Quote:
...we become competent to judge when the clerk recuses the court by acting like Article III for a magistrate. Each suitor asks at judge assignment, "Is this an Article III judge?"
Until recently the clerk would say "Yes" a recusal.
|
So you do get the court to pretend. Then you recuse the court for fraud. Then you accept the grant of Judicial power yourself. Is this the "David Merrill" process?Just kiddin'
So I see it as maybe done like this too. If the clerk says yes it is an article three court, maybe it is? Mabey the judicial power extends to the case NOT because it is an inferior court created by artcle three powers in the legislature, BUT INSTEAD Judicial power of the U.S. is extended to the case by virtue of the CASE and not the tribunal at all. U.S. courts can only hear items of law under article three. They cannot hear administratively, that is beond there jurisdiction, that belongs to the administration.
What if the tribunal was granted Judicial Power from your case as a suitor. I know that tribunals can issue common law remedies if the statute allows, see saving to suitors. So what if the "tribunal" not the magistrate, was given article three Judicial powers, but there was no competent Judge to recieve it. All the judges would be recused and the Judicial power to decide the case would reside in you. However when all the power to act on an action resides in one person then it is administrative, your administrative/common law remedy, because administrative remedies need no court. Now there is a claim in the court docket which you have ruled on administratively and now the administrative judge could review the case and look at the record of the administrative ruling/Default,R4C and You could pronounce judgments and file them. The opposing party could ask for review in administrative courts.
If you can posses Judicial POwer why not administrative power too...?
That is how I kinda look at it. I am using the administrative courts to enforce my law remedies
