawful officer in command thereof, or deprives him of authority and command on board, or resists or prevents him in the free and lawful exercise thereof, or transfers such authority and command to another not lawfully entitled thereto, is guilty of a revolt and mutiny, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2194. Shanghaiing sailors.
18 U.S.C. § 2195. Abandonment of sailors.
Whoever, being master or commander of a vessel of the United States, while abroad, maliciously and without justifiable cause forces any officer or mariner of such vessel on shore, in order to leave him behind in any foreign port or place, or refuses to bring home again all such officers and mariners of such vessel whom he carried out with him, as are in a condition to return and willing to return, when he is ready to proceed on his homeward voyage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 2273. Destruction of vessel by nonowner.
Whoever, not being an owner, upon the high seas or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, willfully and corruptly casts away or otherwise destroys any vessel of the United States to which he belongs, or willfully attempts the destruction thereof, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
18 U.S.C. § 2275. Firing or tampering with vessels.
Prior to 1873, Congress adopted a number of acts regarding piracies and other crimes on the high seas, and these various federal laws were codified in the Revised Statutes of 1873, § § 5339 through 5391; a definition of "vessel of the United States" did not then appear in that set of laws. Some 36 years later, Congress enacted a long act that codified all the federal crimes in one act; see 35 Stat. 1088, ch. 321. Here, Congress, in the chapter dealing with piracy and other offenses on the seas, adopted a definition section that became, in 1948, 18 U.S.C. § 9.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 229
 § 546
 § 2191
 § 2192
 § 2193
 § 2194
 § 2195
 § 2273
 § 2275
 § 5339
 § 9