Quote:
|
PART IV. OTHER JURISDICTION
Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action
1. This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. § 1251 and U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. A petition for an extraordinary writ in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction shall be filed as provided in Rule 20.
2. The form of pleadings and motions prescribed by the...
|
It behooves us to spot the bluffing Tenth Circuit justices, riding the myth that the court is only an appeals court - not a court of original jurisdiction, like in
Ensminger. Of course Bruce Clyde entered Rule 17.1 and the Ensminger decision as precedent:
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_3.jpg
It also behooves us to note Bruce Clyde refused to enter that appellate jurisdiction and he refused to tender artificial money as evidence of that.
Read the short
but inappropriately offered opinion, in the form
Order and Judgment carefully. Linger on the very last sentence...
Quote:
|
Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
|
http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6238.pdf
The case never even got into the Tenth Circuit! The justices are merely bluffing Bruce Clyde into thinking he would be wasting his filing fee should he pay it. However, the Rule is right there, and the justices are bound to follow the rules...
I wonder how they will get around the Removal when it is properly executed according to the original jurisdiction of the circuit court? [They wont get around it.] What is funny is that the justices will go silent about the removal and if prodded say they already ruled on the issue:
Quote:
|
On appeal, Mr. Smith cites no other statutory basis* for removal. Creatively, but frivolously, he does argue that the case should now be removed from this court to a court of his own making, the “one supreme Court,” apparently established by Mr. Smith and his associates on September 4, 2006 (after the district court remanded his case to the state court). There is no legal basis for that request.
|
Regards,
David Merrill.
* The Rule and its original jurisdiction to the one supreme court retained by the People, is not statutory. Also there is a big difference between
legal and
lawful according to many law dictionaries.
