Here it is - EVERYONE should keep this - it could save you - it WORKS, we have used it in court many times and if used properly it will back a raging dragon judge right back down in his chair docile....... believe me it is not easy to do that ..... "KNOW RIGHTS OR NO RIGHTS" William Mayhar How to Respond to Contempt of Court, Judicial Attack
We cringe for people going into court, dealing with the "sons of vipers, offspring of serpents" in these outlaw courts today. So many people write to us and call us, as they are being rendered in the money machine every day, liquidated to the Funding Streams for the elite. The rendering is in the PROCESS and most people do not have experience to understand or recognize corrupt process when they are in the middle of it.
Attorneys do - they created it and don't let everyone in on the "secret" (wink wink) while you and your children are destroyed. To help all the people in courts right now who are discovering Sui Juris process and going in without attorneys, they need to know what to say when the judge turns into a raging dragon because they dared to ask a question or try to make the record, and to help keep from being arrested. These tools in particular are used and shared with many thanks to our friends Milt and Darlene Mitcheck, who were the researchers behind the "Vultures" compilations that exposed the false judicial oaths in Oregon in September 2001, Research that can be also found at our website www.avoiceforchildren.com.
If you know the right words, they back down right now - they may still have you arrested, but you have said the right words on the record to descredit him in his contemptuous acts against you, and you will use this record in any appeal or future hearings as you go. The main thing is you DISCREDIT HIM and IMPEACH HIM IN HIS OWN COURTROOM if you say the right things. This can be used in any court in any setting, at any level, all the same basic process. I think in any country, with slight variations.
Sui Juris process is simple and common law, as "any reasonable people would understand" and bridges all forms of courts or dealing with public authorities. One of the main TOOLS they use to arrest you in a courtroom is "CONTEMPT OF COURT". Contempt is an instant six months in jail or a year sentence, potentially that is what you face. They use this for any or no reason, mainly for intimidation, and this is where they will (have already) use a stun belt or gun on a defendant who "irritates" the court asking for our rights.
When they do this to you, and it happens so fast it makes your head spin, if you have this written down, and can keep your wits about you enough to remember to say it, (you should practice it ! It is THAT important !) here is what you say: "IS THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT JUDGE?" (You wait for a response on the record - do not talk until he answers and if they pause this LONG pause is on the record that he cannot answer you - the silence of a witness answering a question is an admission of truth in a court record and the longer the pause the better.
All you want on the record is to make them COMMIT and then you go on, and now you have them caught in the permanent record)
If he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT" - you say "WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, WHAT IS THE CRIME AND WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?" and wait again as long as it takes for him to say something.
If he says "CIVIL CONTEMPT" you say "WHERE IS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND YOU? I DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT", JUDGE. NOW you have him acting CRIMINALLY OUTSIDE OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION AND OUT OF IMMUNITY in his own courtroom on the record and heres why. In civil court, EVERYTHING is a CONTRACT and nothing can be done that is not a form of a contract. And ONLY HUMANS CAN LAWFULY CONTRACT. Every citation, money exchange, order, anything at all is an exchange - a contract - between two humans. The constitution is a contract with the Children of a Creator with Inherent Rights and the Constitutionally Sovereign People in the state, bonded by the JUDICIAL OATH - their contract.
Anyway, when you say to him "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" he KNOWS he does not have a contract with you and if you have committed no crime he has no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - he is OUT of his lawful jurisdiction and OUT of his IMMUNITY.
Now, if he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT", like one judge did to me, judge Robert Walberg, with no lawful oath by the way, he made a FOOL of himself ! He said "IF YOU ASK THAT AGAIN I AM HOLDING YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT" I said "IS THAT CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CONTEMPT WALBERG?" and he raged and said CRIMINAL'. I said "WHAT CRIME HAVE I COMMITTED AND WHO MAKES THE CLAIM? WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?' He went nuts and started yelling "THE STATE OF OREGON", "THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM", "THE COURT"..... I said "YOU KNOW THAT ONLY A HUMAN CAN MAKE A CLAIM AND THERE IS NO CRIME AND NO INJURED PARTY - YOU KNOW THAT THE STATE OF OREGON CANNOT MAKE A CLAIM" he backed down and sat there red faced (he had already arrested me about three times for speaking before this contempt attempt) and it shut him down.
This was on the third day of the battle in his courtroom/sham jury trial last January - so after this confrontation backed him down he sat WAY BACK in his chair for three hours and let me make the record, while the jury waited in the back. MAKING THE RECORD WAS MY ONLY GOAL ANYWAY TO UPDATE THE RECORD IN OUR CASE.
Unfortunately for us, the juries do not understand anything at all, and these confrontations scare them, so all the knowledge of court process and higher law goes right over their heads and they do EXACTLY what the judge LETS them do by the way he manipulates the instructions. This judge held his finger to his upper lip and looked like a cadaver for three hours, listening to the record of the crimes of our evidence against the state and his own treason as I outlined what has happened. That is how you make the Record.
You have to use another trick called "OFFER OF PROOF". When they fight you and attack you, and rage, and say you cant say anything in front of the jury, and the DA interrupt literally EVERY sentence to stop you from speaking for days (I have gone through this !)... you tell the judge "I AM GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF FOR MY APPEAL". He sometimes will go in the back room altogether and leave the record on, or he will sit way back and listen while you make the record of your facts without the jury present.
Another trick process word is "OFFER INTO EVIDENCE" they will let you go around for days and be denied because you don't say it that way ...... they are insane, but if you do use their words they know that they have to acknowledge that this is their process and they use it so you have to be able to use it too.
Another important phrase to use is RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. After going around with them to a certain point and being blocked at all points, you say 'ARE YOU TRYING TO RUSH ME TO JUDGEMENT?" WOW - it works - boy they sit back so fast and shut up you would not believe - you would think they were shot -supposedly four times in a hearing saying that gets a reversal, but with us they don't give us anything, so I am not sure. But it is an important TOOL, you say this and it means they are preventing you from putting on your evidence as a lawful court and judicial due process requires, and for you to say this as they are doing it is like shooting them in their chair.
I hope people will write these things down in front of them when they are terrified in court - everyone is terrified in the court, even the attorneys, especially when you are bringing truth of this magnitude in there - we say where the truth meets the lie there is fallout - like a neutron bomb, you definitely stir up the hornest nest when you speak the truth in their courtrooms.
The rest of the Process for the People to Access the Courts is in the book we wrote. We learned these tools more recently and they are an "addition" to the information in the Sui Juris Book. This is what REALLY happens when you are in there, not what we think will happen or hope will happen.
And learning these tools, you are prepared to meet this present evil face to face.
If you are not in court, save this information and pass it on to friends who need it ...
Remedy and Recourse
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code they will show you a tremendous shelf completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the U.C.C. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
Remedy
"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!", the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: "THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN." You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say...
"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4)." This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1.207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature, you are saying, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.
Recourse
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)
This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to 'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, "Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?"
Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination." Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.
JAILS, PRISONS, BONDS
Research explaining how living souls are made prisoners for the making of Billions of Dollars for the slave making Governments and their Banking henchmen through incarcerations.
I do not know for sure who wrote this but it looks to be right on the money in most cases and I recommend some Texians trapped in these dungeons on the land of Texas try this.
Gxxx is investigating more into the criminal jail/prosecution aspects. The results are incredible. His strawman is currently on probation from activities that were the result of Cxxxx prosecution of 17 to 18 people who were attempting to help patriots to buy Cadillacs. He was put in jail for a year, then a half way house. He's been researching admiralty. When he was ready to leave the half way house he was caught on the computer creating a bill of exchange and the guards and matrons thought it was criminal activity so they jerked him back into jail for violating his probation for putting a blank bill of exchange. Jxxx had advised him that he had to quit fighting these people or he'd be in dishonor under admiralty and he had to keep raising questions rather than fighting and denying the charges. He was only in jail about 4 or 5 days and when they tried to interrogate him to get him ready for his hearing where the judge would eventually put him back into prison. He started using the correct tactic of accepting and asking questions. He got the prosecutor (assistant) to throw up her hands and scream he was too smart for her, to just get out. He's been in a half way house since May.
The last time he had a probation hearing with his officer in Cxxxx, he'd gone to the meeting personally. Before he went, he'd written a letter to her, the judge, the prosecutor, and others, and said that he requested that they deliver to him the bonds from CUSIP (Committee on uniform securities identification procedures (CUSIP) - the committee that assigns the numbers to securities for identification, usually bonds. ... Glossary: CUSIP. Committee on uniform securities identification procedures (CUSIP) - the committee that assigns ... (www.speculativebubble.com/terms/cusip.shtml) which were being used to underwrite his time in prison and his time on probation. He wanted them to deliver the bonds being held by CUSIP and other government agencies so he could accept them for settlement and closure. When he went to his probation officer meeting he was disappointed because his probation officer wasn't there to meet with him. He filled out a form and left. It seems that no one wants to talk with him or meet with him now that he's asked for the CUSIP bonds so he can settle and close the bonds.
CUSIP is an acronym. Gxxx is telling us that all criminal prosecution is for the purpose for raising revenue for the United States of America and he'll tell us who that is. Now you'll have a better understanding of why people are in jail, why they are in prison, why they are on probation and why they are charged with everything from jaywalking on up through murder one. Jack further heard from others researching, and Gxxx is also saying that every American soldier who dies in Afghanistan and Iraq probably carries a $10 million life insurance on him carried by our government. After all, every soldier, marine, or air force person is an asset to the United States of America. They have a huge investment in that particular soldier and his activity and it can explain why it is that the US is not so anxious to withdraw its troops from that area. It's a money making activity and they don't want to talk about the fact that they are making money on death and that they are making money the incarceration and imprisonment on otherwise good hearted people.
Gxxx: The key to finding out what you want on the Internet knows how to put it into the computer. If you put the right information in there, you get the right answer. He's been finding out who the investor is the 144 holders. They have a rule called the 144 holder. The rule is that they can't sell private investment securities that are not registered. The rule prohibits them from selling the prison bonds. They have to wait 6 months before they can sell a certain quantity of private securities without being registered, selling them as private securities. Basically there are 8 people on the board of directors of CCA (Corrections Corporation of America (www.correctionscorp.com)-Joseph E. Russell, the top holder, and John M Ferguson. Russell owns 64,000 shares of CCA stock which is worth about $70 million. Ferguson owns 34,000 shares valued at about $37 million.
Fidelity Management and Research is the top stock holder, the top investment firm that is selling the bonds as investment securities. They pool them and sell them as mortgage backed securities. They also when they pool them, they sell them as mutual funds on the stock market. By pooling you mean the securities on the inmates. What they are doing is they are actually taking the mortgage backed securities, which are really bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds. They pool these bonds and when they pool them together they call them mortgage backed securities. They take these to TBA which is the Bond Market Association. It's an actual market for bonds. Anytime a bond is issued there has to be an underwriter. The bonds have to be underwritten. Bonds that are issued have to be indemnified so there has to be surety (spelling?) to indemnify the bonds. The brokerage houses and the insurance companies indemnify the bonds. They're called surety companies.
After the surety companies indemnify the bonds, which are underwriting them, they do this through an investment banker or the banks themselves do this. They job it out to them. They buy up all these shares and turn around and sell them as investment securities. The shares represent the stock which represents the account of CCA. All of this has been funneled through CCA, the Corrections Corporation of America. What they are doing is selling stock in the prison system by selling the prisoners' accounts as securities through the securities exchange. They are making huge amounts of money off it. They privatize the prisoners' accounts and bring all these investors in and what they are doing is underwriting all these prisoner's accounts (bonds). This is after the surety company guarantees the bonds. Then they are underwritten through an investment bank or banker. Then they are put out on the market and resold to the public. In other words the banks are buying up all the shares and then they resell them as investment securities to the public. The public then buys them as mutual funds or they can buy them as debt instruments, equity instruments.
What they are really doing is they are buying up debt instrument. They are using the fiscal accounting cycle of accrual and they sell the prisoner's 'capital and interest' as it is called in accrual accounting. They resell these to the public because the prisoner did not do full settlement and closure on the account. They sell the prisoner accounts as a commercial dishonor and sell it to the public as a commercial dishonor.
When you go in the courts they always say they are operating under a statute jurisdiction. The Black's Law Dictionary 4th edition says a statute is a bond or obligation of record. That's what all the criminal statutes are........bonds or obligation of record. Go in and read the definition of a recognizance bond and you find that it is a bond or obligation of record. They are selling bonds. They are charging prisoners under a bond; the prisoner signs the bond and the bond becomes the agreement for the payback. This is done when the prisoner signs the final court papers at a sentencing hearing.
Jxxx: how many of us remember when our government attempted to finance from the private sector the Second World War. Weren't they selling war bonds? They were soaking up the people's equity in terms of buying bonds, transferring your funds to the government. The government by purchasing those bonds was promising to pay you back your investment at sometime in the future with interest. At that time what they were collecting from the people was their so-called cash equity. What Gene saying now is that people have gotten too poor, too stingy and too smart to buy bonds to finance the government? How long has it been since you heard the Post Office or anyone trying to get you down to buy US savings bonds?
So what they are doing now instead of getting us to voluntarily give our cash equity to the government for a promise to be paid back in the future, they are securing from us some violation of a statute by which the law ascribes from us a penalty; i.e., the payment of a sum of money due. Instead of collecting the cash from us, they put us through a criminal procedure where we dishonor the system and what Gene said is what is happening is they are selling our capital and our interest. In other words, they are selling the liability you had in whatever charge has been brought against your straw man. They are taking that capital and interest that you should pay and are grabbing that from us and selling it on the open market to bankers and investors to transfer their funds to government which is covered by the bond of the violation of your straw man of that statute. In order to secure the bond the living soul is placed in prison as the surety to back the bond which is financed on the investment of the public market place in terms of the sales of stocks and bonds.
The public doesn't directly bid on my (the prisoner's) debt. Your debt is assumed by the bankers. The bankers issue secondary paper that allows me to invest in what they are holding as the holder in due course of the claim against your straw man. The reason they are doing this is because you dishonored the post settlement procedures for settlement and closure of the account. The prisoner should have come in and accepted and used his exemption. Since the prisoner dishonored the post settlement proceedings, then the prisoner is in dishonor and the issuance of the bonds by the financing system was done in order to pass the punishment on to him because of his inability to fulfill his post settlement objectives.
If you get into to dishonor by non-acceptance, what they are trying to do is get an acceptor which is the same thing as a banker. They need someone to pay off the obligation and if you get into dishonor, they sell your dishonor and put you into prison as the collateral and they sell the bond. The bond is issued and they get a surety to underwrite the bid bond with a performance bond and then they get an underwriter to underwrite the performance and payment bonds. What the performance bond does is it guarantees the bid contract, or the bid bond. What the bid bond does is guarantee the payment of the performance bond. This is done through a surety company. Then they get an underwriter or an investment banker to underwrite it. After it's underwritten, they sell it to the public as investment securities, debt instruments, or mutual backed securities.
It's all done through bonds...bonding. That's what all these municipal bonds are. What they doing is following everything through the prison system. The prison system is being privatized. Through privatization, private enterprise can fund the prison system cheaper than the government can. They are subsidizing everything through privatization.
ALEC does this; the American Legislative Exchange Council, promotes privatization through foundations like the Reason Foundation owned by David Knott. They get the foundations to promote this and get investors to come in. Cornell was merged with Trinity Venture Company which is an investment company. What they did was changing their name to Reid Trinity Venture and then merged with SB Warburg. (Warburg was out of Germany or France and partnered with Rothschild). SB Warburg is in Chicago, Illinois, and they merged with BIF in Switzerland, which is a settlement and closure bank, and the biggest bank in the world for settlements. They are connected to Cornell Company which is owned by David Cornell.
Everyone is tied in. Paine Webber Group is the United States of America and all the big international corporations are the stockholders and own all the stock in CCA. Everyone is using our exemptions on the private side. They filed a 1096 tax return and show it as a prepaid account, as prepaid interest and they returned it back to the prisoner. They took the prisoners deduction for the exemption and they deduct the tax and the IRS bills the prisoner for the tax. So the corporations are stealing your exemption which is your intellectual property. What's wrong with this? They are not telling us what they are doing. It's all commercial. When you go into the court room everything is commercial. Vxxxxx in her seminar says the facts don't matter, the facts are on the moon. What matters is honor and dishonor. The courts have to dishonor the potential prisoner or get that 'person' to argue or get that 'person's' attorney to argue. Just like Martha Stewart. Argue and you're in dishonor and you'll end up in jail.
The attorneys are actors to make us think the whole process is a factual issue. They get us into the guilty/not guilty mode and they get into all the cloak and dagger or what evidence to present. It's a dog and pony show to cover up that they are after the debt money. All corporations work on a fiscal accounting year which means that they spend debt. They can't get rid of the debt and balance the books unless they run it through our accounts on the private side. We the people run on a calendar year and the corporations run on the fiscal year. They can only balance their books is to run it through our accounts using our exemptions. Then they can do their reverse bookkeeping entry and go to post settlement and closure. They can't do that until the prisoners do the acceptance (if they do it). That what they are looking for in the court room under 3-410 is the acceptor.
That means we are assuming the liability for the debt as the principal. A lot of times with debt the principal is always the primary libellant in the commercial setting. He has to assume the liability and then you get your remedy. Otherwise you don't get a remedy. They sell your account to some corporation while you're sitting in prison.
How many times has government ever had a case against anyone? The attorneys have to attempt to get you to go right into argument and trial and go into dishonor. Axxxx was given documents from Redwood Trust on a mortgage foreclosure. She did a conditional acceptance and she did a heck of a job. She stopped them cold and they took the property off the market. At the end she said if they didn't answer her within 14 days she was going to resort to notorial protest and get remedy for dishonor. She went into the fact that their charter doesn't allow them to loan credit, she wanted to know the name of the company who was the source of the credit, she wanted the name of the account number, she wanted certified copies of the font and back of the promissory note. She was trying to get them to divulge that it was her secured party creditor that was the source of everything they were doing. She was forcing them to admit that it was her promissory note that was the basis of the credit instrument that they loaned and that they had already sold the note to someone else and they didn't have it in their possession. What they do is they sell the notes just as they do when you go into prison. They endorse the note and they no longer the holder of the note. The mortgage company wasn't involved in this process....the attorneys are doing all this. What they are doing is coming to the private side to get the debt without any permission from the mortgage company. IN this case they quoted from the UCC, and it's from Lex Mercatoria, the Law of the Merchant.
If you read John Hall's book it talks about letter Rogatory, indictments where you are indicted and brought into the court under a warrant. What the warrant is a demand for payment of debt. What they did under admiralty in the court room is they are demanding payment. You sign a bond to be released until the civil complaint is prosecuted and then they release you under the bond until civil bond is prosecuted. If you didn't pay the debt they put you in prison until the debt is paid. They use the same terms in this practice book from 1700. This is an actual practice book. It was written by Courts Practice who worked in the Court of Arches for the Crown as a registrant. This is a private book, not meant for public viewing. It laws out the whole practice of admiralty during the American Revolution.
Hall translated this and put it in put it in district court in Maryland in 1809. This was written in 1692. It's an actual practice. Benedict is not a practice; it gives information about what admiralty is. Admiralty is all debt and it's all civil; it becomes criminal when the prisoner gets a contempt charge when he refuses to pay. They can keep you in jail until you pay the debt. The initial get out of jail bond releases you until you've successfully paid the debt. This book goes into the history and practice of admiralty. It tells how to set the bond, and do court room procedure. The laws haven't changed; the circumstances of the government have changed so admiralty can be applied instead of constitutional law. Warden comes from admiralty-warden of the sea. The warden is the warehouse man who is warehousing all the goods; he's the bailee. The commitment order is your bailment, your contract for the commitment of the goods. Then they put the goods in a warehouse and store them there (prisoners stored in prisons, just like the people stored in the pods in the movie, The Matrix).
§ 3-410. ACCEPTANCE VARYING DRAFT.
(a) If the terms of a drawee's acceptance vary from the terms of the draft as presented, the holder may refuse the acceptance and treat the draft as dishonored. In that case, the drawee may cancel the acceptance.
(b) The terms of a draft are not varied by an acceptance to pay at a particular bank or place in the United States, unless the acceptance states that the draft is to be paid only at that bank or place.
(c) If the holder assents to an acceptance varying the terms of a draft , the obligation of each drawer and indorser that does not expressly assent to the acceptance is discharged.
1) "Acceptor" means a drawee who has accepted a draft.
(2) "Drawee" means a person ordered in a draft to make payment.
(3) "Drawer" means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering payment.
(4) [reserved]
(5) "Maker" means a person who signs or is identified in a note as a person undertaking to pay.
(a) "Acceptance" means the drawee's signed agreement to pay a draft as presented. It must be written on the draft and may consist of the drawee's signature alone. Acceptance may be made at any time and becomes effective when notification pursuant to instructions is given or the accepted draft is delivered for the purpose of giving rights on the acceptance to any person.
(b) A draft may be accepted although it has not been signed by the drawer , is otherwise incomplete, is overdue, or has been dishonored.
(c) If a draft is payable at a fixed period after sight and the acceptor fails to date the acceptance, the holder may complete the acceptance by supplying a date in good faith.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:
(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;
(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and
(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.
(b) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.
(c) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (a), except paragraph (1), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (f) is a negotiable instrument and a check.
(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.
(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order . If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.
Tenth Day of the Eleventh Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Four
Surrey Tax Centre
9755 King George Highway
Surrey BC V3T 5E1
Dear N Nothing,
A letter you wrote seems to be confusing me. It is addressed to a person of whom I am not. I am known to others as Dallas Houston and I am a man that was created by God Almighty and not to be identified as DALLAS F HOUSTON a creation of the state as found in vital statistics. So in regards to your letter I assume you would like a response for the state created person DALLAS F HOUSTON.
Well, I have a dilemma with that as then I could be held liable for answering to a matter that belongs to the state of which I have no part. I would suggest that you should really address this matter to the vital statistics office of the state. In their vault is where DALLAS F HOUSTON resides. With that being said I doubt that DALLAS F HOUSTON a name on a piece of paper could walk, talk or fart let alone answer your letter. You see N Nothing if you would like me to respond for the person created by the state I need some assurances first, as I am sure you should understand. If you don't understand that is your problem as ignorance is no excuse and that would belong to you.
I will honor your request providing you accept my terms and conditions for accepting your offer to contract with me, the man, Dallas Houston. You will have to provide me written assurance of indemnification that in the event I, the man, am damaged by any assessment for the person named DALLAS F HOUSTON that I would have access to an insurance policy of, say, about 10,000,000.00 dollars. This should cover any liability for committing fraud by responding on behalf of the name DALLAS F HOUSTON created and owned by the state. Also, since I don’t have permission to use a copyrighted act such as the income tax act I could be held liable for copyright infringement, so you once again would have to indemnify me for any liability in this matter. This would have to be in the form of an insurance policy that states it will cover me to at least a hundred million dollars as I would not wish to be under insured. I am sure you understand what I am saying as if you were in my position you to would want to be cautious also.
Now I have another matter to bring to your attention. I just recently moved to another area in Gods kingdom and I did not bring anything with me except what I needed. I do not have what it is that you requested me to provide. Since your department lost it, don’t you think that’s your problem and you shouldn't expect that I should solve your problems for your department’s incompetence. After all I don’t work for you and I most certainly have never knowingly worked for the person DALLAS F HOUSTON and I see no reason why I should now, do you?
But if you insist that I should honor your request I would consider doing that for you. So here are my terms and conditions for the time that I will spend doing this thing that you would like me to do. I charge 10,000.00 dollars of value, in gold maple leaf form per minute as the gold is substance and so is my time. Once it is given it cannot ever be replaced. My time belongs to my creator God Almighty and that gold will be used to feed the hungry as that is what my Lord has commissioned of me. Also since I am the gold of the creator, my blue ink signature has an unlimited value once given and I would have to have 10,000,000.00 dollars in value of gold for it as it is priceless. This is a one time offer as it is usually quite a bit more.
You can reply to me if you accept my terms and conditions for contracting with you in the next 30 days. If I fail to receive your response I will accept that you have refused and then this matter will be concluded.
May God bless you abundantly, your brother in creation.
Toe print
Dallas Houston
THE MAGIC BULLET
Note: I am in the process of creating a research paper of the Jurisdiction of the United States District Courts. It is offered on the products page. When the research paper is completed and hundreds of pages of statute law complement it, it will be the Magic Bullet many have sought. The Magic Bullet is being provided to you in its present form solely for the purpose of making you aware that the underlying principle of jurisdiction is sound.
The Magic Bullet makes the federal trial courts disappear as Article III judicial bodies. The removal of the “least dangerous branch,” as the federal judiciary has been called, shrinks the federal government to a minor annoyance that arises only when entrance to a national park is sought.
SILVER BULLET?
For those who do not believe in magic I, also, am preparing a Silver Bullet that is based upon the hoopla gay marriage is getting. So far no one, excepting my clients, is aware that gay marriage presents the greatest tax issue since the income tax. Gays are not being denied marriage, for that it available to all consenting humans, they are being denied civil marriages, which are marriages with the state. The final outcome of whatever legal fights that will be fought is that come May 2004 gay couples will be getting legally hitched in Massachusetts. There is a “kicker.” The common law gave validity to all man and wife marriages when the spouses traveled among and between the states. Civil marriages are voluntary relationships formed between married persons and the state for the purpose of providing revenue to the state.
Re: Jurisdiction of United States District Courts
The enclosed or transmitted material has been sent to you by a person that obtained it directly or indirectly from Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, admitted to the practice of law before the California Supreme Court. Dr. Rivera has graciously permitted its dissemination and you may use it for educational purposes provided it is kept intact. The material is not legal advice. It is, however, the result of research of government and law that has engaged Dr. Rivera for over 45 years and is being provided to you for its educational value. Electronic transmissions may be changed and writings altered, so you are cautioned to verify any information upon which you intend to rely.
The Issue:
Dr. Rivera’s research of the United States district courts has established that only the United States district court in Hawaii has been established as an Article III court and all other United States district courts in the remaining states have no Article III judicial power, whatsoever.
The Impact:
1. The failure to understand that federal trial courts must be confined to causes of action that arise under federal territorial law in federal territory causes unnecessary hardship to defendants. The RIAA copyright infringement suits, for example, allege that defendants reside within and commit violations of the copyright laws within the judicial district. It is extremely unlikely that any of the young people that download music live in federal territory and very likely that these suits are frivolous.
2. Ignorance of citizenship and the territorial composition of the federal courts permit federal grand and petit juries to be drawn from outside the federal territory that comprise the district or division. These juries are improperly constituted and without authority. It is highly improbable that members of the grand juries that indicted media personality Martha Stewart or Enron executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, were actual residents of the federal courts’ judicial districts.
3. There are few if any federal crimes that can be committed outside federal territory. Congressional insiders know Congress can punish few acts outside federal territory, so the federal territorial trial courts have been disguised as courts of justice for those who voluntarily submit themselves to federal prosecution. Among others, lawful users of medical marijuana and those who aid and assist them often find themselves federally charged with crimes that do not exist where they were alleged to have occurred.
AN EXPLANATION
The federal government is renowned for its complexity, so it is extremely gratifying to be able to compress an understanding of that government and its law into a couple of sheets. Pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C. of the federal government’s own Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Code book printed by the Government Printing Office are the most important pages of law in the federal government. On those two pages, Congress explains that the territorial composition of the United States district courts is only that area subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress. Did you think that the 50 United States were subject to Congress’s lawmaking power? To answer that I offer a riddle: What country gets smaller the more land you add to it? The United States of America is thought to be a nation/state but it is a confederation of nation/states created by the Articles of Confederation and it consists of the 50 United States. If Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico are combined with the 50 United States, you don’t get a bigger and better United States of America you get the government of the United States and 50 sovereign states. Those odd two pieces of real estate won’t ever combine to form a whole nation/state and that is key to understanding the United States district courts.
The inability to combine the 50 United States, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to form one nation is what explains and gives us the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions found in Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C. In the rest of Chapter 5, Congress explains that only one district court in all of the 50 states, Hawaii, has been established as an Article III judicial court and explains why that court cannot function as a court exercising judicial power. If judicial power is to be exercised in the several states, it will have to be exercised by state courts, because the districts have none. The federal government in the several states will consist of two government powers since the federal courts have not been granted Article III, Section 2 judicial power. While one or two branches of government may be good enough to do government work, it takes all three to lawfully act upon a citizen.
The nature of the complete federal government cannot be understood unless the reader understands all that begins with the caption “CHAPTER 5—DISTRICT COURTS” and ends with the paragraph below: “HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES.” If you were not sent pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C. or if you have trouble reading or printing out these pages, you can also access Title 28 U.S.C. by going to this link. The impatient reader is invited to go there and read first §91 and then examine every other district court to find one ordained and established under Article III.
The federal trial courts are universally but erroneously thought to include all the territory in the counties that comprise districts and divisions of the United States district courts. This perception of the federal trial courts is the result of the quick read encouraged by those who favor a strong, large and powerful federal government. Congress, on pages 42 and 43, must state in its curiously cryptic way that the territorial composition of the district courts is only the federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress because that is true. The statute law that establishes the federal district courts in the several states must confirm that the territorial composition of the district consists only of federal territory or Title 28 U.S.C. could not have been enacted into positive law.
By now, you should have those two pages in front of you, so that you can take a heavy pencil or marker and write the date: January 1, 1945 on each page and circle or highlight Alaska, Hawaii, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Now, you must determine for yourself, what is common to all the place names from Section 81 to 131 that are listed on these two pages. All the facts, including the date January 1, 1945, presented in legislation are important and must be accounted for. You must now write below this paragraph what you think is the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions of the United States district courts that make up the rest of Chapter 5. Remember that your inability to account for all the parts of the whole will make your determination of “territorial composition” faulty. If you wrote that the entire state or all of the county territory constitutes the district, go back and start over.
A wise Greek once said that the best law is discovered, as a gift from God. Statute law, to put it simply, is Godless. Statute law is completely and totally made up by legislators. This and the Constitution is the origin of all the titles of the United States Code. Nothing in these codes is for all time that is why January 1, 1945 is used as a reference to determine those federal areas in the several states subject to the exclusive Legislation of Congress.
Alaska and Hawaii are, today, states of the Union, but were territories on January 1, 1945. Washington D. C. is neither a territory nor a state, but is the product of “Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress” is the seat of government. Although it is treated like a state it is the “District” subject to the exclusive Legislation of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Puerto Rico is today and was on January 1, 1945 a possession of the United States and definitely not a state of the Union. The correct answer to the question: What is the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945, is pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, “all Places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.”
If the reader is having difficulty understanding the significance of “territorial composition,” there is a good reason for that. The federal government doesn’t want it understood. The federal government will even lie in print to cover-up the “territorial composition” of the United States district courts. Several editions of the United States Government Manual available on the web falsely state that the United States district court for Puerto Rico is an Article III court. The court for Hawaii was so established and ordained in 1959, so the “Historical and Revision Notes” §119—Puerto Rico can be compared to §91—Hawaii to resolve the issue. The only territory that is common to both the several states, territory and possessions of the United States is federal territory within each. Those Notes show that the district court judges for Hawaii are to be selected pursuant to §§ 133 and 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., which is territorial law.
Based on no evidence at all, and a big fat lie about the United States district court in Puerto Rico, the entire American legal community is convinced that the federal trial courts in the several states exercise Article III judicial power everywhere within those states. I say, the government has gone too far. I have examined the statute law that created every United States district court and I found only one instance where Congress appeared to ordain and establish an Article III United States district court in any state. In 1959 the Congress created an Article III United States district court for Hawaii but made no provision for Article III judges by specifically precluding the President from appointing them. The Code specifically provides for territorial judges for the Hawaiian Article III court. Title 28 U.S.C.—Judiciary and Judicial Procedure has been enacted into positive law so the Code shows the same kinds of courts as are found in the statutes. Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C.—District Courts consists of Sections 81 through 144. The names of all 50 states of the Union will found from Sections 81 to 131 and in addition in Section 88 will be found the District of Columbia and in Section 119 Puerto Rico.
The nature of the astounding revelations in this letter requires this unique format where facts are presented in support of the proposition that no United States district court in any state of the Union can exercise Article III judicial power, so these facts can be easily challenged. This kind of presentation invites facts that prove the contrary. I will give an example of a fact: Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law. This fact will be supported by material found in the notes to §91.
Those in federal litigation or who are contemplating that exercise should be aware that legal justice is available only from courts that have judicial power. Any litigant in any United States district court in any state of the Union is warned that these courts have no Article III, Section 2 judicial power, whatsoever. The United States district courts of the several states are not judicial courts and the judges that sit in those courts are not Article III judges. Judges of these courts are appointed for life terms but they obtain judicial powers only when appointed to judicial courts with Article III power. The court is the equivalent of an office. An office has power because the officer that occupies that office has duties to exercise in that office. District courts and district court judges of the United States have been mistaken for Article III courts and judges since the Judiciary Act of 1789. The mistaken belief that a court has jurisdiction is sufficient to confer it when everyone is equally mistaken, but that jurisdiction remains what it is and not what it is mistaken to be.
Names are labels and like book covers do a notoriously bad job of identifying contents. Just as a book cannot be accurately judged by its cover, a federal trial court is not accurately described by the name of the state where it is located. The names of the federal trial courts in the several states are labels that are fully explained in the first sentence of the “Historical and Revision Notes” that are part of the law: “Sections 81—131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.” Since the conclusion of the Civil War, the States of the Union are the federal territory within the state and the state officers who have taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Since President’s Day, the Mayor of San Francisco has extended the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to its logical conclusion by permitting same-sex couples to pay a tax in order to obtain an application, license and certificate of marriage just like anyone else. States cannot regulate marriage but like the federal government can tax it by license. The State of California like other opponents of gay marriage is learning that the courts cannot enjoin the collection of a tax, especially one that is voluntary. The right to marry is a human right and human rights are to be secured by government not abridged. Government involvement in marriage is limited to imposing a tax on those who submit to an application process and payment for a license and obtaining a certificate of registration.
The subject matter of Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. is the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945 of the courts named in Sections 81—131 which can only be the areas subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States—federal territory. These areas consist of places like the National Parks, military bases, federal buildings and federal courthouses. Crimes that occur on or in these federal places are federal crimes and the federal courts for the district is the proper forum for trials of those crimes. Article III judicial power is not needed for those courts and those courts are certainly without such power.
There is no room for legalistic interpretations of Chapter 5. On January 1, 1945, the judicial districts of United States district courts had only one thing in common—those judicial districts consisted of federal territory and some admiralty jurisdiction for some coastal courts. Those common characteristic have not changed since then and even if they had the January 1, 1945 date was to be used to reckon the federal territories existing on a given date. The January 1, 1945 date is critical to understanding the United States district courts territorial jurisdiction as consisting of federal territory as of a time in a span of time. The first day of 1945 forces the mind to focus on that which can change within geographical boundaries—federal territory, which can be increased by purchase and consent of the Legislature of the State.
The only legislation, since the first judiciary act on September 24, 1789, to create an Article III United States district court is found in §91 of Title 28 U.S.C. That section documents the change of a territorial court to an Article III court without actually giving the court Article III judicial power. Nothing can be done to change the nature of these courts in the several states without the direct intervention of Congress by legislation. A judge without judicial power can do nothing to change the jurisdiction of the court where he presides. Any litigant or defendant in any federal court proceeding who attempts to have the United States district court consider the issues raised in this letter should be aware that the American Law Institute’s Restatement of Judgments holds that such a litigant is bound by the court’s ruling. A federal judge sitting in a trial court in any United States district court is without judicial power. While such an official can be a life-tenured bureaucrat, such an official cannot be expected to rule other than administratively.
THESE ARE THE FACTS
No United States district court in any state may lawfully exercise Article III court power. The lawful jurisdiction of the federal district court or courts is limited to those places where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. It is also clear that federal judges and federal courts have been used in the past by the federal government to control those persons opposed to the usurpation of power by the national government. The federal courts known as United States District Courts are federal and territorial in that these courts implement administrative law on territory exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States.
United States district courts are being used by Congress primarily to prevent the rendition of law and equity in national courts by masquerading as Article III courts. These courts are incapable of achieving justice because they are not Article III courts. Generally speaking, we have a federal government that consists of a Congress of the United States, a President of the United States and district courts of the United States because there is one in Hawaii and one is Washington D. C.
The true nature of the government of the United States of America is libertarian. Very few of the “Posterity of the People” that ordained and established the Constitution are aware that the loose confederation of state governments that became the United States of America is a true libertarian government.
The purpose of the Constitution was to establish and limit government to the purposes for which it was established. Unfortunately, the Congress has used very effectively the mechanisms in the Constitution to limit the third branch of the national government to the people’s detriment. Congress has intentionally failed or refused to provide Article III courts in the several states.
The present intent of the federal government is to subject citizens of the several states to its administration. Most if not all people who find themselves in a federal court are not aware that court has no Article III judicial power.
Americans do not want to be in federal courts that cannot dispense justice.
For more than 200 years Americans have been subjected to administrative law in courts they believed were dispensing the judicial power of the United States.
Disguised administrative courts are being used to subvert freedom. The federal district courts are administrative, legislative, non-judicial courts that are an extension of any administrative harassment caused by persons claiming to represent the national government.
Individuals appointed to United States district courts are permitted to believe that they are Article III judges because they are appointed for life. These individuals are actually urged by the other two branches of federal government to act like Article III judges.
Article III judicial power imposes self-restraint on judges. Only judges appointed to Article III courts may exercise the judicial power of the United States found in Article III, Section 2. Judicial power imposes restraints on the judges that have it and that serves as some protection from judicial abuse. All justices appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States are genuine Article III judges.
The judges of other than judicial courts, of course, have no constitutional judicial power so they tend to be extremely rigid in the way they administer their “judicial business.” These judges are or can be called territorial, legislative or administrative. The rigidity of the non-judicial court is the result of the tight rein that the Congress maintains over the personnel and business of non-Article III courts to solely achieve congressional purposes.
The Constitution is a limitation on Congress. The Constitution grants to Congress power to create courts by exercising three different powers. At various times in the history of this country Congress has created courts using these various powers under Article I, Article III and Article IV of the Constitution:
1. The Congress shall have power…To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
2. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
3. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
Article III courts would also be limited to a territorial jurisdiction. Based on examination of the statute law that created the various territorial United States district courts throughout the several states, Article III courts would also be of limited federal territorial jurisdiction.
Lawyers and judges must be aware of the true nature of the courts they practice and preside in. Everyone must be made aware that the United States district courts established in California and in 48 other states by United States Statute are not Article III courts.
There should be no confusion as to the difference between Article III courts and those courts that are not Article III courts. Article III district courts are not territorially different from the tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that Congress may constitute pursuant to Article I. Federal courts do not extend their judicial districts beyond federal territory. Article III courts are “territorial courts” that may exercise the judicial power of the United States—Article I and IV courts have no such power.
Congress has established Article III district courts in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The 2 district courts of the United States that were ultimately pronounced ordained and established by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution are the only ones that can exercise the judicial power of the national government.
Lifetime tenure during good behavior is criteria for a judge not criteria for an Article III court. Lifetime tenure fuels the universal presumption in the legal academic community that the federal districts courts are Article III courts and the judges that sit on those courts are Article III judges.
Because Congress can make law locally or nationally, it must be presumed that law enacted by Congress is territorial in scope rather than national, Foley Bros. Inc. v. Filardo 336 U.S. 281(1949), unless a contrary intent is shown in the legislation itself. The legislation creating the district court for Hawaii is a clear example of the presumption and an example of a national legislative intent to create an Article III court.
Combining the district court for Puerto Rico with the other United States District Courts identifies them all as territorial. The federal district courts are found in Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the sections numbered from 81 to 131. Title 28 U.S.C. was enacted into positive law in 1948. The district courts were found in Chapter 5 just as they are today. The districts themselves had not changed from 1911 when they were described as the territory that existed on July 1, 1910. The territory was, for example, the “State of California” which then and now consists of the federal territory within California.
Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. Its inclusion in Chapter 5 and appearance in §119 identifies the “states” in the sections of Chapter 5 as mere labels for the areas of federal territory. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico includes the federal territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. Included, for example, in the “State of California” is the territory of the United States located in the California Republic. Use of the “State of California” facilitates the use of federal law to create a California personal income tax. State of California denotes those special federal places where the United States has jurisdiction.
Congress established the only Article III court for a state of the Union in Hawaii. Hawaii appears in §91 as the only Article III court but that court is qualified as to the way judges are to be appointed to that court. That qualification precludes the exercise of Article III judicial power by any judge appointed to that court. Under the heading for § 91 Hawaii, “Court of the United States; District Judges,” will found, Section 9 (a) of Pub. L. 86-3 which provides that:
“The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, of the Constitution of the United States: Provided, however, that the terms of office of the district judges for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall hold office during good behavior.”
All of Title 28 U.S.C. provides for the territorial government of the United States and nothing of Article III can be put back into it without destroying the entire Title 28 U.S.C. as positive law. In other words, there may be a present belief by all of the state and federal judiciary, all the legal academic community and all the local, state and federal government officials that the United States district courts for the 50 states of the Union are Article III courts, but they are wrong.
Congress prevented the ordination of the Article III it established for Hawaii by denying the court full Article III judges. Congress took a territorial court established by and existing under title 28 and created an Article III district court for Hawaii. It must be noted that the territorial jurisdiction did not change—only the description of the court.
Congress has provided that territorial Title 28 U.S.C. judges be appointed to the United States district court for the district of Hawaii are to be appointed to an Article III court. The district judges for the district of Hawaii are specifically to be appointed by the President pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as officers of the United States but not as judges of an Article III court. These two sections are also to be used in appointing any of 7 judges of the Puerto Rico district should a vacancy occur there. It can be deduced that appointment pursuant to § § 133 and 134 of Title 28, will always produce territorial judges.
The Hawaii judicial district established in § 91 of the Judicial Code of 1948 was a territorial court. Section 9 (a) above clearly indicates that prior to the admission to statehood, the United States District Court of Hawaii was not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution, to administer the judicial power of the United States, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922). In Balzac, Chief Justice William Howard Taft stated that United States District Court for Arecibo, Porto Rico, as Puerto Rico was known then, “created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.”
Puerto Rico is the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and it has not been incorporated into the United States though its inhabitants are United States citizens. The inclusion of Puerto Rico in Chapter 5 as § 119 does not make the district court for Puerto Rico an Article III court because Puerto Rico has not been incorporated into the Union. Puerto Rico fits comfortably among the names of the 50 states because the geographical areas are mini federal territories or federal enclaves.
United States Government people are required to obey the United States Code; it is their duty to obey that law. The government’s law requires the total obedience of government’s officers and employees.
Citizens are not part of government and they are not its subjects. Citizens can impose upon only themselves certain legal duties, if they want. There is only one duty that citizens have that indirectly protects the government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among men” to secure God given rights.
When government attempts to impose duties or obligations on citizens, a duty arises that demands that citizens must investigate and then determine the nature and extent of the authority of every person, group of persons, a grand jury, claiming any authority relationship with any government. As an abstract entity, a government maintains integrity through its agents and employees lawfully interacting with the public. A citizen’s failure to carry out the investigation and determination of authority has grave consequences both for the citizen, his fellow citizens and the government.
Only Hawaii has an Article III district court and that court cannot function as one. No other state has an Article III court. The federal district courts of California fall squarely within the mold of the federal courts of the 49 states that have no Article III district courts. Examination of copies of all the Statute Laws described in the annotations to all the Chapter 5 sections of Title 28 that establish district courts in the states and Hawaii reveals that Hawaii has the only Article III district court.
Citizens have a duty to discover the true authority of those claim government power. The consequences of not investigating and not determining the nature and extent of the authority claimed is that you may have to bear the costs of your failure to do so.
The use of the term, “district courts of the United States” refers to Article III courts. There are no more than two “district courts of the United States.” There is no doubt that the district court for Hawaii is an Article III court—that’s one. The § 88 court for the District of Columbia is another. The Historical and Revision Notes to that section makes it clear that the District of Columbia district court is a constitutional court established and ordained under Article III. The existence of at least two “district courts of the United States” permits the general usage of language that refers to the “district courts of the United States” as Article III courts.
State courts that were already established when the Constitution was ratified were duty bound to obey the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it. Reference to the Judiciary Act of 1789 clarified and substantiated that no Article III district courts had been created in the several states pursuant to that law.
The federal trial courts during the period of the Judiciary Act of 1789 were manned by two United States Supreme Court justices riding circuit and the district judge for the district. Districts were created for territories that by the date of enactment, September 24, 1789 had not yet ratified the Constitution because, of course, they were not states. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until after enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789. District courts created under that act could not have been created under Article III.
Grand and petit jurors determine if they are citizens of the United States and whether they have resided in judicial district for a year. In 1968 Congress enacted the Jury Selection and Service Act that uses the nation’s voter registration system as the basis for jury selection in the federal courts.
Examination of available jury selection plans the district courts have created and that have been approved by the federal courts of appeal reveal no knowledge of the true territorial composition of the United States district courts. The jury questionnaire in common use merely asks an applicant a half dozen questions beginning with, if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the judicial district for at least a year.
Very few Americans can prove that they are, indeed, citizens of the United States and practically no one understands that the Sixth Amendment requires that territorial composition be established prior to trial. For all of the states, district court vicinage is the federal territory within the counties that comprise the district. This is the only vicinage that satisfies the 6th Amendment command that the “district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” An individual jurors impression of what constitutes the judicial district does not satisfy the Constitution.
All trial courts must have districts which shall have been previously ascertained by law. Venue and vicinage are being confused because an erroneous assumption is being universally made that the federal district courts are Article III courts and federal judges are Article III judges. Vicinage corresponds to territorial composition and describes where jurors come from. The areas from where Article III court jurors are to be drawn is the same as the territorial composition of the federal court. from the federal territory within a district comprised of named counties but they are being drawn from outside the federal territory. Any grand and petit juror that resides outside a federal territory does not reside within the district and can successfully be challenged as unqualified.
A federal territorial court without Article III power cannot be conferred such power by the litigants. One United States district court cannot legitimately serve both local federal and national interests. The interests of the two courts are almost completely mutually exclusive. Territorial courts without judicial power tenaciously serve the need of Congress to administer government law. These courts only have the jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress and they guard that jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other judicial concepts.
All the United States district courts in 49 of the several states are other than Article III courts. There is no evidence that the United States district courts for any state other than Hawaii is ordained and established pursuant to Article III, Section 1; therefore, they are not vested with the judicial power of the United States. Article III has not been invoked by Congress in creating any other state’s federal district courts and the 1911 Judiciary Act specifically creates those federal courts from the territory of the United States. When it is apparent that court officials are unaware of the limitations on their authority, it is never wise to attempt to correct these officials in their own court.
Non-judicial, legislative, administrative and territorial courts are incapable of exercising the judicial power of the United States, which can only be found in an Article III court. Article III of the Constitution has expressly granted to Congress the power to vest courts inferior to the Supreme Court with the judicial power of the United States. The Constitution does not prohibit the creation of federal courts outside of Article III. It follows, therefore, that at the very least Congress must invoke the authority of Article III in creating Article III courts just so one court can be distinguished from another.
The evidence that exists to show that the federal district courts are ordained and established pursuant to Article III is anecdotal or circumstantial. The Constitution provides that Congress shall vest the judicial power of the United States in “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” That same language was used in the Preamble to the Constitution to “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” There can be no question that the Congress has established but not ordained an Article III in Hawaii and in no other states. All that remains is to understand the consequences of what has happened and to learn from it.
Legal scholars assume without justification that the federal district courts are Article III courts. I have discovered and I hope proven that no responsible public federal officer has ever questioned their assumptions. In all the legal literature I examined, status of the United States district courts as Article III was assumed despite all the contrary authoritative evidence. The United States Supreme Court in two cases: Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) made it clear that a “district court of the United States” described a court created under Article III and a “United States district court” described a territorial court. The former identified a constitutional court of the United States exercising the judicial power of the United States and the latter merely identified a court for a district of the government of the United States.
Legal scholars are interpreting the power and authority of the federal courts without resort to the statute law that created and established them. The complete statute law and enacted Title 28 U.S.C. is presented here for your consideration. You are again, however, cautioned not to take the issue of jurisdiction to the federal courts as they are presently constituted. The federal courts are territorial legislative courts. This means that they are administrative courts without judicial power and you are without judicial protections if you submit yourself to them. The judges of these courts are there to serve the Congress and not any of the people.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this letter is to advise and counsel those who fear that they are being oppressed by a distant government. You will find that when you first remove the oppression caused by your own ignorance foreign oppression will subside and the disappear altogether. The United States district courts are territorial and without judicial power. This has been so since the Judiciary Act of 1789. If you do not believe this to be true, I have provided the means by which you can dispute my opinion. The complete absence of any Article III district courts in 49 of the 50 states is a “judicial” disaster waiting to happen. So far, it appears that no terrorist is aware that he or she may escape prosecution for a crime of terrorism because there is only one judicial court in the United States trial court system. Past Congresses may have been able to successfully construct a complex administrative criminal law process where an accused voluntarily accepts the jurisdiction of a non-article III federal court and judge, but dedicated and emboldened terrorists may be able to destroy it in one case. Congress must immediately establish Article III courts.
My task was to determine the legitimate jurisdiction of the federal district courts in your state. I fulfilled my objective in the only reasonable manner possible; I gathered all the statute law and enacted code law used to create the federal courts in all the states. I found only one instance in which Congress had declared that Article III was used to create the court. The one exception is the district court of Hawaii. Without exception, all the federal courts in your state are territorial. The territory that constitutes each of the judicial districts of each court is the federal enclaves within the counties of the state that comprise those judicial districts. Once the documentation for your local federal courts is reviewed and compared to the cross references provided in the government’s own Title 28 U.S.C., the public deception becomes flagrant.
The occasion of Hawaii’s admission to the Union in 1959 was certainly an appropriate event to establish an Article III court for the federal territory in those islands. Why has Congress not acted to create Article III courts in the remaining 49 states? The simple answer is that would have reduced its power. The more complex answer to that question lies in the need that early Americans felt to declare their independence from an unjust king. The following passage from the Declaration of Independence should teach that history repeats itself, especially, for those who refuse to learn it the first time around.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
Your personal Declaration of Independence can be a simple recognition that Americans have managed to govern themselves without real federal judicial trial courts for more than 200 years.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the federal courts in your state are, just that, federal courts, you are cautioned again not to enter United States territory lest you be taken into custody on a trumped up administrative tax evasion or similar charge. Despite the overwhelming evidence, I predict that the federal courts will not readily admit their territorial status and less than Article III status. The last place you would want to appear to prove these courts are territorial is in one of them. The federal courts are only presumed to be Article III. The abuses and usurpations complained of in the Declaration of Independence are common symptoms of all governments. No form of government is immune to them. Judges dependent on the will of the king are like the territorial judges disguised as Article III judges. Under no circumstances should you believe that you will be the first litigant to correct an Article I judge’s perception of his Article I court. The only way to correct an erroneous presumption is to correct the public’s and the legal profession’s perception of these courts.
You should immediately prepare letters setting forth the issue of federal territorial courts in place of Article III courts to your Congressman and Senators, and other influential people especially those in the media. Federal judges and court personnel are without power to correct abuses caused by Congress. Do not attempt to communicate with the judges or court personnel. The realization that socialism would never work destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We have not built our nation on such a flimsy economic system but the federal courts are an important part of the federal government and they need to be reformed.
Protect your privacy. The national government was granted no power in the Constitution that permits it to obtain information about you without your consent. The right to privacy is the most difficult right to regain once it has been lost. Most of those who retain my services are attempting to terminate a past association with the Internal Revenue Service or one that the IRS is attempting to initiate, in order to regain their privacy. The IRS and Department of Justice have used the public’s perception of Article III courts to persuade federal grand juries to bring true bills against innocents. Any legally constituted grand jury that intends to encroach upon your privacy has not been made aware of the material presented in this opinion letter. Every federal grand jury is led to believe that the court that is to provide the trial for any indictments they bring is the lawful one and that the indictment gives them the right to invade your privacy. The individuals on the grand jury have no idea of the difference between an Article III court and an Article I court. The persistence of the men and women of the IRS is attributable to their collective status as employees. Their collective job and the IRS Mission is to get everyone to voluntarily comply with Subtitle A, Title 26 U.S.C. by self-assessing a tax on a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. The Internal Revenue Service Mission is a relentless assault on the privacy of Americans. Nothing would be more detrimental to the IRS Mission than the establishment of real Article III national government courts.
Begin your own investigation of the local federal grand jury and assist others making their own investigations. Once it is apparent to the reader that my research establishes that there are no national government courts, any action of the federal grand jury becomes transparent and it can be seen as the machinations of the United States Attorney. He is attempting to either lure you into the United States territory upon which the United States district court sits so that he can institute or pursue a territorial criminal action against you or he seeks to have you admit jurisdiction. It is often suggested that an appearance should be made as is suggested in the initiating documents. This should never be done because it is an admission of jurisdiction. The doctrine of the Separation of Powers dictates that Article III courts never have jurisdiction over internal revenue issues. An understanding of this basic structure of our government should be all that is necessary to support the statute law establishing the district courts.
Do not claim anything that you cannot prove. Besides avoiding any contacts within property under the jurisdiction of the United States, you will want to avoid claiming that you are a citizen of the United States. The best advice is to never claim anything that you cannot prove. I personally know no one that can prove United States citizenship. A birth certificate from one of the 50 states or a naturalization certificate is sufficient to establish citizenship in any state of the Union and in the United States. A claim on United States citizenship, being a taxpayer or a U.S. person, unfortunately, is a fast track to loss of freedom and privacy. Once lost, these intangibles cannot be regained through the intervention of any of the courts that will be discussed here.
Demand from academics proof of the assumptions they peddle as facts. In the future I will publish a bibliography of the pertinent legal literature on the subject of the ordination and establishment of courts inferior to the United States Supreme Court that exercise the judicial power of the United States. My review of all the legal literature show that the academics assume Article III status for the United States district courts. Of course, anecdotal or circumstantial evidence is completely inadequate to establish a functioning part of the third branch of government, but can be competent to show how deficient government and public education are.
The best legal advice is always to stay out of all litigation. Ordinary litigants seldom, if ever, fare very well in any kind of federal court. You will learn in this opinion letter that all United States district court judges believe that they sit in Article III courts. This belief is based on the notion that the holding of an office during good behavior is the sole criteria for an Article III court and judge. Apparently, good behavior doesn’t mean that you know what kind of court you, as a judge, are in or what the limits of your authority is. No federal judge has been impeached for impersonating an Article III judge.
Your voluntary appearance at courthouse will be interpreted as a consent to territorial jurisdiction of that court, so, any appearance or acquiescence with a demand or request will constitute acceptance of jurisdiction. Any compliance with requests, commands or demands of a territorial court is a conformation of its power. Since we know that you have no federal income tax liability and no other contacts that can form the basis for territorial jurisdiction, any appearance before that court or any agreement to provide testimony is evidence of your consent to that court’s jurisdiction.
Responsible citizens question the authority of all government officers that present themselves as lawful representatives. When you fully understand the principles set out, you will see why only the alert citizen can protect himself, the government and the people from unlawful or untrue claims of authority. Aside from retaining me to provide you assistance of counsel, the best advice I can give you is to always question authority and never to act or acquiesce unless you are fully satisfied that the government is authorized. Those who have real authority will never object to demonstrating it and discussing its limits. This, however, will never occur in a United States district court for any state, because there can be no demonstration of Article III authority in any of the federal court for any of the fifty states. Legislative territorial courts cannot be introspective. Such self-examination can only be conducted in real courts by real judges.
All courts including the federal district courts are territorial courts. They have no jurisdiction beyond the federal territory embraced within the judicial district. Some clients feel that they should accommodate the local United States Attorney because that official is located locally. The proximity of the federal prosecutor has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It would be foolish for you to begin to accommodate every prosecutor of every jurisdiction with a claim that you omitted to comply with its local laws. The voluntary acceptance of jurisdiction of territorial federal courts based on their proximity to you is not a rational basis upon which to establish jurisdiction. There must exist some national legislation that concerns you in order to establish jurisdiction. I am aware of no national laws that can be adjudicated in a territorial administrative court.
Begin your investigation of the local federal court and local federal grand jury immediately. Do not allow yourself to be rushed into consenting to the jurisdiction of a court without judicial authority. Without judicial authority no court can set deadlines and without authority a court can only make a void judgment. Making even a special appearance to contest jurisdiction in an administrative court is unwise. Sample letters have been prepared for those who are not certain of the conclusions that must result from my research. Federal courts that are exclusively territorial enable terrorists to escape prosecution by the national government if a crime against Americans is committed outside of federal territory. The total absence of national courts and national laws weakens the nation’s stand against international terrorism.
Your own study should be undertaken of any self-proclaimed local federal judicial authority to determine the legitimacy of their claims. You ought to join other investigators of all other United States district court judges particularly those of the Hawaii and Puerto Rico district courts. The study should include what judges claim to be able to exercise Article III judicial power of the United States. These judges appear no different from the other Title 28 judges appointed to other than Article III district courts. Section 9 (a) provides conclusive proof that judges appointed pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code are not “Article III judges” unless appointed to Article III courts without Title 28 restrictions. The district court judges to the United States District Court for the district of Puerto Rico The Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and the inferior Article III courts Congress has yet to ordain and establish in any significant number. All other courts established by Congress may be tribunals but they do not exercise judicial power.
SAMPLE LETTERS
Letter to Clerk of the United States District Court at
_________________________
Dear Court Clerk:
I have obtained the federal court research of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and has been a member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972. In addition to his legal education and experience, he has a bachelor’s degree in government.
I want to verify certain facts about the status of the United States District Court,
I have been told that I can obtain a copy of the Jury Service and Selection Plan approved by the appeals court. I have been unable to obtain from the web site of this court: statements of the status of the court and a description of geographical boundaries of the judicial district. I was told that if I could not obtain these documents off the Internet was unable to obtain those documents from the Internet, they might be available from the Office of the Clerk of the Court.
I am making a request of the following documents because they were not available from the court’s web site:
1. Document identifying Article of Constitution under which court was established.
2. Document describing territory that comprises court’s judicial district.
3. Copy of the Jury Service and Selection Plan.
He has stated in the opinion letter that he prepared for me that the statute law that established that court does not refer to Article III of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court cannot be ordained and established under Article III. I must obtain a statement from you, the clerk of the court, as to what article of the United States Constitution was used to establish the court.
His conclusion, based on the statute law which was provided to me along with his opinion letter, is that the court was created pursuant to Article I or IV of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.
The purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United States District Court, ________________________________(or here insert the name of the court that has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion that the United States District Court, ______________________is a territorial court, I will be happy to send you, upon your request, the underlying material upon which he bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with Doctor Rivera’s conclusion that the United States District Court, _______________________is a territorial court and I will send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his conclusion.
Very truly yours,
_______________
Letter To The
Foreman Of The Grand Jury
I retained Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and has been a member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter regarding the status of the United States District Court, District of____________. In addition to his legal education and experience, he has a bachelor’s degree in government.
He stated in the opinion letter that he prepared for me that statute law including Title 28 U.S.C. that established that court does not refer to Article III of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court cannot be ordained and established under Article III. I must obtain a statement from you, the clerk of the court, as to what article of the United States Constitution was used to establish the court.
Doctor Rivera told me, that to confirm his findings, I should obtain from the web site of the above court: statements of the status of the court and a description of geographical boundaries of the judicial district. He also told me to obtain a copy of the Jury Service and Selection Plan approved by the appeals court. He told me that if I was unable to obtain those documents from the Internet, they might be available from the Office of the Clerk of the Court.
I am making a request of the following documents from you as foreman of the grand jury of this court, because after repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain the documents from the clerk of the court and they were not available from the court’s web site.
1. Document identifying the Article of the Constitution under which the court was established.
2. Document describing territory that comprises court’s judicial district.
3. Copy of the Jury Service and Selection Plan.
He has stated in the opinion letter that he prepared for me that the statute law that established that court does not refer to Article III of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court cannot possibly be ordained and established under Article III. I must obtain a statement from you, the clerk of the court, as to what article of the United States Constitution was used to establish the court.
His conclusion based on the statute law which was provided to me along with his opinion letter is that the court was created pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.
The purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United States District Court of Arizona (or here insert the name of the court that has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion that the United States District Court, _____________is a territorial court, I will be happy to send you the underlying material upon which he bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with Doctor Rivera’s conclusion that the United States District Court, _____________________________is a territorial court and I will send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his conclusion.
Letter to Congressman
The Honorable (full name)
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr.
The United States District Court, _____________________________is located within your congressional district. My attorney told me to obtain a written statement from your office as to the article of the United States Constitution that was used to create the court.
I retained Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and has been a member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter regarding the status of the United States District Court, __________________________________________.
His conclusion, based on the statute law which was provided to me along with his opinion letter is that the court was created pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.
The purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United States District Court _____________________________has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion, that the United States District Court, __________________is a territorial court, I will be happy to send you the underlying material upon which he bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with Doctor Rivera’s conclusion that the United States District Court, ____________________________________is a territorial court and I will send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his conclusion.
Very truly yours,
Letter to United States Senator
The Honorable (full name)
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr.
The United States District Court, __________________________ is located within the exterior boundaries of (State). My attorney told me to obtain a written statement from your office as to what article of the United States Constitution was used to create the court. Will you please respond in writing to my request?
I retained Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and who has been a member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter regarding the status of the United States District Court, ___________________________________.
His conclusion, based on the statute law which was provided to me along with his opinion letter, is that the court was created pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.
The purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United States District Court, ________________________has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion that the United States District Court, _____________________is a territorial court, I will be happy to send you the underlying material upon which he bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with Doctor Rivera’s conclusion that the United States District Court, ___________________________is a territorial court and I will send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his conclusion.
Very truly yours,
Letter to United States Attorney
The Honorable (full name)
United States Attorney
The United States District Court,
Middle District of ___________
Dear Mr.
The United States District Court, Middle District of ____________is located within the exterior boundaries of Florida. My attorney told me to obtain a written statement from your office as to what article of the United States Constitution was used to create the court. Will you please respond in writing to my request?
I retained Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, who received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1971 and who has been a member of the Bar of California since June 2, 1972, to prepare an opinion letter regarding the status of the United States District Court, Arizona.
His conclusion, based on the statute law which was provided to me along with his opinion letter, is that the court was created pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution and, therefore, the court is limited to territorial jurisdiction consisting of the lands and improvements over which the government of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction.
The purpose of this letter is to alert you to the fact that the United States District Court, ____________________ has no Article III judicial power. If you disagree with his conclusion that the United States District Court, Middle District of ________________ Division is a territorial court, I will be happy to send you the underlying material upon which he bases that conclusion and his analysis. All you have to do is disagree with Doctor Rivera’s conclusion that the United States District Court, _________________ is a territorial court and I will send you copies of the statute law upon which he relied to make his conclusion.
Very truly yours,
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Look up Admirality-special-maritime-
exposed.pdf
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/links2educate.htm
Try this link but know that, it gets hacked alot. The website might be shut down now. If it does work copy all the info!! you and your family need it.