Ed Rivera's "brief" on Article III

[Codee]

Ed Rivera Found Guilty Today.

US Judge rules that US District courts are article three courts.

The court may have been article three. Was the judge?

[rottweiler]

I was taught thay they wear two hats. Do you know what the judges name was? Maybe I can check if he is a active Bar member. If so he is not Art. III. can you give any detail on Rivera case or where I can find info on it?

Originally Posted by Codee

Ed Rivera Found Guilty Today.

US Judge rules that US District courts are article three courts.

The court may have been article three. Was the judge?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I was taught thay they wear two hats.

Well, I've heard it said that federal judges wear three hats: law, equity and admiralty, all of which have been conflated by this point in history.

I don't know that that has any bearing on what Article they were organized/are operating under.

[psholtz]

Regarding all this talk about Justices, Judges, etc, I'd like to point out the Article I, Section 3 makes mention of a "Chief Justice":

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Article I, Section 3

I don't know that the phrase "Chief Justice" appears anywhere else in the Constitution.

Do whom does this Chief Justice apply? It seems to be talking about the Senate here..

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Well, I've heard it said that federal judges wear three hats: law, equity and admiralty, all of which have been conflated by this point in history.

I don't know that that has any bearing on what Article they were organized/are operating under.

In one case, the US Attorney already put the Article III hat on the judge. And Ronald Dean got every penny back.

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif

With the NOFTL against James Harlan, Jim waited for Wiley Young DANIEL to put on the Article III hat for over a year - by simply remanding his cause to state court required by procedure. Daniel allowed the case to be taken by a more commy judge who spoke slurs against admiralty on land and dismissed it. However the IRS released the NOFTL and cleaned up Jim's credit reports; abandoning all claim and dissolving all jurisdiction - admiralty or not.

and Maritime Claims. Respondent and all principals and agents are left with their remedy:
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES … 136. When a seizure has been voluntarily abandoned, it loses its validity, and no jurisdiction attaches to any court, unless there be a new seizure. 10 Wheat. 325; 1 Mason, 361. First Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856.

Regards,

David Merrill.