Article III courts

[Ice]

FOUND THIS IN TITLE 28

These various provisions do not in terms describe the same courts. In congressional usage the phrase “district courts of the United States,” without further qualification, traditionally has included the district courts established by Congress in the states under Article III of the Constitution, which are “constitutional” courts, and has not included the territorial courts created under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which are “legislative” courts. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 21 L.Ed. 966 (1873). However, any doubt as to the inclusion of the District Court for the District of Columbia in the phrase is laid at rest by the provisions of the Judicial Code constituting the judicial districts, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 81 et seq. creating district courts therein, Id. Sec. 132, and specifically providing that the term “district court of the United States” means the courts so constituted. Id. Sec. 451. The District of Columbia is included. Id. Sec. 88. Moreover, when these provisions were enacted, reference to the District of Columbia was deleted from the original civil rules enabling act. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2072. Likewise Puerto Rico is made a district, with a district court, and included in the term. Id. Sec. 119. The question is simply one of the extent of the authority conferred by Congress. With respect to civil rules it seems clearly to include the district courts in the states, the District Court for the District of Columbia, and the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.


-HEAD-
Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action

-STATUTE-
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. Sec. 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 Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is followed. In other respects, those
Rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence may be taken as guides.
3. The initial pleading shall be preceded by a motion for leave
to file, and may be accompanied by a brief in support of the
motion. Forty copies of each document shall be filed, with proof
of service. Service shall be as required by Rule 29, except that
when an adverse party is a State, service shall be made on both the
Governor and the Attorney General of that State.
4. The case will be placed on the docket when the motion for
leave to file and the initial pleading are filed with the Clerk.
The Rule 38(a) docket fee shall be paid at that time.
5. No more than 60 days after receiving the motion for leave to
file and the initial pleading, an adverse party shall file 40
copies of any brief in opposition to the motion, with proof of
service as required by Rule 29. The Clerk will distribute the filed
documents to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an
express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if
no waiver or brief is filed, upon the expiration of the time
allowed for filing. If a brief in opposition is timely filed, the
Clerk will distribute the filed documents to the Court for its
consideration no less than 10 days after the brief in opposition is
filed. A reply brief may be filed, but consideration of the case
will not be deferred pending its receipt. The Court thereafter may
grant or deny the motion, set it for oral argument, direct that
additional documents be filed, or require that other proceedings be
conducted.
6. A summons issued out of this Court shall be served on the
defendant 60 days before the return day specified therein. If the
defendant does not respond by the return day, the plaintiff may
proceed ex parte.
7. Process against a State issued out of this Court shall be
served on both the Governor and the Attorney General of that State.


1982 - Pub. L. 97-164 designated existing provisions as subsec.
(a), substituted ''sixteen judges who shall constitute a court of
record known as the United States Claims Court'' for ''a chief
judge and six associate judges who shall constitute a court of
record known as the United States Court of Claims'' and ''The court
is declared to be a court established under article I of the
Constitution of the United States'' for ''Such court is hereby
declared to be a court established under article III of the
Constitution of the United States'' in subsec. (a) as so
designated, and added subsec. (b). [ I thought this was interesting ].


-HEAD-
Sec. 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction

-STATUTE-
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly
provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which
the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts
shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are
so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such
supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the
joinder or intervention of additional parties.
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title,
the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under
subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made
parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as
plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as
plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent
with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if -
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.
(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under
subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is
voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of
the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is
pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless
State law provides for a longer tolling period.
(e) As used in this section, the term ''State'' includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any
territory or possession of the United States.

So, can someone demonstrate that there are NO ARTICLE III courts??

Ice

[weishaupt1776]

So is Art III invoked only through a 3 judge or in admiralty?

A few years ago I heard rumor that there existed a true "district court for the united states" in D.C.

I took the rule book with me and traveled to D.C., walked into the clerk's office pointed out Title 28, sec. 88 and informed the clerk that I want to file in this venue & jurisdiction.

After a couple of hours of getting the run around, I then took a walk over to the Supreme Court for the United States. Went up to the clerk's office and began explaining to some idiot clerk that I just wanted to follow the law & rules for filing my petition.

Shortly thereafter there were several security person(s) that showed up to escort me out of the building.

If this District Court does exist (and I believe it does) the Bar Association has paid well to hide the contents in Westlaw publications of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by changing the Historical & Statutory Notes and Phraseology over the years.

Note:

I have actually had Article I Judges claim Article III authority which is a criminal offense punishable by death, and sit back in their bench and laugh while presenting summary dismissal.

Go figure...?

I can demonstrate, in my own case, where there does not "appear" to be an article III judiciary, but keeping in mind the axiomatic principle of :

That which is not possessed cannot be granted. [if the people didn't have the power to be their own court, they couldn't have granted that power to another]

As Prof Jim says, just because I gave you the power doesn't mean that I gave up the right to do it myself, if you refused.

Also see the X amendment, and the Declaration of Independence.

I, for one, do not consent to being governed by a tyrannical whorehouse.



Henry Franklin

P.S. In other words, piss on "lawyers in dresses."

[Ice]

And the place to go to get "your" courts judgment would be the court of claims which is bound to enforce your judgment in order to uphold their oath to protect your rights. Let me explain by sharing some of my responses to PM's from another member:

The federal court of claims is where an "alien" does his business in the U.S. Read Title 28 and you'll see that, because the "common law" is "foreign" to the U.S. just as you are "foreign" to the U.S. -- that is where you need to be.

It is simple if you look at it from the proper perspective. The court of claims is the court in which "aliens" of the U.S. seek remedy... it is also the court in which laws that are not of the U.S. are used. Therefore, anyone that is a state national and NOT a U.S. citizen (an alien) making use of common law, which is NOT U.S. law, has proper venue in the court of claims.

I am NOT a U.S. citizen even though I was born in Indiana and live and work within Indiana. I am an "alien" to the U.S. I can make use of the court of claims. Because my venue is "common law" and the U.S. is "statutory" -- which the Sovereign is NOT subject to -- I can use the court of claims.

Check this out: You get a private remedy -- a default -- in your favor. The company is considered a 'U.S.' citizen (person - created under statutory law). To enforce your default you go to the court of claims. Your default was gained via "common law" which is alien to U.S. (statutory) law.

Your questions about the court are answered in Title 28. [It is in D.C., but can be held in other places at other times... check it in the code].

Defaults -- haven't you ever given someone a certain amount of time to respond to you... when they don't it is a default -- that is what you can get upheld in the court of claims. YOUR LAW is "foreign" to the "United States". Get it? You are Sovereign and therefore You make your own law... the same way a Sovereign state has its own law. (If you have ever researched private admin process ... then you have seen a default [Notice of default and opportunity to Cure is followed by a "Default"]).

Now, as far as the "common law" court is concerned, any judgment from a common law court can be presented in the court of claims as a judgment from a foreign jurisdiction and you will use that court to force the "U.S." to do its job and protect "your law" (as I explained that above). The U.S. is under contract and oath to protect and defend your law (your rights).

Am I making sense yet?

Well, does that make sense?

Ice

[David Merrill]

I drafted remedy last night for a woman back East and altered the header from "United States District Court" to "In the district courts of the United States". I will let you know if there is any significant effect.

I have always discarded the argument as nonsense because the U.S. clerks will side with the Tenth Circuit opinion it is "poppy****" (image below). One suitor, well informed, says the only two Article III courts extant are in Hawaii and Washington D.C. and neither of those has any Article III judges.

Suitors upon filing are directed to ask, "Is this an Article III judge?", upon judge assignment. The clerk always answers, "Yes." This lie is utilized for the transfer of authority to the suitor (in lieu of the 1933 bankruptcy proceedings rendering forfeiture of common law). Therefore the suitor signs and seals the judgment being Article III judge. The judgment is filed in common law (county clerk) under that same header "United States District Court". So I doubt in a few weeks this new suitor will see any results under the header "In the district courts of the United States". But I may be surprised.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Ice]

I have used "in the district court for the united States of America" and it is ignored.

But, if they respond in writing with "United States District Court" header -- they have "changed" courts -- haven't they?

Ice

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Ice

I have used "in the district court for the united States of America" and it is ignored.

But, if they respond in writing with "United States District Court" header -- they have "changed" courts -- haven't they?

Ice

No. They have corrected the name of the court where you filed papers.

I (at this point) have determined the nomenclature is secondary if not worthless. The districts were formed for specific purposes; one of which was to handle the obligations made by the new United States (August of 1790). It is the key word district that is the District of Columbia as a fictional overlay in the States.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._districts.jpg

It is crucial in understanding remedy that to set up the districts in the states, Congress had to protect our (people's) remedy:

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...rs/Suitors.gif

Which is to say, the 'savings to suitors' clause of 1789 is the first citation in a proper Libel of Review (admiralty).


Regards,

David Merrill.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
What comes to mind for whatever reason is the notion that a superior court communicating a lower court would issue a writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition to the lower court rather than move the lower court in its own heading. See perhaps also: letter rogatory. Might "Savings to Suitors" be cognizant of this somehow?

[Ice]

Here's a question:

If you can "invoke" an admiralty court why can't you "invoke" an Article III court?

Simple question. It requires a simple answer.

Claiming that there are no Article III courts will not be considered a response. "Invoking" a court is telling a judge under what authority he is to act. And, if ya'll will recall, Judges are required to take Oath. I don't see that they have an "out".

They can call the court whatever they want. But a judge is still a judge and he works for the Sovereign People.