Point 012 A. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant is not including and fortifying "Savings To Suitor Clause" in this document, within the Admiralty, as per EXHIBIT 012 A - SAVINGS TO SUITOR CLAUSE.

ADMIT: Libellee(s) listed within this document admit to the truth and fact that law is established granting protection and surety to Affiant of all effects and qualities of the "Savings To Suitor" Clause.

EXHIBIT 012 A - SAVINGS TO SUITOR CLAUSE

saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and [the district courts] shall also have exclusive original cognizance [and culpability of the United States to protect your property rights] of all seizures on land First Judiciary Act; chapter 20, page 77. September 24, 1789.

Savings to Suitor Clause"Be it known that; this Affiant saving to himself all, and all manner of advantage, to the manifest uncertainties and insufficiencies in the Libellants and Libel contained, for the answer thereto, or somuch thereof as is material and necessary to be answered, answers and says, that well and true it is, Affiant is neutral, non-combatant, has never engaged in Interstate, Intrastate, or International Commerce, for profit and trade without payment of the assessment; has never intended to incur limited liability, or to become a joint tort-feasor, or participate as part of a "tontine scheme" of a voluntary joint mercantile, maritime, admiralty adventure for profit, under a policy of limited liability for the payment of debts; further, Affiant is an end consumer who exchanges sweat equity for goods consumed; Affiant is a Surety, whose property has been hypothecated under deception and tort as collateral for the "emergency" of the United States, without Affiant's consent or that of Affiant's ancestors, and that a further "taking" would be inequitable; further, the "Doctrine of Necessity" expressly overrides any "Doctrine of Contribution" Affiant may have ever participated in as continuity for absolute survivorship, utilizing the only option available to Affiant as [money] currency in the public and private sector, not intentionally volunteering or submitting to involuntary servitude, without like consideration in return; further, Affiant is not a trustee, employer or employee of any governmental unit.

TITLE 28, Sec. 1333. - Admiralty, maritime and prize cases The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

Also,

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, 2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

These facts of history and law move (remand) Affiant out of the Article I forum into Article III, "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction". Delovio v. Boit. And many subsequent cases Re: The Huntress etc. showing revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in Article III judiciary.

Bring into light the re-phrasing of Congress in the codification of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. In the amendment, Congress admits it cannot change the intent of the clause. So I prefer the older reading because it adheres to two valuable points;

1) this remedy is "common law" as of 1789 - no blending equity (Bennett v. Butterworth 52 US 669), and;

2) courts of competent jurisdiction. Modern usage of the clause, as well as earlier, apply diversity of citizenship to State citizenship (a dispute between two different State Citizens) and a State or United States citizen v. a foreign citizen. The States went bankrupt in 1933 by governor's convention leaving men and women the state; the court of competent jurisdiction.

Exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 USCS 1333 is limited to maritime causes of action begun and carried on in rem, while under "saving to suitors" clause of 1333, suitor who holds in personam claim that might be enforced by suit in personam under admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts may also bring suit, at his election, in state court or on "common law" side of federal court. Lavergne v Western Co. of North America, Inc. (La) 371 So 2d 807 (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Cramer v Association Life Ins. Co. (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937). 2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY 122 (Footnote 9) (emphasis added). __________________________________________________________________________________________

Since the Enrollment Act of March 3, 1863, the United States has been overlaid on to the States and divided the United States into military districts, with a Provost Marshall over each district under the Department of War. This Act forms the basis of our Military Selective Service Act of June 24, 1948, c. 625, 62 Stat. 604 and is codified to title 50 sections 451-473. The military was placed under admiralty jurisdiction by the law of prize and capture under the "An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications upon Captured Property, and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize. This law forms the current basis of title 10 sections 7651-7681 of the Military Code of Justice, this law was passed March 25, 1862 under the Insurrection & Rebellion Acts of August 6, 1861 and July 17, 1862. In 1933 a change was made from the English Common law to the Federal Common Law under the Erie v. Tompkins decision, which is the impetus of The Clearfield Doctrine under Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943) and the United States v. Kimbell Foods 440 U.S. 715 (1999), where they adopted the U.C.C. rules in formulating Federal Common Law. This is because Maritime Commercial Transactions under the U.C.C. are indicative of the Federal Common Law of Admiralty INTERPOOL LTD v. CHAR YIGH 890 F. 2D PG. 1453 [1989]. Then in 1966 they merged Law, Equity, Civil and Admiralty under one rule, under the F.R.C.P. this is all laid in volume 324 pg. 325 of the F.R.D. [Federal Rules Decisions], this means that your common law is under admiralty. This is why title 28 1333 (1) gave the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction exclusive of the States for all cases of admiralty maritime jurisdiction, under the saving to suitors clause. They transferred your common law to the district courts of the United States under the Saving to Suitor Clause. Article 3 section 2 gives the district courts of the United States judicial power in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. This is the only side of the court that has Article 3 judicial powers under the War Powers Act of Admiralty. The above is the reason you cannot get a remedy in state court. The following Laws will give you your remedy under the common law in admiralty.1. The suits in Admiralty Act 46 U.S.C.A. Appendix sections 741-7522. The Admiralty Extension Act 46 U.S.C.A. section 7403. The Bills of Lading Act title 49 U.S.C.A. Chapter 147 section 147064. The Public Vessels Act 46 U.S.C.A. Appendix sections 781-7905. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act title 28 sections 1602-16116. The Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States title 18 section 7 (1) a citizen of the United States is a vessel. (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, irrespective of ownership (A) the premises of the United States diplomatic, consular, military . . . . and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto. (B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto irrespective of ownership.7. The False Claims Act of title 31 U.S.C.A. section 3729 (a)(7)8. The Lanham Act of title 15 section 1125(a)9. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of title 39 sections 1-908 & 3621-369110. The Admiralty, maritime and Prize cases title 28 section 1333 (1)(2)11. Title 50 Appendix section 7 (c) sole relief & remedy under the trading with the enemy act & (e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order, rule, or regulation made by the president under the authority of this act.

Title 28 USC states in part:

Sec. 1333 Admiralty, maritime and prize cases. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of; (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

The Federal Statutes Annotated, Vol. 9 on page 88 states:

... saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. Hone Ins. Co. v. North Packet Co., 31 Iowa 242 (1871).

The Oregon Revised Statutes 71.1030 state:

Supplementary general principles of law applicable. Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

A suitor therefore has the right to be tried at common law, even though the case comes under a maritime jurisdiction. But one has to make the demand in his briefs to the court. Remember silence is consent to be tried under a maritime jurisdiction.

Under the Local Rules for Federal Courts on Oregon Rule 1(b), FORM OF PAPERS TO BE FILED, it states in part:

(b) In the space to the right of the center of the first page, opposite the caption of the case, there shall be placed: (1) the case number; (2) the nature of the action, such as admiralty, antitrust,contract, eminent domain, fraud, negligence, patent, securities;

The jurisdiction of the case must be identified before the case can proceed. If the judge takes judicial notice of the nature of the charge, without communication to the defendant, how can the defendant know in what terms he is to couch his defense? Be aware that there will probably be an attempt to do just this. Therefore there has to be entered, upon the record, a definite objection to going forward until the jurisdiction has been defined in no uncertain terms. An at law jurisdiction is imperative. Otherwise the case is lost in that court.

Once the jurisdiction at law has been determined the defendant must demand that the original contract (not a copy) be brought foreward. This could be most interesting. In a court at law the original contract must be entered as evidence (in maritime a copy will suffice). The writer has heard that the original Social Security applications have been destroyed and only copies on film now exist. If this is true the Social Security contract could no longer be valid and therefore no case exist. But should the original be brought into evidence one now has the proper at law jurisdiction he requires to argue misrepresentation, etc., as there was no statement of waiver of rights upon the application. What has been done with the original drivers license applications also needs to be discovered.