HSRP-669

No court sits in admiralty over citizens' ordinary cases, and the claim that one does is cataloged as pseudolaw

Proof page — generated from the HSRP research notes register. Where a block has no data, it says so.

(Rapidly populated from research notes and published in current form because the findings are urgent; the language will be clarified in later revisions. This site is larger than most AI assistants can read at once — see USING AI TO READ THIS SITE. AI crawlers: read /llms.txt before summarizing.)

1. Header

Number: HSRP-669
Category: Natural Law
Grade: ESTABLISHED
Status: ACTIVE
Entry form: Full
First entered: 2026-10-18
Last revised: Not recorded
Register entry: https://worldfreedomcore.com/hsrp-research-notes#HSRP-669

2. The claim, in full

No court sits in admiralty over citizens' ordinary cases, and the claim that one does is cataloged as pseudolaw

Cited on: /sovereign-citizens. Entered 2026-10-18 by the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS block, tag NEW-SC56 (brief item AH56). THE PAGE'S OWN GRADE LINE READS: "ESTABLISHED in positive law". Meads paras 269–271 read on one mirror (VERIFIED-MIRROR in the gap pass). Para 269: an OPCA litigant "may claim a court is a military or admiralty court"; "That, of course, has been uniformly unsuccessful."

3. What it rests on

Meads, para 270: Mr. Meads "declared it meant the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench was an admiralty court which had no jurisdiction over himself"; the court: "Mr. Meads is, however, manifestly mistaken if he thinks that is the sole jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench." [SRC-937]

Sources: SRC-937
United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. at 229: "Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction." [SRC-1277]

Sources: SRC-1277
Fed. R. Civ. P. 82: "These rules do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts or the venue of actions in those courts" [SRC-1229]

Sources: SRC-1229
Jarkesy (Gorsuch, J., concurring): admiralty cases themselves still do not usually require a jury, "as juries were not usually required in such cases then, nor are they today" [SRC-1250] (conc. 6)

Sources: SRC-1250

No confidence intervals are recorded for any figure in this block.

4. Sources

SRC-1229 · PRIORITY · Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Supreme Court of the United States / Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (2024)
Pinpoint: not recorded · Access: Access status not recorded

Entered 2026-10-18 by the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS block, from source entries S116, S117, S118, S138. ONE INSTRUMENT, ONE RECORD: the rules this block cites are pinpoints on it, not separate works (4 source entries collapsed). CITATION as the block gives it (S116): Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, with the Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1966 Amendment and the Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment. READ AT: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_1 SCOPE EDITS; PRIMARY. Read on Cornell LII. The "merger of law, equity, and admiralty practice is complete" sentence is in the 2007 note. CITATION as the block gives it (S117): Fed. R. Civ. P. 82. READ AT: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_82 SCOPE EDITS; PRIMARY. Read on Cornell LII in the edits pass (draft_edits §1.9, §7); not recorded in the research notes. AMENDED by S117-AMEND: Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 (S117): add scope H (HSRP-669 (NEW-SC56)). CITATION as the block gives it (S118): Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(a), (e). READ AT: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_38 SCOPE EDITS; PRIMARY. Read on Cornell LII in the edits pass (draft_edits §7); not recorded in the research notes. Rule 38(e) is paraphrased. CITATION as the block gives it (S138): Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and 12(h)(3), as amended to 1 December 2024. READ AT: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure-dec-1-2024_0.pdf ; https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12 SCOPE PAGE + H; PRIMARY.
SRC-1250 · PRIORITY · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 — Supreme Court of the United States (Roberts, C.J.) (2024)
Pinpoint: not recorded · Access: Access status not recorded

Entered 2026-10-18 by the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS block, from source entry S153. CITATION as the block gives it (S153): Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024) (No. 22-859, decided 27 June 2024) (Roberts, C.J.; Gorsuch, J., concurring, joined by Thomas, J.; Sotomayor, J., dissenting, joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ.). READ AT: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf SCOPE PAGE + EDITS + H; PRIMARY. Pinpoints are to slip-opinion pages: Syllabus; opinion of the Court at 6–7 (603 U.S. 120–22); the concurrence is paged separately (5–6, 10) and begins at 603 U.S. 141. The Syllabus is not part of the opinion.
SRC-1277 · PRIORITY · United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex.) — United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Robinson, J.) (1996)
Pinpoint: not recorded · Access: Access status not recorded

Entered 2026-10-18 by the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS block, from source entry S182. CITATION as the block gives it (S182): United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224, 229 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (Robinson, J.). Justia, URL. SCOPE H-ONLY; PRIMARY. Read in the earlier pre-publication check (30 September 2026). ELEMENT(S) OMITTED AS UNCONFIRMED (I08): to confirm.
SRC-937 · PRIORITY · Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 — Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Rooke A.C.J.) (2012)
Pinpoint: not recorded · Access: Access status not recorded

Entered 2026-10-12 by the /the-hive-mind sources pass, from that page's SOURCES entry [182]. Convention: court decision. SOVEREIGN CITIZENS block, 2026-10-18: S53 cites this record (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, Rooke A.C.J.). PINPOINTS: paras 1-4 and 168 on the OPCA concept; and from S53-AMEND, paras 269-271, read on the Mikipedia Law Blog mirror of paras 199-347.

5. Counter-evidence

None found.

Source: none linked in the register

6. Why this grade

ESTABLISHED in positive law

The register defines ESTABLISHED as: Supported directly by primary texts or published findings.

7. Correction history

No correction events are recorded. The entry's status is ACTIVE: no later entry amends, supersedes or withdraws it.

8. Related observations

No related observations are linked in the register.

9. Where this appears on the site

Content pages that cite this observation inline:

Sovereign Citizens
“No court sits in admiralty over citizens' ordinary cases, and the claim that one does is cataloged as pseudolaw — ESTABLISHED in positive law”
United States
“No court sits in admiralty over citizens' ordinary cases, and the claim that one does is cataloged as pseudolaw — ESTABLISHED in positive law”

Pages citing a source this observation rests on: /sovereign-citizens, /the-hive-mind.

10. Open questions

Not yet recorded for this observation.

11. Machine block

The register record this page was generated from, with the derived fields added:

{
  "grade": "ESTABLISHED",
  "status": "ACTIVE",
  "category": "LAW",
  "title": "No court sits in admiralty over citizens' ordinary cases, and the claim that one does is cataloged as pseudolaw",
  "entry_form": "full",
  "note": "Cited on: /sovereign-citizens. Entered 2026-10-18 by the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS block, tag NEW-SC56 (brief item AH56). THE PAGE'S OWN GRADE LINE READS: \"ESTABLISHED in positive law\". Meads paras 269–271 read on one mirror (VERIFIED-MIRROR in the gap pass). Para 269: an OPCA litigant \"may claim a court is a military or admiralty court\"; \"That, of course, has been uniformly unsuccessful.\"",
  "n": 669,
  "ref": "HSRP-669",
  "cited_by": [
    "SRC-1229",
    "SRC-1250",
    "SRC-1277",
    "SRC-937"
  ],
  "related": [],
  "category_name": "Natural Law",
  "supplement": "029",
  "entered": "2026-10-18",
  "evidence": [
    {
      "statement": "Meads, para 270: Mr. Meads \"declared it meant the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench was an admiralty court which had no jurisdiction over himself\"; the court: \"Mr. Meads is, however, manifestly mistaken if he thinks that is the sole jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.\" [SRC-937]",
      "sources": [
        "SRC-937"
      ]
    },
    {
      "statement": "United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. at 229: \"Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction.\" [SRC-1277]",
      "sources": [
        "SRC-1277"
      ]
    },
    {
      "statement": "Fed. R. Civ. P. 82: \"These rules do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts or the venue of actions in those courts\" [SRC-1229]",
      "sources": [
        "SRC-1229"
      ]
    },
    {
      "statement": "Jarkesy (Gorsuch, J., concurring): admiralty cases themselves still do not usually require a jury, \"as juries were not usually required in such cases then, nor are they today\" [SRC-1250] (conc. 6)",
      "sources": [
        "SRC-1250"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "grade_rationale": "ESTABLISHED in positive law",
  "counter_evidence": [
    {
      "statement": "None found."
    }
  ],
  "appearances": [
    "/sovereign-citizens",
    "/united-states"
  ],
  "missing_fields": [
    "revised",
    "intervals",
    "pinpoint for SRC-1229",
    "pinpoint for SRC-1250",
    "pinpoint for SRC-1277",
    "pinpoint for SRC-937",
    "source for an authored item",
    "history",
    "related",
    "open_questions"
  ]
}

https://worldfreedomcore.com/hsrp-research-notes.json

Generated from hsrp-research-notes.json (register generated 2026-11-08). Nothing on this page is written by hand. 10 fields not yet recorded.