Who is right? Depends on the Timing!

One of the biggest problems with people in general and sui juris forum members in particular is that they do not differentiate between a court of justice and an administrative process. You have heard Winston say, "Everything is backwards." Unfortunately he doesn't explain that to the end. What happens in an administrative process is backwards from what happens in a judicial court.

Administrative process:
guilty until proven innocent.
do not argue,
facts mean nothing, and thus
evidence means nothing
judge cannot hear you, only hears attorneys
contracts no, agreements yes
no injury needed
no jury needed
no witnesses
no rules

Court of justice:
Innocent until proven guilty
argue the facts
only the facts count
facts are presented by evidence
judge hears only you ( I do not think an attorney is even allowed in a common law court)
contracts count (they only exist here)
need injured party
need jury ( in-jury, if you have an injury you need a jury)
two witnesses required
strict rules (biblical)

So we have this fight between redemption and real court people with appropriate name calling. Cornforth has declared war on Winston and his ilk. They are both right and both wrong. (though I think Winston sees the bigger picture) Cornforth is right in a judicial court but NOT in an administrative process. But an administrative process is never final because it has NO authority over flesh and blood man. However, we must exhaust our administrative process before we go to judicial court. "Go to your brother." We also must introduce our evidence into the administrative process so we can "take it with us" into the judicial court.

Prof. Jim

OK. Let’s look at this logically.

We have recently found cases that say a court that is directly created by the constitution is “judicial”. (For this treatise the word court will always mean judicial court.) But only living things can create anything. The constitution is not living. We must go up a level. The constitution was created by “We the People” which are living. Thus the Supreme court, the only court created by the constitution (we the people), is the only court (judicial).

We the People > Constitution (dead) > Supreme Court
Thus \------------------------------->/

Congress can create inferior “courts”(tribunals). (In this treatise they will be called tribunals.) Congress IS living so it CAN create. Tribunals are separated from We the People. We have found cases that state that Constitutionally created courts are judicial and congressionally created tribunals are administrative. The first can handle only judicial matters, the second only administrative.

We the People > Constitution > Congress (living) > inferior tribunals
Thus \ --------------------||||||||| \----------->/

A living entity between you and where you want to go breaks the chain. You must go through via the interceded living entity.
Defendant > attorney > tribunal
Man > YeHoSHua > YaHWaH

The creator has every right to determine how some one interacts with his creation. You want to play with my (congress’s) tribunal…get an attorney. We the people gave congress the ability to create these tribunals and thus shot ourselves in the foot.

Who “administers” what congress creates? The president or governor!
Congress creates the department of housing > president administers HUD. Etc.

A while back I read an item that said only the president can overturn a sentence. “Presidential pardon”.

Quote: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in ‘one supreme Court’,…” Notice that the court is NOT given a title or name other than “Court”. Let’s the look at the web site: It claims it is the “Supreme Court of the United States”. A title or name! Is there any reason that congress could not create an inferior tribunal and tag it “Supreme Court of the United States”? I think not. This goes along with something Gene said about the real supreme Court being on the second floor of the supreme court building. So how do the justices avoid or accomplish whatever they want? One case we had was administrative and they didn’t want to touch it. So they put on their court hats. When there are administrative cases they do want, they put on their tribunal hats. How can they overturn a case in tribunal…delegated authority! They WORK for the president!

Same with the states.
Prof. Jim

So what we see that is allegedly called the Government/Courts is bogus, because only living things can create, and there is some necrophilia going on...

Right?

HB

All who can, please, explain why we are all considered guilty in civil court. All who can, please, explain, the differences between local, supreme, inferior, higher, civil, criminal, and common courts.

And someone, PLEASE, explain why is so difficult to reach a common law court and what we can do to reach one to hear our cases.

Call your local BAR and they will take offense if you mention your need for some common law help. They will insist you need a lawyer and will also tell you the word BAR means `the name of the association for lawyers´. I called them up and told them my dictionnary says a BAR is a place where people go, meet and can have one or more alcoholic dreams. The person on the phone insisted on this: the letter B,A,and R or BAR do not stand for anything different. BAR happens to ba a name like JOHN or MARY, he said. I wonder if one of our member has some cites or docs on the contrary.

[weishaupt1776]

The thing is, how do you invoke the proper venue when they are attempting to shade over it w/the pretense?

What are the mechanisms towards invoking admin. or jud.?

There was the thing about the Oath of Office being judicially noticed, but I am not sure if that is conjecture.

[2501]

Amendment VII (1791)

In suits at common law, where the valu in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.



Amendment VIII (1791)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.



Amendment IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Article I Section 8. Clause 9

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;






Article III Section 1.

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. 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.

[2501]

Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure


*II. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS

Rule 4. Summons

(a) Form.

The summons shall be signed by the clerk, bear the seal of the court, identify the court and the parties, be directed to the defendant, and state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or, if unrepresented, of the plaintiff. It shall also state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend, and notify the defendant that failure to do so will result in a judgment by default against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint. The court may allow a summons to be amended.

*(b) Issuance.

Upon or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. If the summons is in proper form, the clerk shall sign, seal, and issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant. A summons, or a copy of the summons if addressed to multiple defendants, shall be issued for each defendant to be served.

*

*VI. TRIALS

Rule 38. Jury Trial of Right

(a) Right Preserved.

The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.

(b) Demand.

Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by (1) serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the issue, and (2) filing the demand as required by Rule 5(d) . Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.

(c) Same: Specification of Issues.

In the demand a party may specify the issues which the party wishes so tried; otherwise the party shall be deemed to have demanded trial by jury for all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded trial by jury for only some of the issues, any other party within 10 days after service of the demand or such lesser time as the court may order, may serve a demand for trial by jury of any other or all of the issues of fact in the action.

(d) Waiver.

The failure of a party to serve and file a demand as required by this rule constitutes a waiver by the party of trial by jury. A demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties.

(e) Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

These rules shall not be construed to create a right to trial by jury of the issues in an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h) .

**

Rule 39. Trial by Jury or by the Court

(a) By Jury.

When trial by jury has been demanded as provided in Rule 38 , the action shall be designated upon the docket as a jury action. The trial of all issues so demanded shall be by jury, unless (1) the parties or their attorneys of record, by written stipulation filed with the court or by an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in the record, consent to trial by the court sitting without a jury or (2) the court upon motion or of its own initiative finds that a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States.

(b) By the Court.

Issues not demanded for trial by jury as provided in Rule 38 shall be tried by the court; but, notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues.

(c) Advisory Jury and Trial by Consent.

In all actions not triable of right by a jury the court upon motion or of its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury or, except in actions against the United States when a statute of the United States provides for trial without a jury, the court, with the consent of both parties, may order a trial with a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if trial by jury had been a matter of right.

*

*VII. JUDGMENT

*Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order

*(a) Clerical Mistakes.

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

*(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc.

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., Sec.1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.

[weishaupt1776]

thanks 2501. A most concise & logical info stream

I need to dig in

[2501]

United States Code - Selected Sections

United States Code

TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART V - PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 115 - EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY

*Sec. 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permittedto be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

[2501]

Department of Justice ***USAM ***United States Attorneys Manual

Title 9* *Criminal Resource Manual

CAPITOL LETTERS ADDED BY me

*670 Maritime Jurisdiction

Section 7 of Title 18 provides that the "special territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States" includes:

(1)*** The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, ANY FEDERAL ZONED NOTED BY ZIP CODE and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

NOTICE: WORDING United States or any citizen thereof

Until recently the term "high seas" was always understood as intending the open and unenclosed waters of the sea beginning at low-water mark. In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 471 (1891); Murray v. Hildreth, 61 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1932); see also United States v. Rodgers, 150 U.S. 249 (1893) (Great Lakes). Although it has become common of late to use the term to describe waters beyond a marginal belt or "territorial sea" over which a nation claims special rights, see, e.g., United States v. Louisiana, (Louisiana Boundary Case), 394 U.S. 11, 22-23 (1969); United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 832 (1979), the classic definition, contemporaneous with this statute's development, is the correct one. The territorial sea was extended from 3 to 12 nautical miles by Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.

The words of limitation "and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State," that appear in section 7(1) do not qualify the "high seas" jurisdiction, but only the "other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States." See Hoopengarner v. United States, 270 F.2d 465, 470 (6th Cir. 1959); Murray v. Hildreth, 61 F.2d 483; see also United States v. Rodgers, 150 U.S. at 265-66. Accordingly, the fact that a state fixes its boundary beyond the low-water mark and claims jurisdiction over the marginal sea, while relevant to venue, is immaterial to Federal jurisdiction. See Murray v. Hildreth, 61 F.2d 483. Although states' rights to exercise authority over the marginal sea developed more slowly than the law governing the jurisdiction of the Federal government over the marginal sea, see United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 32-35 (1946), it cannot be doubted that a state may exercise jurisdiction over the marginal portion of the ocean, provided there is no conflict with Federal law or the rights of foreign nations. See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69 (1941). Indeed, a state may, subject to the same limitations, enforce its laws upon its citizens and registered vessels on the high seas beyond its territorial waters. Id. at 77. It is usually the policy of the Department to defer to a state when it is prepared to undertake prosecution of conduct violative of both state and Federal law.

UNLESS THE STATE IS BANKRUPT OR PLEDGE TO THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Despite the apparent universal application of the term "high seas," it was early held that, as a general rule, Federal criminal jurisdiction does not attach to offenses committed by and against foreigners on foreign vessels. See United States v. Holmes, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 412 (1890); United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 281, 288 (1818). See, however, 18 U.S.C. § 7(8). The Convention on the High Seas to which the United States is a party, purports to give the flag state exclusive jurisdiction over its vessels on the high seas. However, the Convention has been held not to be self-executing with the result that it does not confer on defendants the right to complain of arrests, searches and seizures made without consent of the flag state or any subsequent trial. United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862, 873 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 832 (1979).

The limitation on Federal jurisdiction when the offense takes place on a river or harbor within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the United States but not "out of the jurisdiction of a particular State," applies to offenses by naval personnel on naval vessels. See United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818).

"State" in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 7(1) means "State of the United States." Thus, there is Federal jurisdiction under this provision for offenses committed on American vessels in the territorial waters, harbors and inland waterways of foreign nations. See United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 (1933). The port nation may also have jurisdiction if the offense disturbs its peace. Id. at 157-59.

Vessels have the nationality of the country where they are registered and whose flag they have a right to fly. See United States v. Arra, 630 F.2d 836 (1st Cir. 1980). See United States v. Ross, 439 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1015 (1972), for methods of proving nationality. Note that under 18 U.S.C. § 7(1) Federal jurisdiction attaches if the vessel is even partially owned by a citizen of the United States. See United States v. Keller, 451 F. Supp. 631, 636-37 (D.P.R. 1978), aff'd on other grounds, sub nom United States v. Arra, 630 F.2d 836 (1st Cir.1980).

Venue for maritime offenses committed "out of the jurisdiction of a particular State" is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3238. See United States v. Ross, 439 F.2d at 1358-59. Where the offense occurred within the boundaries of a state, venue lies there. See United States v. Peterson, 64 F. 145 (E.D.Wis. 1894).

Federal prosecution may not be undertaken following a state prosecution for the same conduct without authorization of the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division as provided by USAM 9-2.031 (Petite Policy). Prosecution should not be undertaken following a foreign prosecution unless substantial Federal interests were left unvindicated.** SUCH AS ANY TAX.

*CAPITOL LETTERS ADDED BY me

*October 1997** Criminal Resource Manual 670