Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: "GOLD FRINGED FLAGS..." by Marilyn M. Barnewall (July 17, 2011)
- Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re:
"GOLD FRINGED FLAGS..." by Marilyn M. Barnewall (July 17, 2011)Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications.This time you wrote:
The U.S. Constitution is a “Let’s Pretend” document without the Rule of Law.
Admiralty law tells us that when you see a flag,
you need to understand that in areas where a flag is “four cornered,”
you are being told which laws dominate that space.
Greetings Ms. Barnewall:It's becoming painfully obvious to me that NewsWithViews rarely if ever checksany of the claims which their several authors make in the articles they routinelybroadcast over the Internet: if they did, NewsWithViews would and shouldNOT have re-published your latest diatribe.
In your article above, you are making the common methodological error
of confusing theory and fact e.g. by allowing your theory to "morph" into fact.Here cf. "cognitive dissonance".
Allow me to explain ...First of all "admiralty" is a jurisdiction, not a type of court.
The terms that occur in the Constitution were well defined
in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856): it is the legal dictionary
that was published closest in time to the ratification of the
organic Constitution in 1788. As such, it is a reliable
authority for the correct meanings of terms that occur
in the U.S. Constitution.
"Admiralty" and "maritime" both refer to matters that arise
on the high seas:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/blda1.htm#admiraltyADMIRALTY. The name of a jurisdiction which takes cognizance of
suits or actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or
relating to the sea; or, in other words, of all transactions and
proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages
or injuries upon the sea.
NOTE WELL: admiralty is the name of a jurisdiction;
it is NOT the name of any Court!MARITIME. That which belongs to or is connected with the sea.
"Mare" comes from the Latin word meaning the sea or the ocean.
Now, Article III in the U.S. Constitution clearly reveals that
Federal constitutional courts enjoy jurisdiction to hear
all cases that arise under the Constitution, Laws and
Treaties of the Federal Government, and all cases of
"admiralty and maritime jurisdiction".See the Arising Under Clause here:
(Yes, I know it's a complex sentence; but, it is grammatically correct,and Americans were much better educated in English grammar in 1788than they are now!)
Most importantly, the Supreme Court of the United States
is the ONLY Federal Court whose original and appellate
jurisdictions are conferred as such by the Constitution.
All other Federal Courts must be created by Acts of Congress,
and the original and appellate jurisdictions of all those other
Federal Courts must also be defined by Acts of Congress.
The law that governs all Federal Courts is controlled
entirely by the laws which created and then conferred jurisdiction
upon those courts, both original and appellate jurisdiction.
(If you don't know, "original" means a case originates or STARTS off in a given Court,as opposed to appealing to a higher Court. OK?)Therefore, the Law which defines the U.S. Supreme Court's
jurisdictions is found in Article III -- which created that Court, and
the Law which defines the jurisdictions of all other Federal Courtsis found in the Acts of Congress which first created and
then conferred jurisdiction upon those other Federal Courts.
THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY U.S. LAWS DEFINING COURT JURISDICTION
WHICH SAYS THAT A "FLAG" CONTROLS THE CASE(S)WHICH ANY GIVEN FEDERAL COURT MAY HEAR EITHER ON APPEAL, ORTHE CASE(S) WHICH MAY ORIGINATE IN ANY GIVEN FEDERAL COURT.
Furthermore, it is more correct to say that the U.S. District Courts --
created by the Act of Congress at 28 U.S.C. 132 --are legislative tribunals, not constitutional courts authorized by Article III.
A full dissertation on this key point can be found here,
in 2 pleadings to which 48 UNlicensed ATTORNeys either
fell totally silent, or they formally waived their clients'
right to answer:
(I am quite sure that I already provided you with the latter 2 links,but you replied that you were ill at the time, and you havesince provided me with no evidence that you ever readeither of those 2 key documents. Pity, that!)
Because the statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 does not identify
any constitutional origin of the U.S. District Courts --unlike many other Federal statutes which do identify those origins --one must find the answer to that question in standing decisionsof the U.S. Supreme Court, like Balzac v. Porto Rico,
and there are many others.
These other cases have consistently upheld the key distinction
between Article III constitutional courts, and legislative tribunals
created under authority of Articles I and IV in the Constitution.You see, Article I does authorize Congress to create "tribunals"that are inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court:If anything, legislative tribunals as such are trying to
exercise legislative functions, not Executive Branch functions-- read "making case law" NOT "executing law"!Accordingly, the existence of a military flag in any
Federal Courtroom cannot be used as evidence to prove
that such a Federal Court is exercising Executive authoritiesor performing Executive functions.Such a claim flatly contradicts our fundamental Right
to a Separation of Powers.As much as you bankers and ex-bankers would like to do so,you won't be able to destroy the 3 branch structure of ourFederal government solely by means of a diatribe thatwas never properly investigated.
Thank you for making my job a lot easier!
p.s. Please don't try to reply with more ad hominem arguments again:
the articles I sent to you recently were critical of your friend,
but you should have taken up that argument with the author of
those critical articles, instead of insulting me as you did.
Killing the messenger went out with the ancient Greeks.FOR THE RECORD, on January 11, 2010, I wrote the following to you:> Writing something about which one knows little is... difficult.Then, you should remedy that deficiency before writing any more.
Rather than to run down the extensive details right here,
I think you would do yourself and your readers a huge favor
by reviewing how we documented the "sea change"
from constitutional courts to legislative tribunals, here:
After the dust had settled out from that case
(3 U.S. Supreme Court "robes" turned up withOUT credentials),
a private client retained me to do a similar analysis of
the Federal Criminal Code aka Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
The smoking gun that we found is here:
fraud that was introduced on June 25, 1948.
Briefly, rather than define "district court" in clear terms,
as had been true for 159 YEARS (1789 TO 1948),
CONgress was persuaded to leave that definition
up to the Supreme Court. The Act of June 25, 1948
revised, codified and enacted Title 18 into positive law,
but the key provision that should have defined
"district court" instead says: "See Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure".
Then, solely by means of changes to those Rules of Court,
the meaning of "district court" was fraudulently
"morphed" from "District Court of the United States"
to "United States District Court".
Note well the implications of a "United States District"!!
This was not only unconstitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court
has held that Rules of Court may NOT expand or
restrict original jurisdiction conferred by Acts of Congress:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htmIn adopting rules, federal courts are not free to extend or restrict jurisdiction conferred by statute.The FRCP must be deemed to apply to a particular Federal District Court civil proceeding only if the application of the rules will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred on federal courts by the Federal Constitution’s Article III ‑‑ which describes the subjects over which federal courts have jurisdiction ‑‑ because the caveat that federal courts, in adopting rules, are not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power described in Article III of the Constitution.[Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 112 S.Ct. 1076][117 L.Ed.2d 280 (USDC, S.D. Texas 1992), headnote 3][underlines and bold emphasis added]
Here's that decision:
But in Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1 (1941), we observed that federal courts, in adopting rules, were not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute. Id., at 10. Such a caveat applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power of the United States described in Article III of the Constitution. The Rules, then, must be deemed to apply only if their application will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred by Article III. We must therefore examine petitioner's second, and related, contention that the District Court action in this case lies outside the range of action constitutionally permitted to an Article III court.
Now, the BIGGEST SMOKING GUN is the statute at 18 U.S.C. 3231,
which was NOT amended, or repealed and re-enacted, so as to
change the name of the court upon which criminal jurisdiction
was conferred, and had been conferred, ever since 1789.
Read it yourself:
exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
The general rule in all Federal jurisprudence is that such statutes
which confer original jurisdiction must be STRICTLY construed:
"district courts of the United States" has an important and well
established historical meaning that is controlling in such contexts.
You would be entirely remiss to overlook all the standing cases
which have carefully and consistently defined the correct legal
meaning of "district courts of the United States".
I stress, their meaning was well understood for "only" 159 YEARS!!
When we proved that Congress had NOT amended that statute
so as to change the court named therein, we knew that the
U.S. Supreme Court had been exploited to make it APPEAR
that the Rule changes were merely cosmetic.
However, the USDCs are territorial tribunals -- not even COURTS --
where Constitutional guarantees are now options, not mandates.
If you don't believe me, read this passage in Hooven & Allison:
(paraphrasing: the guarantees of the Constitution extend into the
federal zone only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable,
by legislating their extension into that zone)
Whenever Congress invokes 1:8:9, it creates TRIBUNALS
and NOT "courts":
"Courts" as such must be established under Article III;
but, the Supreme Court has already held that the USDC
originates in the Territory Clause at Article IV -- NOT ARTICLE III.
So, to summarize briefly, the Acts of June 25, 1948 --
enacting both the Criminal Code and the Judicial Code --
attempted to eliminate the Article III Constitutional Courts,
and to substitute in their place Article IV Territorial Tribunals
in which the guarantees of the Constitution had become
"options" and no longer mandates upon those courts ... er ... tribunals!
This heresy flies in the face of 2 Acts of Congress
that expressly extended the entire U.S. Constitution
into D.C. in 1871 and then into all Federal Territories,
even future Federal Territories, in 1873:
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/16/16stat426.gif (Sec. 34)
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/18/18stat333.gif (Sec. 1891)
Thus, the actors in your fictional book are all under the same
"strong delusion" that the Federal Judiciary can be trusted
to uphold constitutional guarantees as mandates.
(Cf. "strong delusion" in the Holy Bible).
If a group of Citizens assembled to call themselves a
"Common Law Grand Jury," these legislative tribunals
reserve to themselves the discretion to ignore completely
anything and everything such a "Common Law Grand Jury"
might do, decide, or issue -- EVERYTHING!!
Bluntly, their "indictments" go nowhere, and that is EXACTLY
what we have witnessed happening e.g. in Montana and
elsewhere, during the past 20 years. Common Law Grand Juries,
even if such an entity exists, are ignored completely by the
people in power.
Quite the contrary, it was the Federal Judiciary who concocted
this "sea change" from the start, and the consequences have
been disastrous for the American People at Large, in part
because State courts have followed the Federal "example" --
even going so far as to adopt wholesale many provisions in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- where the same "sea change"
was also attempted. See Rules Enabling Act and the Abrogation
Clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b):
"All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect
after such rules have taken effect."
THERE YOU HAVE IT: Supreme Court retroactively changes
Acts of Congress conferring jurisdiction on "district courts",
and does so by amending Rules of Court withOUT any
Act(s) of Congress authorizing same.
DO YOU SEE HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THIS ABROGATION CLAUSE REALLY IS??
IF YOU CANNOT, THEN YOU SHOULD FIND ANOTHER EDITOR TO REVIEW YOUR
The "democracy" of which those traitors are so fond is
easily identified as the population of federal citizens
who now inhabit the 50 States of the Union. The jurisdiction
to which they owe their primary allegiance is a legislative
democracy domiciled in D.C., and as a group they are
legally "foreign" with respect to the Republic that is
domiciled within the 50 States of the Union aka USA.
The Guarantee Clause does not guarantee a Republican Form
of Government to D.C. -- only to the 50 States!!
One cannot serve on juries, or vote, if one is a State Citizen
who is not also a federal citizen, by "Right of Election"
(cf. "Right of Election" in the Supreme Law Library).
Nevertheless, State Citizens are the only class of People
who remain qualified to serve in the House, Senate or White House:
(these Qualifications Clauses have never been amended!
as such, they retain today the meaning they had when they
were first ratified on June 21, 1788 -- my birthday, BTW)
In short, "Common Law Grand Juries" are simply not recognized
anywhere in the relevant Federal statutes i.e. Jury Selection and
Service Act. Read it, please!
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1861.html et seq.
"all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand
and petit juries in the district courts of the United States ...."
Well, if there are no "district courts of the United States" presently convened or staffed,
this latter "policy" is worthless -- totally worthless!!
The situation in each of the 50 States may be different and,
to be perfectly honest, there are just too many laws at the
State level for me to be familiar with all of them. Perhaps
"common law grand jury" is authorized in some State
You should make that distinction clear, then, between Federal laws
and what they authorize, and State laws and what they authorize,
particularly if you really do believe in the "Rule of Law"
and I think you do.
Thus, if you're trying in your fictional book to portray the actors
as naive and ill-informed activists who don't have a clue,
then you are doing a very good job of that, as far as
current Federal law is concerned.
They're just like you -- maybe projections of your own psyche -- because
they are discussing something about which they know very little,
in point of fact -- just as you are writing something about which you
know very little. You said it yourself, so I am not putting words in your
I would never even start such a writing project, in the first place.
You wanted feedback, and now you know that I am not a "Yes Man".
So be it.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice