If a litigant demands an Art. III court as they lawfully believe they have an Art. III suit, then I believe that any court other than an Art. III, would haveMessage 1 of 35 , Dec 15 12:34 PMView Source
If a litigant demands an Art. III court as they
lawfully believe they have an Art. III suit,
then I believe that any court other than
an Art. III, would have to not hear the suit
Also, if the seated justice is there under
good behavior, such would be an Art. III
court, as no other court has such judges.
Now it might be possible for an Art. III court
to hear Art. I or IV actions, I'm not sure.
If a state citizen is in a territory, can
they demand an Art. III court to be heard in
should they seek redress or are their rights
infringed while in that territory?
At 06:58 AM 12/15/2009 -0800, you wrote:
"I have a source of confusion maybe someone could 'splain to me then:
so many people who do not reside in these territorial areas choose to
grant jurisdiction to the territorial courts also known as United States
District Courts. These are not Article 3 courts."
Ed, You are only partly correct. Here is where most fail to understand that the USDC is a paradox in that it operates under more than one article. It can be an Article I , III, and IV court depending on the nature of the controversy. It would depend on the point of origin of the controversy to determine under what Article it was functioning, i.e. is the USDC the court of original jurisdiction, is it acting as a reviewing body for one the federal agencies, or is it acting as a court of Appeals from one of the 50 State courts? To say that the USDC does not have jurisdiction would be an error if one doesn't know under which Article it was acting at the time?
The judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in theMessage 35 of 35 , Mar 1, 2010View SourceThe judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in the pleading. It is also a requirement for the movant to allege and evidence the defendant had a duty beholding to the movant. A couple of cases applying the principals to tax issues include Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958)and Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397. Shepardizing the cases, and following the headnote key numbers in the Federal Digest system, can readily locate additional cases.