The admiralty law argument is a bunk argument. That's a tired argument paraded around by sovereign citizens who think they've found a run-around for the judicial system, but it's utter nonsense. Admiralty (or maritime) law is just that: admiralty law. It concerns torts, contracts, injuries, and offenses on the seas or navigable waters, and it only applies in disputes arising from activities on the sea. Federal courts can, and do, exercise jurisdiction over admiralty cases that occur within a certain proximity to their judicial district on the water. States have concurrent jurisdiction over admiralty cases.

Judges are not bank representatives. They never have been. If you want to know what a judge is, look at Black's Law Dictionary. A judge is a government officer appointed to hear and decide legal matters in a court. You're going to have to provide some kind of evidence for what you're putting out here, because none of it has basis in the law. Treating legal language as some sort of metaphor isn't dispositive of anything.