Edmonton Police officer murdered

[Malthus]

Why do traffic offenses go to an admiralty court?

They don't of course.

While EPS has stated they didn't consider Raddatz to be a "Freeman on the land", the admiralty court bit is right out of the freeman play book.  They argue that the court is an "admiralty court" which therefore doesn't have jurisdiction over them.

Here's a typical argument:

[270]      Mr. Meads at one point pursued this approach in his oral arguments. He demanded to know the meaning and significance of the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada attached to the back of the courtroom, behind the bench. Once I translated the Latin motto "A Mari usque ad Mare", "from sea to sea", Mr. Meads declared it meant the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench was an admiralty court which had no jurisdiction over himself. Mr. Meads was in one sense correct; this court can potentially address admiralty law matters, subject to legislation that assigns that jurisdiction to the Federal Court (Zavarovalna Skupnost, (Insurance Community Triglav Ltd.) v. Terrasses Jewellers Inc., 1983 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 283, 54 N.R. 321; Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c F‑7, s. 22). Admittedly landlocked as Alberta is, litigation of that kind is not exactly a common occurrence. Mr. Meads is, however, manifestly mistaken if he thinks that is the sole jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

If you ever have way too much time on your hands, and are curious about freeman rhetoric, in the Meads case Justice Rooke undertook what is probably the definitive categorizing and debunking of what he calls Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

I immediately recognized his rantings as "freeman" stuff. I have no idea why EPS claims he isn't into that.