Source: https://douglasleethompson.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/deception-of-corporate-maritime-admiralty-law-ucc-law-explained-18-u-s-code-%C2%A7-2192-incitation-of-seamen-to-revolt-or-mutiny-legalese-explained-commerce-maritime-admiralty-law/
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 06:06:50
Document Index: 579216820

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2192', '§ 2192', '§ 2192', '§\u202f601', '§ 688', '§ 761', '§ 901', '§ 7301', '§ 8104', '§ 11101', '§ 31341', '§ 31301', '§ 1333', '§ 17', '§ 1221']

Deception of Corporate Maritime Admiralty Law ( UCC Law) explained / 18 U.S. Code § 2192 – Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny / Legalese explained . Commerce & Maritime admiralty law. / douglasleethompson blog | douglasleethompson
Deception of Corporate Maritime Admiralty Law ( UCC Law) explained / 18 U.S. Code § 2192 – Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny / Legalese explained . Commerce & Maritime admiralty law. / douglasleethompson blog
Posted on February 23, 2016 by arcjojo 2025204173
18 U.S. Code § 2192 – Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 800; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(8), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)
Dr Martin Luther King Jr White America Be True To What You Said On Paper
The roots of maritime law can be traced as far back as 900 b.c., which is when the Rhodian Customary Law is believed to have been shaped by the people of the island of Rhodes. The only concept in the Rhodian Laws that still exists is the law of jettison, which holds that if goods must be thrown overboard (jettisoned) for the safety of the ship or the safety of another’s property, the owner of the goods is entitled to compensation from the beneficiaries of the jettison.
The substance of maritime law considers the dangerous conditions and unique conflicts involved in navigation and water commerce. Sailors are especially vulnerable to injury and sickness owing to a variety of conditions, such as drastic changes in climate, constant peril, hard labor, and loneliness. Under the Shipowners’ Liability Convention (54 Stat. 1693 [1939]), a shipowner may be liable for the maintenance and cure of sailors injured on ship and for injuries occurring on land. Courts have construed accidents occurring during leave as being the responsibility of the shipowner because sailors need land visits in order to endure the long hours of water transportation.
Assigning responsibility for onboard Negligence was a long-standing problem, but the Jones Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C.A. § 688 et seq.) solidifies the right of sailors to recover from an employer for injuries resulting from the negligence of the employer, a master, or another crew member. The 1920 Death on High Seas Act (46 App. U.S.C.A. § 761 et seq.) allows recovery by the beneficiaries of a sailor’s estate when the sailor dies by negligence, default, or wrongful act on the high seas “beyond a marine league from the shore of any state [territory or dependency].” A marine league is one-twentieth of a degree of latitude, or three miles.
The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.[1927]) sets up a federal system to compensate injured maritime workers who do not sail. Through the Federal Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, employees such as stevedores (workers who load and unload ships) and ship service operators can receive compensation for injuries suffered in the course of their employment. U.S. sailors benefit from Title 46 of the U. S. Code, which sets a schedule for sailors’ earnings and the conditions of their contracts. Title 46 also lists the qualifications for sailor employment (§§ 7301 et seq.), the hours and conditions of the employment (§§ 8104 et seq.), and the living conditions that must be provided (§§ 11101 et seq.).
The case law of the United States is rich in the areas of sailors’ rights respecting the unseaworthiness of vessels, compensation for vessel suppliers and servicers, and the liabilities arising from collisions, towage, pilotage, and groundings. The Maritime Lien Act (46 U.S.C.A. §§ 31341–31343 [1920]) gives a lien to any person who, upon the order of the shipowner, furnishes repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or marine railway, or other necessaries to any vessel, without allegation or proof that credit was given. The Ship Mortgage Act (46 U.S.C.A. §§ 31301–31330 [1920]) regulates the mortgages on ships registered in the United States, and also provides for enforcement of the maritime liens obtained through the Maritime Lien Act.
In case of collision or other damage to a vessel, an in rem proceeding is often used to recover damages. An in rem action is a lawsuit brought against an offending thing (in admiralty, usually the ship), whereas an in personam action is a suit brought against a person. Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (1985) provides necessary details for the seizure of an offending owner’s vessel or property if a defendant vessel owner does not live in the state in which a suit is brought. The practical effect of Supplemental Rules B to E is to make it easier for a plaintiff to bring actions against out-of-state and foreign vessel owners and to provide for the attachment and Garnishment of the offending vessel.
An important consideration in any lawsuit is venue. Under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts have the power to try “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” (art. III, sec. 2). However, state courts can also hear admiralty and maritime cases by virtue of the “saving-to-suitors” clause of 28U.S.C.A. § 1333(1). This clause allows a plaintiff to sue in state court through an ordinary civil action when the court’s Common Law is competent to give a remedy. In such actions, the state court must apply the federal law of admiralty to the admiralty claims. Nevertheless, if a plaintiff believes he or she will fare better before a local tribunal, the option is available.
When no applicable federal statute exists, the governing law of a maritime case will be the uniform laws as expounded by the U.S. Supreme Court and applicable to all torts and contracts, whether the case is tried in federal or state court. Maritime case law—not the general common law—will govern a contract dispute only if the subject matter of the contract pertained to water commerce. Maritime precedents will govern a tort claim only if the negligent or reckless actions involved commercial activity on navigable waters.
Charter parties are often a topic of concern in maritime law. A charter party, or charter, is an agreement among a shipowner, a crew (the charterer), and the owner of the goods to be transported. Charter parties come in three types: time, voyage, and demise. A time charter is the lease of a ship to a charterer for a specified period of time. A voyage charter is the lease of a ship for a specific number of voyages. A demise charter (so called because the shipowner effectively relinquishes ownership for a certain period, causing a “demise” in ownership interest) is usually a bareboat charter, which means that the charterer supplies the master and crew for the ship. Other demise charters provide that the shipowner’s master and crew take charge of the vessel.
Risk of loss is sometimes decided according to a bill of lading. This document confirms a carrier’s receipt of goods from the owner (consignor), verifies the voyage contract, and shows rightful ownership of the goods. In Lekas & Drivas, Inc. v. Goulandris, 306 F.2d 426 (2d Cir.1962), the SS Ioannis P. Goulandris had chartered to carry olive oil, cheese, and tobacco from the western Greek port of Piraiévs to the United States via the Strait of Gibraltar. On October 28, 1940, with the Ioannis docked in Piraiévs, Italy attacked Greece, and the Ioannis was requisitioned by the Greek government for a military mission.
On November 10, 1940, the Ioannis finally set sail with its cargo for the United States via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, and around Cape Horn. After an arduous journey that included two crossings of the equator, hull damage, and lengthy repairs, the Ioannis came into port at Norfolk, Virginia, on May 3, 1941. En route, the tobacco had been damaged, much of the olive oil had leaked from its drums, and the cheese was “‘[m]elted with a terrible stench, and worthless.'”
Despite the Ioannis’s brave participation in wartime activities, the intended recipients (consignees) of the tobacco and olive oil sued the Ioannis and were able to recover for the losses suffered as a result of the damage. However, on the subject of the cheese, the court refused to allow recovery by Lekas and Drivas, which had consigned the cheese to itself.
In addition to the state and federal governments, municipalities can affect the private enjoyment of maritime activity. In Beveridge v. Lewis, 939 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1991), appellants Richard Beveridge, Peter Murray, Gregory Davis, and Peter Eastman challenged a Santa Barbara city ordinance (Santa Barbara Municipal Code § 17.13.020) that prohibited the anchoring or mooring of boats within 300 feet of Stearns Wharf from December to March. Santa Barbara had acquired ownership of Stearns Wharf in 1983, passed the ordinance in 1984, and started issuing citations for noncompliance shortly thereafter. Beveridge, Murray, Davis, and Eastman all owned boats moored or anchored within 300 feet of Stearns Wharf, and the four, represented by Eastman, brought suit against the city in 1989, seeking injunctive relief against enforcement of the ordinance.At trial, Eastman argued that the Santa Barbara ordinance conflicted with the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA) (33U.S.C.A. §§ 1221 et seq.), a federal act designed to reduce the loss of vessels and cargo, protect marine environment, prevent damage to structures on or adjacent to navigable waters, and ensure compliance with vessel operation and safety standards. The trial court dismissed the case, reasoning that the ordinance was neither preempted by, nor in conflict with, the federal statute.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the Santa Barbara ordinance was not in conflict with the PWSA, because the federal act was not intended to limit a municipality’s control over its local shores. The appeals court also rejected the proposition that the enactment of the PWSA implicitly foreclosed the enactment of similar ordinances by municipalities, and Santa Barbara’s control over the Stearns Wharf was complete.
Jaroslav Pelikan October 1, 2008
by Henry C. Black (Author)
This entry was posted in Bodhi Rex North, Bodhisattvas, courage, Douglas Lee Thompson, Douglas Lee Thompson Blogger, douglasleethompson blog, Nirvana, Uncategorized and tagged Admiralty Law, blogger Douglas Lee Thompson, Declaration of Independence USA 2016, Doug Thompson Dexter Maine, Douglas Lee Thompson Alchemist, Douglas Lee Thompson Theoretical Philosopher, Douglas Thompson California, Dr. Martin Luther King, Human Rights United Nations, Humanity 2016, Humanity Love Respect, incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny, John F Kennedy, maritime law, the Holy Bible used a Law Book, USA in 2016, www.douglasleethompson.wordpress.c, www.douglasleethompson.wordpress.com, www.douglasleethompson.wordpress.com Douglas Lee Thompson Blog 2016 by arcjojo 2025204173. Bookmark the permalink.