Ed Rivera's "brief" on Article III

[David Merrill]

The State of Colorado corporation Constitution says:

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.

Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

First off I found John Suthers' oath of office as district attorney filed in El Paso county (Colorado Springs) for him being District Attorney back in 1995. He had failed to file that oath with the Secretary of State though. He quit the next day after I filed that Certificate of Fact with into the case record. And of course that quickly rendered all trials prosecuted by him over eight years null and void so everything went pretty quiet. The press wondered why he was suddenly resigning but he would not answer.

Fast forward three jobs to Attorney General. One intrepid suitor in trouble - whom I drafted the Order and Decree above for went to the Secretary of State's office for Suthers' oath or a certificate of fact otherwise. They refused to issue a Certificate of Fact that Suthers' had filed no oath because they were afraid he would be mad if they did. The suitor said he would be back the next day. On his way back to the Springs from Denver he got a call saying John Suthers had faxed an oath of office over but it was not filed and therefore they could not provide certified copies. I guess they were hoping he would not come back the next day?

When he returned the next day with the Mission Statement for the SoS he got this:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

Now the lawful time stipulated for John to file this oath was thirty (30) days, not ninety. So the office of Attorney General is by the Colorado constitution vacant. The only prosecutions that may issue are by consent (or acquiescence) of all parties to the civil action in admiralty where penalties for failure to perform (debtors' prison) can take the form of criminal penalties.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[jekylisland]

David-

What is your opinion about asking the judge if he/she has taken an oath, and would there be any objection to having it submitted on the record in this case?

I recently heard of this technique, but have not tried it. If the Living Soul is in court by special visitation, not general appearance, and has the judge's oath on record to uphold the Constitution, seems pretty powerful to me.

The same source recommends Motion/Petition for judge to read all pleadings. Assuming they wouldn't otherwise.

If the court is in the paperwork, and the judge is just the referee, maybe we ought tell him which game he is officiating!

Related, I just accepted George W. Bush's oath for value, and had the public side record the acceptance. We now have a contract! I can't share where I'm going with that, but will in time.

Thanks,
CSW

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The State of Colorado corporation Constitution says:



First off I found John Suthers' oath of office as district attorney filed in El Paso county (Colorado Springs) for him being District Attorney back in 1995. He had failed to file that oath with the Secretary of State though. He quit the next day after I filed that Certificate of Fact with into the case record. And of course that quickly rendered all trials prosecuted by him over eight years null and void so everything went pretty quiet. The press wondered why he was suddenly resigning but he would not answer.

Fast forward three jobs to Attorney General. One intrepid suitor in trouble - whom I drafted the Order and Decree above for went to the Secretary of State's office for Suthers' oath or a certificate of fact otherwise. They refused to issue a Certificate of Fact that Suthers' had filed no oath because they were afraid he would be mad if they did. The suitor said he would be back the next day. On his way back to the Springs from Denver he got a call saying John Suthers had faxed an oath of office over but it was not filed and therefore they could not provide certified copies. I guess they were hoping he would not come back the next day?



When he returned the next day with the Mission Statement for the SoS he got this:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

Now the lawful time stipulated for John to file this oath was thirty (30) days, not ninety. So the office of Attorney General is by the Colorado constitution vacant. The only prosecutions that may issue are by consent (or acquiescence) of all parties to the civil action in admiralty where penalties for failure to perform (debtors' prison) can take the form of criminal penalties.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merril

And of course that quickly rendered all trials prosecuted by him over eight years null and void so everything went pretty quiet. The press wondered why he was suddenly resigning but he would not answer.

I do not think so. His actions as defacto officer are valid to all third parties.

[David Merrill]

Yes. It is a fact. He quit the next day and would not tell the press, that the press would say anyway, why. Actions coming from a vacant office are null and void. I agree that a lot of people would accept a statute formed under the constitution that nullifies the provision in the constitution as some kind of law.


Not me.

[mrg]

mrg
"...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."

Originally Posted by David Merrill

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.

Thanks for the reply.

I am not sure what you mean by "applicable term," and would definitely like to understand what your reply was conveying.

What, as relates to what I wrote, is the term "Administarative Law" "applicable" to regarding this Constitution, and how so?

I was just stating that I find no references to "branches" of government within that which IS government, and within which only clearly articulated Powers, Power, and Power, "shall be vested."

I would be interested in reading about Administrative Law in American Jurisprudence if you can point me in the right direction, however, I do not see that American Jurisprudence is "this Constitution for the United States of America."

BTW, thanks for posting the Rivera article.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Codee

I do not think so. His actions as defacto officer are valid to all third parties.

I just caught that; David Wynn MILLER and myself are not the same.

Interesting because I hear he is dyslexic - that you would cross us in your post like that.

Originally Posted by mrg

Thanks for the reply.

I am not sure what you mean by "applicable term," and would definitely like to understand what your reply was conveying.

What, as relates to what I wrote, is the term "Administarative Law" "applicable" to regarding this Constitution, and how so?

I was just stating that I find no references to "branches" of government within that which IS government, and within which only clearly articulated Powers, Power, and Power, "shall be vested."

I would be interested in reading about Administrative Law in American Jurisprudence if you can point me in the right direction, however, I do not see that American Jurisprudence is "this Constitution for the United States of America."

BTW, thanks for posting the Rivera article.

That is my point; government in miniature and the fourth branch of government. No checks and balances - Administrative Law.

Where to look? American Jurisprudence, often called AmJur. I don't know if that is available on line but you can probably find it at a large public library or a law library.

You are welcome Codee. I think it is quite informative to know there is no judiciary available in America.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

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.

4. A certified copy of the section of Statutes at Large where the district court of the United States for the District of _________ is established and ordained.

5. A certified copy of the Presidential act/order appointing the Justices of the district court of the United States for the District of ___________ .

6. ???

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by aksis

4. A certified copy of the section of Statutes at Large where the district court of the United States for the District of _________ is established and ordained.

You won't find this language. Instead, you will find,

Originally Posted by WHAT HAPPEDED TO JUSTICE? Ver. 1.08

"Such court is hereby declared to be a court established under article III of the Constitution of the Constitution of the United States."

You can find the above enactment in Evidence Book Vol. 3, Exhibit 15. Notice that the Congress in this instance, did not follow the language prescribed in the Constitution for invoking Article III judicial powers. This was no accident. What they were doing was simulating or emulating, within their Article IV authority, that the Court of International Trade was established similar to Article III. If they had meant it to BE an Article III Court, they would "ordained and established" it as specifically required by Constitution Article III and legislatively imposed all the other requirements for Article III judges identified in the previous section.

Emphasis added.

Very good information in the book, I recommend it.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index....=714&qpid=2912

[Codee]

NORTHERN PIPELINE CO. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)

“Art. III, 1. The inexorable command of this provision is clear and definite: [458 U.S. 50, 59] The judicial power of the United States must be exercised by courts having the attributes prescribed in Art. III. Those attributes are also clearly set forth:
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." Art. III, 1.
The "good Behaviour" Clause guarantees that Art. III judges shall enjoy life tenure, subject only to removal by impeachment. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955). The Compensation Clause guarantees Art. III judges a fixed and irreducible compensation for their services. United States v. Will, supra, at 218-221. Both of these provisions were incorporated into the Constitution to ensure the independence of the Judiciary from the control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. 10 As we have only recently emphasized, "[t]he Compensation Clause has its roots in the longstanding Anglo-American tradition of an independent Judiciary," 449 U.S., at 217 , while the principle of life tenure can be traced back at least as far as the Act of Settlement in 1701, id., at 218.”

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

But congress can only create “courts” and “tribunals.” The members of the Judiciary must run and staff the court. Congress cannot state who can be in the Judiciary of the court. If congress did this they violated the presidents authority to nominate Judges. Congress may only do that in article 1 sec 8 “tribunals.” Did they only name it article 3. Did they just say so? They tried to make a bankruptsy tribunal and give it “court” powers and the supreme court said “NOPE!”

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

I disagree. National parks? They are managed under the Fed, not subject to their exclusive jurisdiction. Just like BLM land and I am not sure but military bases are not “ceded” to the US. Always because I remember a case where a fixed milk price was held for the base store too because the land was just leased.

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

But “cases” of admiralty are “vested” with “Judicial Power.” Why do people read “cases” and then remember “courts” I do not know. Although a case’s complaint gives jurisdiction, the complaint is not the court itself. The judicial power extending to these cases however means there must be at least a judge to wield it or the plaintiff cannot use the “JUDICIAL” power of the “U.S.” However the prosecutor might have better then that. He might have a “Jury Trial.” Not a jury court where the jury hears everything and there is no government represented “Nonbonded,-quasijudge,-defacto-magistrate,-mister-almost-an-executive-“officer”-with-no-office.” So is this why the defendants still get a trial by jury recommend by the DA an virtually insisted upon unless plea-dealing? (I am not saying ask a DA why he was thought to do this, he will likely not know.) This ignorant jury however is in a tribunal where the magistrate is telling them “Watch out for me and my Jury instructions.” The jury is lied into believing they are not wielding the Judicial power. The jury members are though and their decision is Judicial in nature even if the magistrate or clerk or bailiff or prosecuting attorney are not judicial in nature.

[EXTENSION OF UNITED STATES LAWS
AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Act of Congress Sept. 28, 1850, ch. 86, 9 U.S. Stat. 521
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable [It does not say “in conflict”,,, All of them are locally inaplicable, California is sovereign. It is a republic] shall have the same force and effect within the said State of California as elsewhere within the United States. [Whoa! I thought California was Sovereign. Could you imagine California saying it was extending its Judicial process Through out the United States? I can’t. I see this as more proof that the “State of California” is an organization subservient to the Federal Government. They Just extended Laws applicable in D.C. applicable to the state but not where “locally inapplicable” I guess that would be me and you saying NO I AM NOT A MEMBER! GO AWAY!]
An Act to provide for extending the Laws and the Judicial System of the United States to the State of California.
“Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said State shall compose two districts, to be called the northern and southern districts of California, divided by the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude. And for the purpose of trying all issues of fact triable by a jury in said districts, a District Court shall be held in said district, to consist of one judge, who shall reside within the district to which he is appointed, and be called a district judge, and shall in all things have and exercise the same jurisdiction and powers which were by law given to the judge of the southern district of New York; the said judge shall appoint a clerk at the place at which a court is holden within the district, who shall reside and keep the records of the court at the place of holding the same; and shall receive for the services they may perform, for the first four years after the passage of this act, double the amount allowed to the clerk of the southern district of New York; and thereafter shall receive only the fees allowed to the clerk of the said southern district of New York, and may appoint a deputy.”]

POW You use a jury and you invite the MOST IGNORANT people of twelve to wield it, and these are all people with soc. Numbers and Driver’s Licenses. This is a big lesson. Do U.S. courts have the right to call a jury? It seems like they are always using the right of the defendant to get the Jury in there. None the less the Jury is incompetent in a tribunal every case thus to date. Is the jury capable of wielding Judicial power even when the tribunal and its magistrate are not? Remember the Clerk of court is executive, The tribunal was formed by legislature. The tribunal cannot receive a grant of Judicial power from the “Legislature.” Put can the Jury be granted Judicial power by the right of the defendant? Hmmmm…

However the Non-Bonded is still there. He is issuing administrative rulings on law, these “non-facts” and thus not jury decided facts. The tribunal superior to the trial tribunal can only review the lower tribunal’s decisions, not the Jury’s advisement that the Judge agreed to. The juries finding that your claim of not guilty was in fact not correct, no court will say that the jury weighed the facts wrong unless there was no balance and there was not enough evidence to support even if all the fact were true. That is an issue not of trying a fact but an issue at law of “preponderance” or “probable.”

"A talesman when accepted as a juror becomes a part or member of the court. Re Savin, 131 U.S. 267, 33 L. Ed. 150, 9 S. Ct. 699; United States v. Dachis (D.C.) 36 F.(2d) 601. ...
"A talesman, sworn as a juror, becomes, like an attorney, an officer of the court, and must submit to like restraints.
"Nothing in our decision impairs the authority of Bushell's Case, Vaughan, 135, 124 Eng. Reprint, 1006, 1670, with its historic vindication of the privilege of jurors to return a verdict freely according to their conscience. [Sounds like judicial power!] There was a trial of Penn and Mead on a charge of taking part in an unlawful assembly. The jurors found a verdict of acquital, though in so doing they refused to follow the instructions of the court. For this they were fined and imprisoned, but were discharged on habeas corpus, Vaughan, Ch. J., pronouncing "that memorable opinion which soon ended the fining of jurors for their verdicts, and vindicated their character as judges of fact." Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law, p. 167. Bushell's case was born of the fear of the Star Chamber and of the tyranny of the Stuarts. Plucknett, Concise History of the Common Law, p. 114. It stands for a great principle, which is not to be whittled down or sacrificed. ... There is a peril of corruption in these days which is surety [sic] no less than the peril of coercion. The true significance of Bushell's Case is brought out with clearness in declaratory statutes." (emphasis added). Clark v. United States (1933), 289 U.S. 1, 11, 16-17; 77 L.Ed. 993; 63 S. Ct. 465.”

[Codee]

West's Ann.Cal. Const. (2002), article XX, § 3 reads (emphasis added):
“Members” of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
______________________________________________
(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions")

However, it must not be appropriate to make a public official tell on the organizations they belong to plotting to overthrow the lawful governamnet…

“On the authority of Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 and Elfbrandt v. Russell, supra, 384 U.S. 11, it must be held that the second paragraph of section 3, article XX of the California Constitution is invalid.
Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967), 68 Cal.2d 18, 26; 434 P.2d 961; 64 Cal.Rptr. 409.”

“West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1363
(a) Unless otherwise provided, every oath of office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the time required as follows:
(2) The oath of all officers elected or appointed for any county, and, except as provided in paragraph (4), of all officers whose duties are local, or whose residence in any particular county is prescribed by law, in the office of the county clerk of their respective counties.”

“West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1192 reads (emphasis added):
When not otherwise provided for, within 10 days after receiving notice of their appointment, deputies and other subordinant officers shall take and file an oath in the manner required of their principals.”

I would want to see these oaths on record anywhere. They do not exist. A bunch of “I do”s do not measure up to the statutory standard. However if one does not object to the office being filled by a de-facto person then the office obtains a vested right until properly objected to. Object to any judge or jury.

“Of course, election alone did not constitute [him] the incumbent of the office. The law required him, after receiving his certificate of election, to take the oath of office, and give bonds within the time required by law. If he failed to do these things according to law, and within the time required by law, the office was vacant. (Sections 907, 947, 996, Pol. Code; Payne v. San Francisco , 3 Cal. 125; People v. Taylor , 57 Cal. 620.) Until an officer-elect takes the oath of office and gives bonds according to law, he is not authorized to discharge the duties of the office. He is not an incumbent.
...Being the actual incumbent of the office, he was in possession under color of right; he was at least a de facto officer, and had a vested right as such until his right was questioned by some one in a proper proceeding for that purpose. ... It can be made only by an original proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto against him as incumbent of the office. (People v. Olds, 3 Cal. 176; People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 432; Satterlee v. San Francisco , 23 Cal. 320; People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480.)
(emphasis added) Hull v. Superior Court (1883), 63 Cal. 174, 176-177.”

AND if the jury does sit without executing their oath…MISDEMEANOR.

nevertheless the importance of the oath of office as a prerequisite in the eyes of the Legislature is indicated by its action in declaring the exercise of the function of a public office before taking the oath of office to be a misdemeanor. The constitutional provision does not impose a criminal penalty in such case but, also, it makes no distinction in the necessity of the oath as between "public officers and employees." The execution of the oath is essential to the status of de jure employment the lack of which precludes the right to compensation for services rendered (cf. Lopez v. Payne, 51 Cal.App. 447, 449 [196 P. 919]; Norton v. Lewis, 34 Cal.App. 621, 624 [168 P. 388]). ... We hold that appellant did not become a lawful employee of respondent county.
(emphasis added) Smith v. County Engineer (1968), 266 Cal.App.2d 645, 653-654; 72 Cal.Rptr. 501.

In short. However Juries may indeed have Judicial power and can use it for Jury nullification. I would not even ask for a jury I don’t think.

Why do people associate Admiralty Cases/courts with Administrative Cases/courts? Courts are defined by the complaint. The mode of the court is defined by the complaint as well as the burden of proof, what is to be proved, the burden of proceeding, AND BURDEN OF MAINTAING JURISDICTION, all come from the complaint/complaining party. The right to a common law remedy for controversies over twenty dollars is only for the federal “plaintiff” or “suitor” and with this clause even “administrative courts” gave common law remedies.

Why is this judicial power not recognized as belonging to the (What, what…. What is it??????????) “CASE!!!!!!) WOW you mean it was never supposed to be vested the “admiralty courts?” No, the power was given to the plaintiff to pursue in a court that recognized the form of the complaint. If the plaintiff chose to pursue Admiralty then he would need an adequate article 3 judge. If he chose to pursue a “law or equity remedy NOT arising under the constitution” then he could pursue true common law, no court default remedy with the sheriff and get administrative remedy to compel the sheriff. If the default was challenged a Jury may be necessary, but doubtful if the act is not a criminal complaint.

O.K. I need to state this again in another way. “ALL CASES ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES!” This is so, so, so, key. If the complaining party’s case falls under this category then the plaintiff must find the court that has a judge capable of wielding Judicial Power. If he is capable and lawful he will have a bond. If the congress never makes such courts or staffs such judges then the plaintiff has no right to submit the defendant to some other court NOT recognized with judicial power required by the laws of the united states but at the same time suing case “in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” This makes no sense. If the laws of the US constitution says there must be Judicial Power and there is no venue with judicial power created then the plaintiff must pursue remedy “without” the laws of the United States. The plaintiff is given the right to a “common law” remedy (NOT ARTICLE 3 COURT FOR CASES OF LAW “UNDER THE CONSTITUTION” by the seventh amendment. He is not given the right to a “court.” This is another misconception out there. The “remedy” is up to the plaintiff alone and it is a remedy, not a “court” that the plaintiff is guarantied. “Did U.S. Article 3 Courts exist under “common law.” I do not think so. But the plaintiff does have the right to a common law remedy to his case even if had in a tribunal. THE REMEDY IS WHAT WAS SECURED.