Search our forums:

Search Entire
Posts Search Titles Only

FAQ

Memberlist

Calendar

Today's
Posts

Search

Register

Journal Links

Journal Index

My Journal

Search Forums

Advanced
Search

Go to Page...

Suijuris
Forums > Articles
> Articles
& News

Ed Rivera's "brief" on Article III

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Page 1
of 2

1

2

>

Article Tools

Search this Article

Display Modes

Ed Rivera's "brief"
on Article III
With a link
to the discussion thread
David Merrill
08-03-2006

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/9014-honest-attorney-disbarred.html?posted=1

DR.
EDUARDO M. RIVERA
Attorney and Counselor at Law
California
Bar No. 52737
Admitted june 2, 1972
http://www.edrivera.com/

email:[email-masked]
P.O. Box 13295
Torrance,
CA 90503
310-370-3361

Dear Reader:
Note: This
version is not yet complete. The text has not been thoroughly
edited and the letters that appear at the end will be expanded and
substantial revisions will be made to the ones you see. When this
letter is completed and hundreds of pages of statute law
complement it, it will be the Magic Bullet many have sought. The
Magic Bullet is being provided to you in its present form solely
for the purpose of making you aware that the underlying principle
is sound and completion is only days away.

The Magic
Bullet makes the federal trial courts disappear as Article III
judicial bodies. The removal of the ?least dangerous branch,? as
the federal judiciary has been called, shrinks the federal
government to a minor annoyance that arises only when entrance to
a national park is sought.

For those who do not believe in
magic I, also, am preparing a Silver Bullet that is based upon the
hoopla gay marriage is getting. So far no one, excepting my
clients, is aware that gay marriage presents the greatest tax
issue since the income tax. Gays are not being denied marriage,
for that it available to all consenting humans, they are being
denied civil marriages, which are marriages with the state. The
final outcome of whatever legal fights that will be fought is that
come May 2004 gay couples will be getting legally hitched in
Massachusetts. There is a ?kicker.? The common law gave validity
to all man and wife marriages when the spouses traveled among and
between the states. Civil marriages are voluntary relationships
formed between married persons and the state for the purpose of
providing revenue to the state.

Re: Jurisdiction of United
States District Courts

The enclosed or transmitted
material has been sent to you by a person that obtained it
directly or indirectly from Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, an Attorney and
Counselor at Law, admitted to the practice of law before the
California Supreme Court. Dr. Rivera has graciously permitted its
dissemination and you may use it for educational purposes provided
it is kept intact. The material is not legal advice. It is,
however, the result of research of government and law that has
engaged Dr. Rivera for over 45 years and is being provided to you
for its educational value. Electronic transmissions may be changed
and writings altered, so you are cautioned to verify any
information upon which you intend to rely.

The Issue:

Dr. Rivera?s research of the United States district courts has
established that only the United States district court in Hawaii
has been established as an Article III court and all other United
States district courts in the remaining states have no Article III
judicial power, whatsoever.

The Impact:

The
failure to understand that federal trial courts must be confined
to causes of action that arise under federal territorial law in
federal territory causes unnecessary hardship to defendants. The
RIAA copyright infringement suits, for example, allege that
defendants reside within and commit violations of the copyright
laws within the judicial district. It is extremely unlikely that
any of the young people that download music live in federal
territory and very likely that these suits are frivolous.

Ignorance of citizenship and the territorial composition of
the federal courts permit federal grand and petit juries to be
drawn from outside the federal territory that comprise the
district or division. These juries are improperly constituted and
without authority. It is highly improbable that members of the
grand juries that indicted media personality Martha Stewart or
Enron executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, were actual residents of the
federal courts? judicial districts.

3. There are few if
any federal crimes that can be committed outside federal
territory. Congressional insiders know Congress can punish few
acts outside federal territory, so the federal territorial trial
courts have been disguised as courts of justice for those who
voluntarily submit themselves to federal prosecution. Among
others, lawful users of medical marijuana and those who aid and
assist them often find themselves federally charged with crimes
that do not exist where they were alleged to have occurred.

AN EXPLANATION
The federal government is renowned for
its complexity, so it is extremely gratifying to be able to
compress an understanding of that government and its law into a
couple of sheets. Pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C. of the
federal government?s own Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Code
book printed by the Government Printing Office are the most
important pages of law in the federal government. On those two
pages, Congress explains that the territorial composition of the
United States district courts is only that area subject to the
exclusive legislative power of Congress. Did you think that the 50
United States were subject to Congress?s lawmaking power? To
answer that I offer a riddle: What country gets smaller the more
land you add to it? The United States of America is thought to be
a nation/state but it is a confederation of nation/states created
by the Articles of Confederation and it consists of the 50 United
States. If Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico are combined with the
50 United States, you don?t get a bigger and better United States
of America you get the government of the United States and 50
sovereign states. Those odd two pieces of real estate won?t ever
combine to form a whole nation/state and that is key to
understanding the United States district courts.

The
inability to combine the 50 United States, Washington D.C. and
Puerto Rico to form one nation is what explains and gives us the
?territorial composition? of the districts and divisions found in
Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C. In the rest of Chapter 5,
Congress explains that only one district court in all of the 50
states, Hawaii, has been established as an Article III judicial
court and explains why that court cannot function as a court
exercising judicial power. If judicial power is to be exercised in
the several states, it will have to be exercised by state courts,
because the districts have none. The federal government in the
several states will consist of two government powers since the
federal courts have not been granted Article III, Section 2
judicial power. While one or two branches of government may be
good enough to do government work, it takes all three to lawfully
act upon a citizen.

The nature of the complete federal
government cannot be understood unless the reader understands all
that begins with the caption ?CHAPTER 5?DISTRICT COURTS? and ends
with the paragraph below: ?HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES.? If you
were not sent pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C. or if you have
trouble reading or printing out these pages, you can also access
Title 28 U.S.C. by going to http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm. The
impatient reader is invited to go there and read first §91 and
then examine every other district court to find one ordained and
established under Article III.

The federal trial courts
are universally but erroneously thought to include all the
territory in the counties that comprise districts and divisions of
the United States district courts. This perception of the federal
trial courts is the result of the quick read encouraged by those
who favor a strong, large and powerful federal government.
Congress, on pages 42 and 43, must state in its curiously cryptic
way that the territorial composition of the district courts is
only the federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative
power of Congress because that is true. The statute law that
establishes the federal district courts in the several states must
confirm that the territorial composition of the district consists
only of federal territory or Title 28 U.S.C. could not have been
enacted into positive law.

By now, you should have those
two pages in front of you, so that you can take a heavy pencil or
marker and write the date: January 1, 1945 on each page and circle
or highlight Alaska, Hawaii, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Now, you must determine for yourself, what is common to all the
place names from Section 81 to 131 that are listed on these two
pages. All the facts, including the date January 1, 1945,
presented in legislation are important and must be accounted for.
You must now write below this paragraph what you think is the
?territorial composition? of the districts and divisions of the
United States district courts that make up the rest of Chapter 5.
Remember that your inability to account for all the parts of the
whole will make your determination of ?territorial composition?
faulty. If you wrote that the entire state or all of the county
territory constitutes the district, go back and start over.

A wise Greek once said that the best law is discovered, as
a gift from God. Statute law, to put it simply, is Godless.
Statute law is completely and totally made up by legislators. This
and the Constitution is the origin of all the titles of the United
States Code. Nothing in these codes is for all time that is why
January 1, 1945 is used as a reference to determine those federal
areas in the several states subject to the exclusive Legislation
of Congress.

Alaska and Hawaii are, today, states of the
Union, but were territories on January 1, 1945. Washington D. C.
is neither a territory nor a state, but is the product of ?Cession
of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress? is the seat
of government. Although it is treated like a state it is the
?District? subject to the exclusive Legislation of Congress,
pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Puerto Rico is today
and was on January 1, 1945 a possession of the United States and
definitely not a state of the Union. The correct answer to the
question: What is the ?territorial composition? of the districts
and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945, is pursuant to
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, ?all Places purchased by the
consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall
be.?

If the reader is having difficulty understanding the
significance of ?territorial composition,? there is a good reason
for that. The federal government doesn?t want it understood. The
federal government will even lie in print to cover-up the
?territorial composition? of the United States district courts.
Several editions of the United States Government Manual available
on the web falsely state that the United States district court for
Puerto Rico is an Article III court. The court for Hawaii was so
established and ordained in 1959, so the ?Historical and Revision
Notes? §119?Puerto Rico can be compared to §91?Hawaii to resolve
the issue. The only territory that is common to both the several
states, territory and possessions of the United States is federal
territory within each. Those Notes show that the district court
judges for Hawaii are to be selected pursuant to §§ 133 and 134 of
Title 28 U.S.C., which is territorial law.

Based on no
evidence at all, and a big fat lie about the United States
district court in Puerto Rico, the entire American legal community
is convinced that the federal trial courts in the several states
exercise Article III judicial power everywhere within those
states. I say, the government has gone too far. I have examined
the statute law that created every United States district court
and I found only one instance where Congress appeared to ordain
and establish an Article III United States district court in any
state. In 1959 the Congress created an Article III United States
district court for Hawaii but made no provision for Article III
judges by specifically precluding the President from appointing
them. The Code specifically provides for territorial judges for
the Hawaiian Article III court. Title 28 U.S.C.?Judiciary and
Judicial Procedure has been enacted into positive law so the Code
shows the same kinds of courts as are found in the statutes.
Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C.?District Courts consists of Sections
81 through 144. The names of all 50 states of the Union will found
from Sections 81 to 131 and in addition in Section 88 will be
found the District of Columbia and in Section 119 Puerto Rico.

The nature of the astounding revelations in this letter
requires this unique format where facts are presented in support
of the proposition that no United States district court in any
state of the Union can exercise Article III judicial power, so
these facts can be easily challenged. This kind of presentation
invites facts that prove the contrary. I will give an example of a
fact: Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law. This fact will be
supported by material found in the notes to §91.

Those in
federal litigation or who are contemplating that exercise should
be aware that legal justice is available only from courts that
have judicial power. Any litigant in any United States district
court in any state of the Union is warned that these courts have
no Article III, Section 2 judicial power, whatsoever. The United
States district courts of the several states are not judicial
courts and the judges that sit in those courts are not Article III
judges. Judges of these courts are appointed for life terms but
they obtain judicial powers only when appointed to judicial courts
with Article III power. The court is the equivalent of an office.
An office has power because the officer that occupies that office
has duties to exercise in that office. District courts and
district court judges of the United States have been mistaken for
Article III courts and judges since the Judiciary Act of 1789. The
mistaken belief that a court has jurisdiction is sufficient to
confer it when everyone is equally mistaken, but that jurisdiction
remains what it is and not what it is mistaken to be.

Names are labels and like book covers do a notoriously bad
job of identifying contents. Just as a book cannot be accurately
judged by its cover, a federal trial court is not accurately
described by the name of the state where it is located. The names
of the federal trial courts in the several states are labels that
are fully explained in the first sentence of the ?Historical and
Revision Notes? that are part of the law: ?Sections 81?131 of this
chapter show the territorial composition of districts and
divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.? Since the conclusion
of the Civil War, the States of the Union are the federal
territory within the state and the state officers who have taken
an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Since
President?s Day, the Mayor of San Francisco has extended the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to its logical
conclusion by permitting same-sex couples to pay a tax in order to
obtain an application, license and certificate of marriage just
like anyone else. States cannot regulate marriage but like the
federal government can tax it by license. The State of California
like other opponents of gay marriage is learning that the courts
cannot enjoin the collection of a tax, especially one that is
voluntary. The right to marry is a human right and human rights
are to be secured by government not abridged. Government
involvement in marriage is limited to imposing a tax on those who
submit to an application process and payment for a license and
obtaining a certificate of registration.

The subject
matter of Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. is the territorial
composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January
1, 1945 of the courts named in Sections 81?131 which can only be
the areas subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States?federal territory. These areas consist of places like the
National Parks, military bases, federal buildings and federal
courthouses. Crimes that occur on or in these federal places are
federal crimes and the federal courts for the district is the
proper forum for trials of those crimes. Article III judicial
power is not needed for those courts and those courts are
certainly without such power.

There is no room for
legalistic interpretations of Chapter 5. On January 1, 1945, the
judicial districts of United States district courts had only one
thing in common?those judicial districts consisted of federal
territory and some admiralty jurisdiction for some coastal courts.
Those common characteristic have not changed since then and even
if they had the January 1, 1945 date was to be used to reckon the
federal territories existing on a given date. The January 1, 1945
date is critical to understanding the United States district
courts territorial jurisdiction as consisting of federal territory
as of a time in a span of time. The first day of 1945 forces the
mind to focus on that which can change within geographical
boundaries?federal territory, which can be increased by purchase
and consent of the Legislature of the State.

The only
legislation, since the first judiciary act on September 24, 1789,
to create an Article III United States district court is found in
§91 of Title 28 U.S.C. That section documents the change of a
territorial court to an Article III court without actually giving
the court Article III judicial power. Nothing can be done to
change the nature of these courts in the several states without
the direct intervention of Congress by legislation. A judge
without judicial power can do nothing to change the jurisdiction
of the court where he presides. Any litigant or defendant in any
federal court proceeding who attempts to have the United States
district court consider the issues raised in this letter should be
aware that the American Law Institute?s Restatement of Judgments
holds that such a litigant is bound by the court?s ruling. A
federal judge sitting in a trial court in any United States
district court is without judicial power. While such an official
can be a life-tenured bureaucrat, such an official cannot be
expected to rule other than administratively.

THESE ARE
THE FACTS
No United States district court in any state may
lawfully exercise Article III court power. The lawful jurisdiction
of the federal district court or courts is limited to those places
where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. It is also clear that
federal judges and federal courts have been used in the past by
the federal government to control those persons opposed to the
usurpation of power by the national government. The federal courts
known as United States District Courts are federal and territorial
in that these courts implement administrative law on territory
exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States.

United States district courts are being used by Congress
primarily to prevent the rendition of law and equity in national
courts by masquerading as Article III courts. These courts are
incapable of achieving justice because they are not Article III
courts. Generally speaking, we have a federal government that
consists of a Congress of the United States, a President of the
United States and district courts of the United States because
there is one in Hawaii and one is Washington D. C.

The
true nature of the government of the United States of America is
libertarian. Very few of the ?Posterity of the People? that
ordained and established the Constitution are aware that the loose
confederation of state governments that became the United States
of America is a true libertarian government.

The purpose
of the Constitution was to establish and limit government to the
purposes for which it was established. Unfortunately, the Congress
has used very effectively the mechanisms in the Constitution to
limit the third branch of the national government to the people?s
detriment. Congress has intentionally failed or refused to provide
Article III courts in the several states.

The present
intent of the federal government is to subject citizens of the
several states to its administration. Most if not all people who
find themselves in a federal court are not aware that court has no
Article III judicial power.

Americans do not want to be in
federal courts that cannot dispense justice. For more than 200
years Americans have been subjected to administrative law in
courts they believed were dispensing the judicial power of the
United States.

Disguised administrative courts are being
used to subvert freedom. The federal district courts are
administrative, legislative, non-judicial courts that are an
extension of any administrative harassment caused by persons
claiming to represent the national government.

Individuals
appointed to United States district courts are permitted to
believe that they are Article III judges because they are
appointed for life. These individuals are actually urged by the
other two branches of federal government to act like Article III
judges.

Article III judicial power imposes self-restraint
on judges. Only judges appointed to Article III courts may
exercise the judicial power of the United States found in Article
III, Section 2. Judicial power imposes restraints on the judges
that have it and that serves as some protection from judicial
abuse. All justices appointed to the Supreme Court of the United
States are genuine Article III judges.

The judges of other
than judicial courts, of course, have no constitutional judicial
power so they tend to be extremely rigid in the way they
administer their ?judicial business.? These judges are or can be
called territorial, legislative or administrative. The rigidity of
the non-judicial court is the result of the tight rein that the
Congress maintains over the personnel and business of non-Article
III courts to solely achieve congressional purposes.

The
Constitution is a limitation on Congress. The Constitution grants
to Congress power to create courts by exercising three different
powers. At various times in the history of this country Congress
has created courts using these various powers under Article I,
Article III and Article IV of the Constitution:

The
Congress shall have power?To constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court;

The judicial power of the United States,
shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior Courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and
make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States;

Article III
courts would also be limited to a territorial jurisdiction. Based
on examination of the statute law that created the various
territorial United States district courts throughout the several
states, Article III courts would also be of limited federal
territorial jurisdiction.

Lawyers and judges must be aware
of the true nature of the courts they practice and preside in.
Everyone must be made aware that the United States district courts
established in California and in 48 other states by United States
Statute are not Article III courts.

There should be no
confusion as to the difference between Article III courts and
those courts that are not Article III courts. Article III district
courts are not territorially different from the tribunals inferior
to the Supreme Court that Congress may constitute pursuant to
Article I. Federal courts do not extend their judicial districts
beyond federal territory. Article III courts are ?territorial
courts? that may exercise the judicial power of the United
States?Article I and IV courts have no such power.

Congress has established Article III district courts in
Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The 2 district courts of the
United States that were ultimately pronounced ordained and
established by Congress pursuant to Article III of the
Constitution are the only ones that can exercise the judicial
power of the national government.

Lifetime tenure during
good behavior is criteria for a judge not criteria for an Article
III court. Lifetime tenure fuels the universal presumption in the
legal academic community that the federal districts courts are
Article III courts and the judges that sit on those courts are
Article III judges.

Because Congress can make law locally
or nationally, it must be presumed that law enacted by Congress is
territorial in scope rather than national, Foley Bros. Inc. v.
Filardo 336 U.S. 281(1949), unless a contrary intent is shown in
the legislation itself. The legislation creating the district
court for Hawaii is a clear example of the presumption and an
example of a national legislative intent to create an Article III
court.

Combining the district court for Puerto Rico with
the other United States District Courts identifies them all as
territorial. The federal district courts are found in Title 28
U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the sections numbered
from 81 to 131. Title 28 U.S.C. was enacted into positive law in
1948. The district courts were found in Chapter 5 just as they are
today. The districts themselves had not changed from 1911 when
they were described as the territory that existed on July 1, 1910.
The territory was, for example, the ?State of California? which
then and now consists of the federal territory within California.

Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. Its inclusion in
Chapter 5 and appearance in §119 identifies the ?states? in the
sections of Chapter 5 as mere labels for the areas of federal
territory. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico includes the federal
territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. Included,
for example, in the ?State of California? is the territory of the
United States located in the California Republic. Use of the
?State of California? facilitates the use of federal law to create
a California personal income tax. State of California denotes
those special federal places where the United States has
jurisdiction.

Congress established the only Article III
court for a state of the Union in Hawaii. Hawaii appears in §91 as
the only Article III court but that court is qualified as to the
way judges are to be appointed to that court. That qualification
precludes the exercise of Article III judicial power by any judge
appointed to that court. Under the heading for § 91 Hawaii, ?Court
of the United States; District Judges,? will found, Section 9 (a)
of Pub. L. 86-3 which provides that:

?The United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and
existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence
forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived
from article III, of the Constitution of the United States:
Provided, however, that the terms of office of the district judges
for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the
effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to
sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended
by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall
hold office during good behavior.?

All of Title 28 U.S.C.
provides for the territorial government of the United States and
nothing of Article III can be put back into it without destroying
the entire Title 28 U.S.C. as positive law. In other words, there
may be a present belief by all of the state and federal judiciary,
all the legal academic community and all the local, state and
federal government officials that the United States district
courts for the 50 states of the Union are Article III courts, but
they are wrong.

Congress prevented the ordination of the
Article III it established for Hawaii by denying the court full
Article III judges. Congress took a territorial court established
by and existing under title 28 and created an Article III district
court for Hawaii. It must be noted that the territorial
jurisdiction did not change?only the description of the court.

Congress has provided that territorial Title 28 U.S.C.
judges be appointed to the United States district court for the
district of Hawaii are to be appointed to an Article III court.
The district judges for the district of Hawaii are specifically to
be appointed by the President pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of
title 28, United States Code, as officers of the United States but
not as judges of an Article III court. These two sections are also
to be used in appointing any of 7 judges of the Puerto Rico
district should a vacancy occur there. It can be deduced that
appointment pursuant to § § 133 and 134 of Title 28, will always
produce territorial judges.

The Hawaii judicial district
established in § 91 of the Judicial Code of 1948 was a territorial
court. Section 9 (a) above clearly indicates that prior to the
admission to statehood, the United States District Court of Hawaii
was not a true United States court established under Article III
of the Constitution, to administer the judicial power of the
United States, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922). In
Balzac, Chief Justice William Howard Taft stated that United
States District Court for Arecibo, Porto Rico, as Puerto Rico was
known then, ?created by virtue of the sovereign congressional
faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of
making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory
belonging to the United States.?

Puerto Rico is the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and it has not been incorporated into
the United States though its inhabitants are United States
citizens. The inclusion of Puerto Rico in Chapter 5 as § 119 does
not make the district court for Puerto Rico an Article III court
because Puerto Rico has not been incorporated into the Union.
Puerto Rico fits comfortably among the names of the 50 states
because the geographical areas are mini federal territories or
federal enclaves.

United States Government people are
required to obey the United States Code; it is their duty to obey
that law. The government?s law requires the total obedience of
government?s officers and employees.

Citizens are not part
of government and they are not its subjects. Citizens can impose
upon only themselves certain legal duties, if they want. There is
only one duty that citizens have that indirectly protects the
government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence,
?Governments are instituted among men? to secure God given rights.

When government attempts to impose duties or obligations
on citizens, a duty arises that demands that citizens must
investigate and then determine the nature and extent of the
authority of every person, group of persons, a grand jury,
claiming any authority relationship with any government. As an
abstract entity, a government maintains integrity through its
agents and employees lawfully interacting with the public. A
citizen?s failure to carry out the investigation and determination
of authority has grave consequences both for the citizen, his
fellow citizens and the government.

Only Hawaii has an
Article III district court and that court cannot function as one.
No other state has an Article III court. The federal district
courts of California fall squarely within the mold of the federal
courts of the 49 states that have no Article III district courts.
Examination of copies of all the Statute Laws described in the
annotations to all the Chapter 5 sections of Title 28 that
establish district courts in the states and Hawaii reveals that
Hawaii has the only Article III district court.

Citizens
have a duty to discover the true authority of those claim
government power. The consequences of not investigating and not
determining the nature and extent of the authority claimed is that
you may have to bear the costs of your failure to do so.

The use of the term, ?district courts of the United
States? refers to Article III courts. There are no more than two
?district courts of the United States.? There is no doubt that the
district court for Hawaii is an Article III court?that?s one. The
§ 88 court for the District of Columbia is another. The Historical
and Revision Notes to that section makes it clear that the
District of Columbia district court is a constitutional court
established and ordained under Article III. The existence of at
least two ?district courts of the United States? permits the
general usage of language that refers to the ?district courts of
the United States? as Article III courts.

State courts
that were already established when the Constitution was ratified
were duty bound to obey the Constitution and the laws enacted
pursuant to it. Reference to the Judiciary Act of 1789 clarified
and substantiated that no Article III district courts had been
created in the several states pursuant to that law.

The
federal trial courts during the period of the Judiciary Act of
1789 were manned by two United States Supreme Court justices
riding circuit and the district judge for the district. Districts
were created for territories that by the date of enactment,
September 24, 1789 had not yet ratified the Constitution because,
of course, they were not states. North Carolina did not ratify the
Constitution until after enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
District courts created under that act could not have been created
under Article III.

Grand and petit jurors determine if
they are citizens of the United States and whether they have
resided in judicial district for a year. In 1968 Congress enacted
the Jury Selection and Service Act that uses the nation?s voter
registration system as the basis for jury selection in the federal
courts.

Examination of available jury selection plans the
district courts have created and that have been approved by the
federal courts of appeal reveal no knowledge of the true
territorial composition of the United States district courts. The
jury questionnaire in common use merely asks an applicant a half
dozen questions beginning with, if he or she is a citizen of the
United States and a resident of the judicial district for at least
a year.

Very few Americans can prove that they are,
indeed, citizens of the United States and practically no one
understands that the Sixth Amendment requires that territorial
composition be established prior to trial. For all of the states,
district court vicinage is the federal territory within the
counties that comprise the district. This is the only vicinage
that satisfies the 6th Amendment command that the ?district shall
have been previously ascertained by law.? An individual jurors
impression of what constitutes the judicial district does not
satisfy the Constitution.

All trial courts must have
districts which shall have been previously ascertained by law.
Venue and vicinage are being confused because an erroneous
assumption is being universally made that the federal district
courts are Article III courts and federal judges are Article III
judges. Vicinage corresponds to territorial composition and
describes where jurors come from. The areas from where Article III
court jurors are to be drawn is the same as the territorial
composition of the federal court. from the federal territory
within a district comprised of named counties but they are being
drawn from outside the federal territory. Any grand and petit
juror that resides outside a federal territory does not reside
within the district and can successfully be challenged as
unqualified.

A federal territorial court without Article
III power cannot be conferred such power by the litigants. One
United States district court cannot legitimately serve both local
federal and national interests. The interests of the two courts
are almost completely mutually exclusive. Territorial courts
without judicial power tenaciously serve the need of Congress to
administer government law. These courts only have the jurisdiction
conferred on them by Congress and they guard that jurisdiction to
the exclusion of all other judicial concepts.

All the
United States district courts in 49 of the several states are
other than Article III courts. There is no evidence that the
United States district courts for any state other than Hawaii is
ordained and established pursuant to Article III, Section 1;
therefore, they are not vested with the judicial power of the
United States. Article III has not been invoked by Congress in
creating any other state?s federal district courts and the 1911
Judiciary Act specifically creates those federal courts from the
territory of the United States. When it is apparent that court
officials are unaware of the limitations on their authority, it is
never wise to attempt to correct these officials in their own
court.

Non-judicial, legislative, administrative and
territorial courts are incapable of exercising the judicial power
of the United States, which can only be found in an Article III
court. Article III of the Constitution has expressly granted to
Congress the power to vest courts inferior to the Supreme Court
with the judicial power of the United States. The Constitution
does not prohibit the creation of federal courts outside of
Article III. It follows, therefore, that at the very least
Congress must invoke the authority of Article III in creating
Article III courts just so one court can be distinguished from
another.

The evidence that exists to show that the federal
district courts are ordained and established pursuant to Article
III is anecdotal or circumstantial. The Constitution provides that
Congress shall vest the judicial power of the United States in
?such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish.? That same language was used in the Preamble to the
Constitution to ?ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.? There can be no question that the
Congress has established but not ordained an Article III in Hawaii
and in no other states. All that remains is to understand the
consequences of what has happened and to learn from it.

Legal scholars assume without justification that the
federal district courts are Article III courts. I have discovered
and I hope proven that no responsible public federal officer has
ever questioned their assumptions. In all the legal literature I
examined, status of the United States district courts as Article
III was assumed despite all the contrary authoritative evidence.
The United States Supreme Court in two cases: Balzac v. Porto
Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S.
201 (1938) made it clear that a ?district court of the United
States? described a court created under Article III and a ?United
States district court? described a territorial court. The former
identified a constitutional court of the United States exercising
the judicial power of the United States and the latter merely
identified a court for a district of the government of the United
States.

Legal scholars are interpreting the power and
authority of the federal courts without resort to the statute law
that created and established them. The complete statute law and
enacted Title 28 U.S.C. is presented here for your consideration.
You are again, however, cautioned not to take the issue of
jurisdiction to the federal courts as they are presently
constituted. The federal courts are territorial legislative
courts. This means that they are administrative courts without
judicial power and you are without judicial protections if you
submit yourself to them. The judges of these courts are there to
serve the Congress and not any of the people.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this letter is to advise and counsel those who
fear that they are being oppressed by a distant government. You
will find that when you first remove the oppression caused by your
own ignorance foreign oppression will subside and the disappear
altogether. The United States district courts are territorial and
without judicial power. This has been so since the Judiciary Act
of 1789. If you do not believe this to be true, I have provided
the means by which you can dispute my opinion. The complete
absence of any Article III district courts in 49 of the 50 states
is a ?judicial? disaster waiting to happen. So far, it appears
that no terrorist is aware that he or she may escape prosecution
for a crime of terrorism because there is only one judicial court
in the United States trial court system. Past Congresses may have
been able to successfully construct a complex administrative
criminal law process where an accused voluntarily accepts the
jurisdiction of a non-article III federal court and judge, but
dedicated and emboldened terrorists may be able to destroy it in
one case. Congress must immediately establish Article III courts.

My task was to determine the legitimate jurisdiction of
the federal district courts in your state. I fulfilled my
objective in the only reasonable manner possible; I gathered all
the statute law and enacted code law used to create the federal
courts in all the states. I found only one instance in which
Congress had declared that Article III was used to create the
court. The one exception is the district court of Hawaii. Without
exception, all the federal courts in your state are territorial.
The territory that constitutes each of the judicial districts of
each court is the federal enclaves within the counties of the
state that comprise those judicial districts. Once the
documentation for your local federal courts is reviewed and
compared to the cross references provided in the government?s own
Title 28 U.S.C., the public deception becomes flagrant.

The occasion of Hawaii?s admission to the Union in 1959
was certainly an appropriate event to establish an Article III
court for the federal territory in those islands. Why has Congress
not acted to create Article III courts in the remaining 49 states?
The simple answer is that would have reduced its power. The more
complex answer to that question lies in the need that early
Americans felt to declare their independence from an unjust king.
The following passage from the Declaration of Independence should
teach that history repeats itself, especially, for those who
refuse to learn it the first time around.

HE has
obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent
to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. HE has made Judges
dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and
the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. HE has erected a
Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to
harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Your
personal Declaration of Independence can be a simple recognition
that Americans have managed to govern themselves without real
federal judicial trial courts for more than 200 years.

Very truly yours,
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the federal courts in
your state are, just that, federal courts, you are cautioned again
not to enter United States territory lest you be taken into
custody on a trumped up administrative tax evasion or similar
charge. Despite the overwhelming evidence, I predict that the
federal courts will not readily admit their territorial status and
less than Article III status. The last place you would want to
appear to prove these courts are territorial is in one of them.
The federal courts are only presumed to be Article III. The abuses
and usurpations complained of in the Declaration of Independence
are common symptoms of all governments. No form of government is
immune to them. Judges dependent on the will of the king are like
the territorial judges disguised as Article III judges. Under no
circumstances should you believe that you will be the first
litigant to correct an Article I judge?s perception of his Article
I court. The only way to correct an erroneous presumption is to
correct the public?s and the legal profession?s perception of
these courts.

You should immediately prepare letters
setting forth the issue of federal territorial courts in place of
Article III courts to your Congressman and Senators, and other
influential people especially those in the media. Federal judges
and court personnel are without power to correct abuses caused by
Congress. Do not attempt to communicate with the judges or court
personnel. The realization that socialism would never work
destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We have not
built our nation on such a flimsy economic system but the federal
courts are an important part of the federal government and they
need to be reformed.

Protect your privacy. The national
government was granted no power in the Constitution that permits
it to obtain information about you without your consent. The right
to privacy is the most difficult right to regain once it has been
lost. Most of those who retain my services are attempting to
terminate a past association with the Internal Revenue Service or
one that the IRS is attempting to initiate, in order to regain
their privacy. The IRS and Department of Justice have used the
public?s perception of Article III courts to persuade federal
grand juries to bring true bills against innocents. Any legally
constituted grand jury that intends to encroach upon your privacy
has not been made aware of the material presented in this opinion
letter. Every federal grand jury is led to believe that the court
that is to provide the trial for any indictments they bring is the
lawful one and that the indictment gives them the right to invade
your privacy. The individuals on the grand jury have no idea of
the difference between an Article III court and an Article I
court. The persistence of the men and women of the IRS is
attributable to their collective status as employees. Their
collective job and the IRS Mission is to get everyone to
voluntarily comply with Subtitle A, Title 26 U.S.C. by
self-assessing a tax on a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. The
Internal Revenue Service Mission is a relentless assault on the
privacy of Americans. Nothing would be more detrimental to the IRS
Mission than the establishment of real Article III national
government courts. Begin your own investigation of the local
federal grand jury and assist others making their own
investigations. Once it is apparent to the reader that my research
establishes that there are no national government courts, any
action of the federal grand jury becomes transparent and it can be
seen as the machinations of the United States Attorney. He is
attempting to either lure you into the United States territory
upon which the United States district court sits so that he can
institute or pursue a territorial criminal action against you or
he seeks to have you admit jurisdiction. It is often suggested
that an appearance should be made as is suggested in the
initiating documents. This should never be done because it is an
admission of jurisdiction. The doctrine of the Separation of
Powers dictates that Article III courts never have jurisdiction
over internal revenue issues. An understanding of this basic
structure of our government should be all that is necessary to
support the statute law establishing the district courts.

Do not claim anything that you cannot prove. Besides
avoiding any contacts within property under the jurisdiction of
the United States, you will want to avoid claiming that you are a
citizen of the United States. The best advice is to never claim
anything that you cannot prove. I personally know no one that can
prove United States citizenship. A birth certificate from one of
the 50 states or a naturalization certificate is sufficient to
establish citizenship in any state of the Union and in the United
States. A claim on United States citizenship, being a taxpayer or
a U.S. person, unfortunately, is a fast track to loss of freedom
and privacy. Once lost, these intangibles cannot be regained
through the intervention of any of the courts that will be
discussed here.

Demand from academics proof of the
assumptions they peddle as facts. In the future I will publish a
bibliography of the pertinent legal literature on the subject of
the ordination and establishment of courts inferior to the United
States Supreme Court that exercise the judicial power of the
United States. My review of all the legal literature show that the
academics assume Article III status for the United States district
courts. Of course, anecdotal or circumstantial evidence is
completely inadequate to establish a functioning part of the third
branch of government, but can be competent to show how deficient
government and public education are.

The best legal advice
is always to stay out of all litigation. Ordinary litigants
seldom, if ever, fare very well in any kind of federal court. You
will learn in this opinion letter that all United States district
court judges believe that they sit in Article III courts. This
belief is based on the notion that the holding of an office during
good behavior is the sole criteria for an Article III court and
judge. Apparently, good behavior doesn?t mean that you know what
kind of court you, as a judge, are in or what the limits of your
authority is. No federal judge has been impeached for
impersonating an Article III judge.

Your voluntary
appearance at courthouse will be interpreted as a consent to
territorial jurisdiction of that court, so, any appearance or
acquiescence with a demand or request will constitute acceptance
of jurisdiction. Any compliance with requests, commands or demands
of a territorial court is a conformation of its power. Since we
know that you have no federal income tax liability and no other
contacts that can form the basis for territorial jurisdiction, any
appearance before that court or any agreement to provide testimony
is evidence of your consent to that court?s jurisdiction.

Responsible citizens question the authority of all
government officers that present themselves as lawful
representatives. When you fully understand the principles set out,
you will see why only the alert citizen can protect himself, the
government and the people from unlawful or untrue claims of
authority. Aside from retaining me to provide you assistance of
counsel, the best advice I can give you is to always question
authority and never to act or acquiesce unless you are fully
satisfied that the government is authorized. Those who have real
authority will never object to demonstrating it and discussing its
limits. This, however, will never occur in a United States
district court for any state, because there can be no
demonstration of Article III authority in any of the federal court
for any of the fifty states. Legislative territorial courts cannot
be introspective. Such self-examination can only be conducted in
real courts by real judges.

All courts including the
federal district courts are territorial courts. They have no
jurisdiction beyond the federal territory embraced within the
judicial district. Some clients feel that they should accommodate
the local United States Attorney because that official is located
locally. The proximity of the federal prosecutor has nothing to do
with jurisdiction. It would be foolish for you to begin to
accommodate every prosecutor of every jurisdiction with a claim
that you omitted to comply with its local laws. The voluntary
acceptance of jurisdiction of territorial federal courts based on
their proximity to you is not a rational basis upon which to
establish jurisdiction. There must exist some national legislation
that concerns you in order to establish jurisdiction. I am aware
of no national laws that can be adjudicated in a territorial
administrative court.

Begin your investigation of the
local federal court and local federal grand jury immediately. Do
not allow yourself to be rushed into consenting to the
jurisdiction of a court without judicial authority. Without
judicial authority no court can set deadlines and without
authority a court can only make a void judgment. Making even a
special appearance to contest jurisdiction in an administrative
court is unwise. Sample letters have been prepared for those who
are not certain of the conclusions that must result from my
research. Federal courts that are exclusively territorial enable
terrorists to escape prosecution by the national government if a
crime against Americans is committed outside of federal territory.
The total absence of national courts and national laws weakens the
nation?s stand against international terrorism.

Your own
study should be undertaken of any self-proclaimed local federal
judicial authority to determine the legitimacy of their claims.
You ought to join other investigators of all other United States
district court judges particularly those of the Hawaii and Puerto
Rico district courts. The study should include what judges claim
to be able to exercise Article III judicial power of the United
States. These judges appear no different from the other Title 28
judges appointed to other than Article III district courts.
Section 9 (a) provides conclusive proof that judges appointed
pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code
are not ?Article III judges? unless appointed to Article III
courts without Title 28 restrictions. The district court judges to
the United States District Court for the district of Puerto Rico
The Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and
the inferior Article III courts Congress has yet to ordain and
establish in any significant number. All other courts established
by Congress may be tribunals but they do not exercise judicial
power.

SAMPLE LETTERS
Letter to Clerk of the
United States District Court at
_________________________

Dear Court Clerk:
I have obtained the federal court
research of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor
degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1971
and has been a member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972.
In addition to his legal education and experience, he has a
bachelor?s degree in government.

I want to verify certain
facts about the status of the United States District Court,
I
have been told that I can obtain a copy of the Jury Service and
Selection Plan approved by the appeals court. I have been unable
to obtain from the web site of this court: statements of the
status of the court and a description of geographical boundaries
of the judicial district. I was told that if I could not obtain
these documents off the Internet was unable to obtain those
documents from the Internet, they might be available from the
Office of the Clerk of the Court.

I am making a request of
the following documents because they were not available from the
court?s web site:

1. Document identifying Article of
Constitution under which court was established.
2. Document
describing territory that comprises court?s judicial
district.
3. Copy of the Jury Service and Selection Plan.

He has stated in the opinion letter that he prepared for
me that the statute law that established that court does not refer
to Article III of the United States Constitution and, therefore,
the court cannot be ordained and established under Article III. I
must obtain a statement from you, the clerk of the court, as to
what article of the United States Constitution was used to
establish the court.

His conclusion, based on the statute
law which was provided to me along with his opinion letter, is
that the court was created pursuant to Article I or IV of the
United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to
territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements
over which the government of the United States has exclusive
jurisdiction.

The purpose of this letter is to alert you
to the fact that the United States District Court,
________________________________(or here insert the name of the
court that has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with
his conclusion that the United States District Court,
______________________is a territorial court, I will be happy to
send you, upon your request, the underlying material upon which he
bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is
disagree with Doctor Rivera?s conclusion that the United States
District Court, _______________________is a territorial court and
I will send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to
make his conclusion.

Very truly yours,
_______________

Letter To The
Foreman
Of The Grand Jury
I retained Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who
received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California
at Los Angeles in 1971 and has been a member of the Bar of
California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter
regarding the status of the United States District Court, District
of____________. In addition to his legal education and experience,
he has a bachelor?s degree in government.

He stated in the
opinion letter that he prepared for me that statute law including
Title 28 U.S.C. that established that court does not refer to
Article III of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the
court cannot be ordained and established under Article III. I must
obtain a statement from you, the clerk of the court, as to what
article of the United States Constitution was used to establish
the court.

Doctor Rivera told me, that to confirm his
findings, I should obtain from the web site of the above court:
statements of the status of the court and a description of
geographical boundaries of the judicial district. He also told me
to obtain a copy of the Jury Service and Selection Plan approved
by the appeals court. He told me that if I was unable to obtain
those documents from the Internet, they might be available from
the Office of the Clerk of the Court.

I am making a
request of the following documents from you as foreman of the
grand jury of this court, because after repeated unsuccessful
attempts to obtain the documents from the clerk of the court and
they were not available from the court?s web site.

1.
Document identifying the Article of the Constitution under which
the court was established.
2. Document describing territory
that comprises court?s judicial district.
3. Copy of the Jury
Service and Selection Plan.

He has stated in the opinion
letter that he prepared for me that the statute law that
established that court does not refer to Article III of the United
States Constitution and, therefore, the court cannot possibly be
ordained and established under Article III. I must obtain a
statement from you, the clerk of the court, as to what article of
the United States Constitution was used to establish the court.

His conclusion based on the statute law which was provided
to me along with his opinion letter is that the court was created
pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution and,
therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction
consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government
of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.

The
purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United
States District Court of Arizona (or here insert the name of the
court that has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with
his conclusion that the United States District Court,
_____________is a territorial court, I will be happy to send you
the underlying material upon which he bases that conclusion and
his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with Doctor Rivera?s
conclusion that the United States District Court,
_____________________________is a territorial court and I will
send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make
his conclusion.

Letter to Congressman
The
Honorable (full name)
House of Representatives
Washington,
D.C.
Dear Mr.
The United States District Court,
_____________________________is located within your congressional
district. My attorney told me to obtain a written statement from
your office as to the article of the United States Constitution
that was used to create the court.

I retained Dr. Eduardo
M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University
of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and has been a member of the
Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter
regarding the status of the United States District Court,
__________________________________________.

His
conclusion, based on the statute law which was provided to me
along with his opinion letter is that the court was created
pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution and,
therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction
consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government
of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.

The
purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United
States District Court _____________________________has no Article
III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion, that the
United States District Court, __________________is a territorial
court, I will be happy to send you the underlying material upon
which he bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to
do is disagree with Doctor Rivera?s conclusion that the United
States District Court, ____________________________________is a
territorial court and I will send you copies of the statute law
upon which he relied to make his conclusion.

Very truly
yours,

Letter to United States Senator
The
Honorable (full name)
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr.
The United States District Court,
__________________________ is located within the exterior
boundaries of (State). My attorney told me to obtain a written
statement from your office as to what article of the United States
Constitution was used to create the court. Will you please respond
in writing to my request?

I retained Dr. Eduardo M.
Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of
California at Los Angeles in 1971 and who has been a member of the
Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter
regarding the status of the United States District Court,
___________________________________.

His conclusion, based
on the statute law which was provided to me along with his opinion
letter, is that the court was created pursuant to Article I of the
United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to
territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements
over which the government of the United States has exclusive
jurisdiction.

The purpose of this letter is to alert you
to the fact that the United States District Court,
________________________has no Article III judicial power. If you
disagree with his conclusion that the United States District
Court, _____________________is a territorial court, I will be
happy to send you the underlying material upon which he bases that
conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with
Doctor Rivera?s conclusion that the United States District Court,
___________________________is a territorial court and I will send
you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his
conclusion.

Very truly yours,

Letter to
United States Attorney
The Honorable (full name)
United
States Attorney
The United States District Court,
Middle
District of ___________
Dear Mr.
The United States
District Court, Middle District of ____________is located within
the exterior boundaries of Florida. My attorney told me to obtain
a written statement from your office as to what article of the
United States Constitution was used to create the court. Will you
please respond in writing to my request?

I retained Dr.
Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the
University of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and who has been a
member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an
opinion letter regarding the status of the United States District
Court, Arizona.

His conclusion, based on the statute law
which was provided to me along with his opinion letter, is that
the court was created pursuant to Article I of the United States
Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to territorial
jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements over which
the government of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.

The purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact
that the United States District Court, ____________________ has no
Article III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion
that the United States District Court, Middle District of
________________ Division is a territorial court, I will be happy
to send you the underlying material upon which he bases that
conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with
Doctor Rivera?s conclusion that the United States District Court,
_________________ is a territorial court and I will send you
copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his
conclusion.

Article Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Featured Articles

The
American Bar Association
Augustus
Blackstone

#1

Big Al on
08-03-2006, 07:37 AM

The above was in evolution when it was posted. Ed has further
research added in his and Chris Hansen work "WHAT HAPPENED TO
JUSTICE". His work is not stagnant, it is a work in progress. I
have received Ed permission to make his Video available here in my
home state. I have copied from VHS to DVD. What a fine team Ed and
Chris make! When you become aware of what they expose you will
understand why the DOJ and IRS has worked so hard to shut them
up.

#2

David Merrill on
08-10-2006, 05:14 AM

salary requirements

Interesting. I can make that video available here. I can
break it into segments if necessary.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articles-news/9081-judiciary-act-1789-a.html

Last edited by David Merrill : 08-10-2006 at 06:32 AM. Reason: add link

#3

cz3000 on
08-25-2006, 10:21 AM

Present federal law is limited to federal territory and the
three branches of government. When government is properly
operating, persons, officers and employees of one of the three
branches are prohibited from performing the duties of the other
two branches.

#4

mrg on 08-25-2006,
07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cz3000

Present federal law is
limited to federal territory and the three branches of
government.

When government is properly operating,
persons, officers and employees of one of the three branches
are prohibited from performing the duties of the other two
branches.

"...this
Constitution for the United States of America" IS
government.

This Constitution has been vested legislative
Powers (plural), executive Power (singular), and judicial Power
(singular), without government, under proper Title:
"We The People of the United States;" who did "ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.

There are NO "branches of government"
within government; which government IS, in and of itself,
"...this Constitution for thr United States of America."

#5

David Merrill on
08-30-2006, 05:26 PM

administrative law

I believe the applicable term mrg, is Administrative Law as
found in American Jurisprudence. Often it is called
"government in miniature" and it lacks checks and balances.

Attached Files

Bob_Shulz_revealing_appeal.pdf (47.7 KB, 13
views)

#6

cz3000 on
08-30-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrg

There are NO
"branches of government" within government; which government
IS, in and of itself, "...this Constitution for thr
United States of
America."

I agree -
Articles I, II and III work together in order that "government"
may function properly.

Doctrine of Separation of Powers. .
.

Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America. He shall hold his
Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice
President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as
follows:
etc. . .

It does not say the judicial
Power shall be vested in a President. . .

The
separation of American government into three branches makes it
impossible for the three branches of government to do more than
what is permitted by the Constitution.
The State and Federal
Constitutions are "operating manuals" for government; the "HOW TO"
GOVERN.

Under the Doctrine of Separation of Powers,
government is "divided into three parts," therefore, government
can only be unified in the mind of the unknowing.

"Cant' we
all just get along?"

Last edited by cz3000 : 08-30-2006 at 07:16
PM.

#7

Big Al on
08-30-2006, 07:48 PM

"Administrative Law as found in American Jurisprudence" David
is correct, this crap came about starting in the 1920's and has
progressed since. The purpose was to make law more efficient. It
comes from Europe. It has been often called the fourth branch of
government. This crap is the reason people think there is a
conspiracy in America. If you understand this crap your eyes will
be open to how the courts pull off all the crap they do. Easy ways
to beat it as long as you know your state Constitution. Understand
how this works and you start down the road to having a good grasp
on how to beat them at their own games.

#8

David Merrill on
08-30-2006, 08:13 PM

one of many examples...

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
court
of record

#9

cz3000 on
08-30-2006, 10:31 PM

can you expand regarding the state constitution
'angle?'
thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Al

"Administrative Law as found
in American Jurisprudence" David is correct, this crap came
about starting in the 1920's and has progressed since. The
purpose was to make law more efficient. It comes from
Europe. It has been often called the fourth branch of
government. This crap is the reason people think there is a
conspiracy in America. If you understand this crap your eyes
will be open to how the courts pull off all the crap they
do. Easy ways to beat it as long as you know your state
Constitution. Understand how this works and you start down
the road to having a good grasp on how to beat them at their
own games.

Page 1
of 2

1

2

>

« Previous
Article | Next
Article »

Article Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Search this Article

Advanced
Search

Rate This Thread

You have already rated this
article

Posting Rules

You may not post new articles

You may not post comments

You may not post attachments

You may not edit your posts

vB code is
On

Smilies are
On

[IMG] code is
On

HTML code is
Off

Similar Threads

Article

Article Starter

Category

Comments

Last Post

Shining
Spotlight on Racket of Debt Collection

Sharing
Lights

Banks, Collectors, and
CRAs

805

09-04-2006 09:57 PM

SAMPLE
"ACCEPTED FOR VALUE" STAMP

Bulletproof
Monk

Banks, Collectors, and
CRAs

51

07-12-2006 08:29 PM

14th
Amendment Clause 2

weishaupt1776

Citizenship &
Jurisdiction

47

07-10-2006 08:03 AM

Article
III courts

Ice

Court

9

02-27-2006 10:18 PM

Interesting
article from Lexis Nexis

jerrypitts

UCC

0

12-21-2004 03:24
AM

Powered by vBulletin
Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content
Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0

2003-2006,
Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of
Use | Sitemap | Privacy
Policy | Notice/DisclaimerArticle powered by GARS 1.01
©2005-2006