USD Courts without Art.III Judicial Power

[heyday]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Back in July 2007 I wrote to the Clerk of the Court of the Northern District Court of California, asking him whether his was an Article III Court, and/or under which article of the Constitution his court was organized.

He wrote back saying it would take too much research for him to answer that question.

I can scan in the document and post it, if you guys desire.

It would add to the thread.

[heyday]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

that is kinda what I was thinking, havent had a chance to read through everything that was posted yet, will try to get through it soon.

I have personally had success with challenging SMJ in a muni court and I know that others have too, so if USDC is a congressionally/corporately created muni court, would the same principles apply.

If one were to remove himself from the system to the point where there was no governmental interaction, such as taxes, permit, licensing, etc., then all that would be left is personal and property crimes such as theft, assault, etc.

DM and others have talked about sovereign immunity with relation to the IRS and the government in general, getting them into an Art 3 court, etc. I am thinking (maybe incorrectly) that if the government (and I use that term in a general sense) and the IRS and the police, etc are all just corporations and they created USDC, wouldnt that be the correct venue for a case involving one of those corporations?

Is there a use for a true Article 3 court and if so what would that be? It seems as if there are no Art 3 courts, so we are either stuck with what we have or there are no courts with valid jurisdiction over a free man?

Thom

Just talking off the top of my head:

If one were to remove himself from the system to the point where there was no governmental interaction, such as taxes, permit, licensing, etc., then all that would be left is personal and property crimes such as theft, assault, etc.

Which would be a matter exclusively for a State Court.

DM and others have talked about sovereign immunity with relation to the IRS and the government in general, getting them into an Art 3 court, etc. I am thinking (maybe incorrectly) that if the government (and I use that term in a general sense) and the IRS and the police, etc are all just corporations and they created USDC, wouldnt that be the correct venue for a case involving one of those corporations?

Correct venue for one who failed to take the steps referred to in question one.

Is there a use for a true Article 3 court and if so what would that be?

The diversity jurisdiction described in Article 3.

It seems as if there are no Art 3 courts, so we are either stuck with what we have or there are no courts with valid jurisdiction over a free man?

Maybe.

And that is my best answer.

[ThomPaine]

thanks man, i owe you a :beer:

Thom

[heyday]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

thanks man, i owe you a :beer:

Thom

Great! I might take you up on that come spring time. ;)

[Ownmaster]

Originally Posted by heyday

Except Hawaii:

28 U.S.C. § 91.

BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)

MOOKINI v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201 (1938)

See attached file

Ed Rivera. Used the same argument. Was sent to jail. Result of his trial... USDC=Article 3

[heyday]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

Ed Rivera. Used the same argument. Was sent to jail. Result of his trial... USDC=Article 3

That's because this is Rivera's argument from the attached file, I just added to it.

The court would never ever lie, and congress represents the public interests and dubya is a christian.

[heyday]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

Ed Rivera. Used the same argument. Was sent to jail. Result of his trial... USDC=Article 3

Can you give me a cite for that? I couldn't find anything on Google to that effect, though I did find the following:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...ticle-iii.html

http://www.prleap.com/pr/44768/

http://henrygoltz.blogspot.com/

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

Ed Rivera. Used the same argument. Was sent to jail. Result of his trial... USDC=Article 3

Simply put; I read Ed's draft he was perfecting, asserting that Hawaii is an Article III jurisdiction. I wrote him inquiring if Hawaii indeed established Article III jurisdiction according to the stipulation in the US Code?

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/124443-post12.html

and especially the post after that:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/124447-post13.html

Next I looked, I could not find his paper. However he was already embroiled in his erroneous arguments so I doubt he bothered correcting them in his prosecution.

The court would never ever lie, and congress represents the public interests and dubya is a christian.

I think Heyday's point misses the mark here.

The point is better that a man can chant, sing and dance out mimes to various doctrine in America and not go to jail. I abated a cause of Unauthorized Practice of Law against a legal artifice not of my making - from the Attorney Regulation Counsel of the State corporation of Colorado Supreme Court, without batting an eyelash and continue to assist people perfecting remedy in their lives today...*

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...er_Stamp_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...er_Stamp_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Judgment_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Judgment_2.jpg

The problem was that Ed Rivera is an initiate in the black-robed priesthood and was subject to sanctions. He obviously wanted to be an attorney. Whereas I simply explained that the Attorney Regulation Counsel rejecting my non-application to be in the Triumpherate (City of London - International Bar Association/Crown Templars), City of Vatican (UCC and its author UNIDROIT) and City of Manhattan Island (Dutch East Indies Trading Deutsche Bank holder in Receivership) was of no effect since I have never been an initiate in their black-robed priesthood.

The Denver spearhead volunteer for America; Freedom to Fascism was all excited about remedy. He is a Freemason and we went to the Mason Library and Museum and he did research about his grandfather. He enjoyed my video and when he was all excited about the things he thought he could find out for me I reminded him about his oaths, which I of course had not taken.

He had just filled me in about the Mason author of a book on display there; the Masons killed him. (attached)

Same with Martin Mahoney - an attorney who went rogue by assembling a common law jury as Justice of the Peace...

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Last week two more fine patriotic Americans filed Libel of Review asking the clerk of court upon Judge Assignment - "Is this an Article III Judge?" The clerk replied - "Yes, it is." - a lie that recused the US as any kind of judiciary.

P.S. OwnMaster is really OwnedMistress; Esquire of the Crown #????. To be revealed by a few clicks of the Mouse. All she has up her sleeve, like Bernie/Shoonra is your alleged fear of jail.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by heyday

Great! I might take you up on that come spring time. ;)

that would be funny....lol

cheers,

Thom

PS: the Cornell page above doesnt want to load correctly. Not sure if its me or them..

[heyday]

I posed this question on usenet:

Larry-How does a USDC have jurisdiction within a state? (Subject line)

BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/258/298/case.html

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.


MOOKINI v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/201/case.html


The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules,
without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic
significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under
article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are
legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of
the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court
with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the
United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United
States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 154; The City of
Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268, 10 S.Ct.
762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183 S., 11 S.Ct.
949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477 S., 19 S.Ct.
722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38;
United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only
did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United
States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision
for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other
courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation
that was intended.