Entity Florida

Oklahoma does it again protecting women https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8LorFUS/

BREAKING: America First Legal says it is filing lawsuit against Target in federal court for violating the Securities Exchange Act after destroying shareholder value by pushing sexual propaganda to kids.

Exposing the Corruption in Florida counties Collier County Lee County Charlotte County Dade County Jefferson Hernando and more

Emperors of Tartares “Tartarian”

Federal authorities are growing increasingly concerned about a route Chinese migrants are utilizing to make their way to Florida illegally, according to an internal federal intelligence report obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The report states that law enforcement lacks information regarding who is coordinating the smuggling between the Bahamas and Florida, where the migrants are being staged in the Bahamas and why Chinese migrants are choosing the Caribbean island. It also references recent incidents of Chinese nationals entering Florida illegally via the Bahamas. READ

The truth is always quite The lies are always loud

Multiple Jurisdictional Bases Even where the facts of a case satisfy the jurisdictional criteria and would permit the plaintiff to invoke a federal court’s admiralty jurisdiction, an alternative basis for bringing suit in federal court may be used. This option occurs most frequently in diversity cases where the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, or where one of the parties is a citizen of the United States and the other party is a citizen or subject of a foreign country. Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Where the facts alleged in a complaint satisfy more than one basis for federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff may opt to base the complaint on either ground. However, in order for the case to be heard under the court’s admiralty jurisdiction, Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs that the plaintiff must designate the claim as one in admiralty;59 otherwise, the court will proceed at law in order to allow for a jury trial. By invoking diversity of citizenship as the basis for jurisdiction instead of admiralty jurisdiction, or by not opting to designate his or her claim as an admiralty claim, the plaintiff gains the advantage of a jury trial. However, the plaintiff may lose the advantage of certain procedures available only in admiralty cases, including the remedies of arrest and maritime attachment provided for in the Supplemental Rules to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (These remedies are discussed later in this chapter.)

Mixed Contracts Some contracts may have aspects that satisfy the maritime requirement for admiralty jurisdiction, and yet there may be aspects of the contract that are clearly nonmaritime. For example, a contract may call for both ocean and overland transport. A mixed contract is not an admiralty contract unless the nonmaritime aspect of the contract is merely incidental to the maritime aspect, or the maritime and nonmaritime aspects are severable and the dispute involves only the maritime aspect.

Admiralty Jurisdiction in Contract Cases In contract cases, courts have not used the locus and nexus criteria, but have focused instead on the subject matter of the contract. One commentator suggests the following approach for determining admiralty contract jurisdiction: In general, a contract relating to a ship in its use as such, or to commerce or navigation on navigable waters, or to transportation by sea or to maritime employment is subject to maritime law and the case is one of admiralty jurisdiction, whether the contract is to be performed on land or water. . . . A contract is not considered maritime merely because the services to be performed under the contract have reference to a ship or to its business, or because the ship is the object of such services or that it has reference to navigable waters. In order to be considered maritime, there must be a direct and substantial link between the contract and the operation of the ship, its navigation, or its management afloat, taking into account the needs of the shipping industry, for the very basis of the constitutional grant of admiralty jurisdiction was to ensure a national uniformity of approach to world shipping.49 However, some contract cases have formulated jurisdictional distinctions that defy logic. Consider the following contracts that have been held to lie within admiralty jurisdiction: Suits on contracts for the carriage of goods and passengers; for the chartering of ships (charter parties); for repairs, supplies, etc., furnished to vessels, and for services such as towage, pilotage, wharfage; for the services of seamen and officers; for recovery of indemnity or premiums on marine insurance policies.

The Admiralty Extension Act Congress expanded the maritime location test by enacting the Admiralty Extension Act (AEA),29 which confers on the federal courts admiralty jurisdiction over torts committed by vessels in navigable waters notwithstanding the fact that the injury or damage was sustained on land. The AEA was enacted specifically to remedy situations referred to as allisions, where vessels collide with objects fixed to the land, such as bridges that span navigable waterways. The language of the AEA, however, is not limited to ship–bridge allisions. In one of the most extreme situations, maritime jurisdiction was found under the AEA in a case where a “booze cruise” passenger, after disembarking the vessel, was injured in an automobile accident caused by the driver of another car who allegedly became drunk while also a passenger on the cruise.30 It is crucial to AEA jurisdiction that the injury emanate from a vessel in navigable waters. The mere fact that a vessel may be involved in an activity is not enough. The party who invokes jurisdiction under the AEA must show vessel negligence. Vessel negligence relates not only to defective appurtenances or negligent navigation, but to any tortious conduct of the crew while on board the vessel that results in injury on land.

No federal statute provides general rules for determining admiralty jurisdiction. No statute comprehensively enumerates the various categories of cases that fall within admiralty jurisdiction. With two exceptions, the few instances where Congress has expressly conferred admiralty jurisdiction on federal district courts always has been in connection with the creation of a specific, new statutory right. Notable examples include the Limitation of Vessel Owner’s Liability Act, 2 the Ship Mortgage Act,3 the Death on the High Seas Act, 4 the Suits in Admiralty Act , 5 the Public Vessels Act, 6 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 7 and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 8 By contrast, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 9 and the Federal Maritime Lien Act 10 make no reference to admiralty jurisdiction. The Jones Act provides an action on the law side but is silent as to whether an action can be brought in admiralty. 11 The tort and indemnity provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) likewise make no reference to admiralty jurisdiction. Congress has not spoken to jurisdiction over collision cases or cases involving towage, pilotage, or salvage. No statutes confer admiralty jurisdiction over marine insurance disputes. With the exception of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), the Jones Act, and the LHWCA, Congress has not addressed the substantive law of maritime personal injury and death claims, let alone the issue of jurisdiction over such claims. 2.46 U.S.C. app. §183 (2000). 3.46 U.S.C. §31301 (2000). 4.46 U.S.C. app. §761 (2000). 5.Id. §741. 6.Id. §781. 7.43 U.S.C. §1331 (2000). 8.33 U.S.C. §2701 (2000). 9.46 U.S.C. app. §1301 (2000). 10.46 U.S.C. §31341 (2000). 11.46 U.S.C. app. §688 (2000). The Jones Act, which provides for recovery for injury to or death of a seaman, is discussed in greater detail, infra text accompanying notes 411–90.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines the boundaries of subject matter jurisdiction for the courts. Specifically, it extends the judicial power of the United States to “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” This grant of judicial power has been implemented by Congress in 28 U.S.C. §1333, which states that “The [United States] district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of (1)any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction....” In current usage the terms “admiralty jurisdiction” and “maritime jurisdiction” are used interchangeably. The Constitution does not enumerate the types of “matters” or “cases” that fall within the terms “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.”