Ed Rivera's "brief" on Article III

[Codee]

Also criminal defendants are given a guaranty to judicial review as due process. For the state to come at you they do need the judiciary which is small in actually numbers these days. There are no Judges, there are no bonds.

“Article 3 Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

So the judicial power of the United States is “vested” in “one supreme Court. (Art. 3 sec 1)” The same judicial power is also vested in the inferior article three courts. However, article 3 sec 2, “extends” the judicial power past the limits (of what? Section 1, the only section yet to expand on in the article.) of the U.S. courts and confers it upon “All cases of…” and that should be that. If you are in a case of “Law or Equity, arising under this constitution, laws of the United States”, “Admiralty,” “Maritime,” “involving the united states as a party.” There must be judicial power, and a magistrate cannot wield it. So this is the path to walk down and beat on the bushes. When the troll comes out bop him on the head. There are no judges so who then in the case is going to wield that “judicial power” that the “case” is entitled to receive. OBJECTION!!!

Is the supreme Court’s judicial power superior to the “actions” of obtaining a common law remedy not pursued as “Law arising under this Constitution.” Is not the supreme Court just that? No. The most Supreme Court is the most supreme Court “Under the constitution” not because it is made superior to all others. It was mostly that all the other (made under the constitution and laws of the US) courts and tribunals were made “inferior” to the supreme Court which actually made the supreme Court supreme over THEM! It is not supreme to remedies outside of the judicial power of the United States.

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

IF the legislature really did this I am shocked. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (Art 3 sec 1.)

It seems the “such courts” are any non-permanent courts (same as) any non-constitutional created “court”. There is no mention of any other type of inferior court except the ones which MUST have judicial power. Think “Lied to.” And “No one challenged correctly.”

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

But they waive a big flag with fringe showing executive authority. That is why they do not charge you with the law. All the law that they want they codified in statutes and they just here those administratively. Common law jurisdiction is still with the people. They have to have it in complaint and demand remedy for it from the tribunal who has to decide nothing of facts. Just law.

[Ed Riviera: “All justices appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States are genuine Article III judges.” ]

This I agree with IF they have an oath of office.

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

Or the interstate commerce clause, or a dispute between states. It is just the “district courts” which are tribunals that have no judicial authority and only have power where cingress has plenary control. Article 3 courts cannot possibly have the same territorial jurisdiction as Congress because congress has plenary power where it legislates. Yes it could make courts of article 3 nature but they are only for where jurisdiction is granted in article 3 sec 1 & 2 permit. The Constitution does allow congress to make article three courts for the purpose of enforcing the D.C. or territories but does not require it, that would conflict with the congresses plenary power there. It is just an option for congress to create Article 3 courts in a district. Of course the U.S. is always trying to get you to be a territory, we have known this for a long time. They will use Zip Codes and make you swear you’re a resident. The government did not set up these remedies though for “citizens of different states.” They set up private law, get you to be a member, then check you into the administrative forum. The US could make an Art. 3 court to hear disputes between me in California and Someone in say New York, They just don’t want to, there is no benefit for them. The US can only prosecute you in an Art. 3 Court if...

1)The court is dealing with matters of law who’s subject matter is “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction", I don’t see statutes or rules or needful regulations in here. Those belong in an article 1 sec. 8 court enforcing public rights. By the way administrative courts do not decide controversies. You need a controversy to get to the supreme court, which is article 3 but lower courts cannot decide it.

Or

2) Has subject-personam jurisdiction in the following (Notice the change from subject matter jurisdiction “CASES” to subject-personam jurisdiction “CONTROVERSIES” I use that term suject-personam jurisdiction to show that the subject “controversies must be brought by certain “persons” ;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party”;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

I also want to point out that I read a case of a Lady getting her case thrown out of court for failing to show a case or controversy required under article 3. The lady was suing the Fed Reserve for “takings” and wanted compensation for the value being taken out of the money. The appellate court upheld the dismissal for want of a case or controversy. What happened? Aren’t the tribunals banned from receiving grants of judicial power? Why did the tribunal feel that they needed that grant. Maybe the tribunal received “judicial power” which is in inferior/superior courts AND in “cases” and controversies. Now the legislature cannot grant judicial authority to a tribunal and the executive cannot either, as their main purpose is to enforce administrative rules and statutes when there own government comes to the tribunal with a determination. Thus the tribunal can never sit for a claim against a citizen of the state because the only power a tribunal can sit in is for the violation of crime congress could enact. Show me where it says congress can punish for “crimes on land.” So if the power was never given to the legislature to grant Judicial power to a tribunal but the people put the power in a “case” then they never can. The judicial power in inferior courts is vested by the constitution and not given by legislature. See the district court as an administrative agency can administer the agency (police claims) just fine, that is what it is meant to do, it needs no judicial authority unless going up against a man with the fifth amendment right to due process of law. Due process of law requires Judicial review. However this Administrative agency cannot “administratively review” your case because you are not bringing it as a state officer. So the court presumes you are a licensee or a member of the US and in a little district 90201 and when you are there as defendant they treat you like an employee at a firm getting an administrative review for being bad. You agreed to the rules (like at your job when you sign a non-disclosure agreement) and now you go up the chain, unless you object to the highly penal nature and get Judicial review by an article three court which there is only one, the supreme Court and it is most likely vacant.

[Codee]

I don’t know if Ed is talking about walking into a Fed court house or not. Is he talking about where the court actually is, the building, where the defendant is/was, the defendant in court, where the crime took place… What territorial jurisdiction? Of course they cannot make state courts. But if the United States is in controversy you there has to be a judge to receive the Judicial Power for the case. I do not believe that there are “controversies” being decided but I have to research that more. I think a controversy involves an injured party. However on that premise the only thing that congress could sue in an article three court under would be the “Case at law under this constitution and the laws made under it.” O.K. Can congress punish me for a misdemeanor or a felony if I am not in D.C. and no interstate commerce? No! Why?
Article 1 sec. 8 allows for congress while sec 9. Restricts congress. Lets look at the power of congress as allowed in Article 1.

“Paragraph 6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Paragraph 10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Paragraph 17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And
Paragraph 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”


Boy number 18 would be a kicker if congress could punish for crime on land not involving interstate commerce. Unfortunately I see nothing in the “forgoing” to warrant it being used in a “case” against me. The only thing in the constitution which they could claim is interstate commerce (which should only naturally be civil because they were not given the power to punish for interstate commerce. They can regulate money and have the power to mint and coin but for some reason need another power to punish for counterfeiting coins) and Paragraph 17. The supreme court just ruled in California’s Marijuana cases that interstate commerce is the cornerstone for all drug cases. The US government just cannot punish you for breaking a law while in one state. You gotta be on the high sees, or in “interstate commerce” or in D.C. or a territory or committing counterfeiting.

However even if one was charged with an offense defined by the constitution the tribunal would still need to have Article three judicial oversight. And there is no Article three oversight in district courts.

Here is the real easy definition for where territorial jurisdiction is – everywhere a de-jure state is not.

[Ed Riviera: “Article I and IV courts”]

No such thing. Courts are vested with judicial power of the United States. Article 1 sec 8. Allows for the creation of “Tribunals.” They have no judicial power and nowhere is congress allowed to give judicial power to anything. The may create a court and then the constitution vests it with Judicial power. They just did not make any courts.

[Ed Riviera: “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.”]

This court only has problems with the first few years. After a judge gets apointed durring good behaviour the court is satisfied as an article 3 court act in the federal district of Hawaii.

[Ed Riviera: 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.]

Where does it say that congress cannot make an Article three court in districts and territories? The supreme court is article 3 and resides in D.C.

[Ed Riviera: 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.]

It seems that you just showed that there was one in Hawaii. Oh well.

[Ed Riviera: 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.]

What happens when the judges with life tenure show up? Seems it would be an article 3 court finally.

[Ed Riviera: “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 constitution does not need to prohibit where the congress is not allowed. Article three allows congress to make courts inferior to the supreme Court. It ALSO separately vests Judicial power in to all of the inferior courts. If congress wants a forum with no Article three then it can only be a tribunal. Nowhere does it say congress can establish a court except in article three! The difference between “Judge” and “Magistrate” needs to be clear, the difference between “court” and “tribunal” needs to be clear. The fact that there are no bonded officers needs to be exploited.

[Codee]

I received no comments from the forum the first time I posted this. Maybe this will help some in this thread.

Good Luck All.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

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

Yes, I am sorry. It was late at night when I had wrote that. After evening ale...

[PANICPASS]

There is criminal trial calendared for 11/28/06 in the case of USA v. Eduardo Rivera on Pacer. Ed Rivera, a criminal ? What a hoot.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

There is criminal trial calendared for 11/28/06 in the case of USA v. Eduardo Rivera on Pacer.

Ed Rivera, a criminal?

What a hoot.

Got any more info?

Do we get free access (as in freedom) to this info?

Pacer, hmmm.

Or is this sort of like like freedom of access to due process of law?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

Got any more info?

Do we get free access (as in freedom) to this info?

Pacer, hmmm.

Or is this sort of like like freedom of access to due process of law?

He is being sued I believ for conspiracy to defraud the IRS or something like it. He has been disbarred and is facing federal criminal charges.

[David Merrill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZrjIgscD5I

[rottweiler]

Listening to Ed Rivera talk about Article III has confirmed my belief that the US revolution and subsequent government was simply a ruse to placate Americans and maintain control for the luciferian elite.

[rottweiler]

The following is from BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922):

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=258&page=298

Now how can any Quatlooser apologize that away?