6833Re: [tips_and_tricks] Art. III courts
- Oct 2, 2004Don,
Please understand I am not a professional and any
opinion expressed herein by me is just that, my
opinion and you can take them with a grain of salt as
the old saying goes.
Anyway I will reply in text and anyone who can
disprove my contentions are welcome to do so, as a
matter of fact I welcome them so all can benefit from
their knowledge as well.
--- Don Schwarz <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:
>[Yes it does matter, for example, in these Article I
> RE: Art. III courts and common law
> For purposes of discussion.
> If the Supreme Court of the United States of America
> is a true Article III
> Court, then, if you are arguing a case in which you
> are defending your
> position using a Supreme Court ruling on common law
> inalienable rights,
> then would it matter what court you were in such
> that the matter being
> argued is
> an Article III court ruling upon which you have
> based your argument?
forums currently called the United States District
Courts (herein USDC) you can not bring up substantiove
issues of law or the Constitution as they are issues
outside their authority to hear and you will be
sanctioned for raising issues such as this in their
courts. Furthermore, I kow of many examples of
"judges" telling people "if you raise a Constitutional
issues one more time in my court I will hold you in
>[No it would not, jurisdiction is not conferred upon a
> If you were in a legislative or other court, would
> not the authority of the
> matter rule the jurisdiction of the court?
court by you raising an issue or by another court
ruling on a matter. Jurisdiction is a matter of
ordination by an act of Congress via a delegation of
power by the People. For example if you are in traffic
court, you can't argue a divorce court issue.]
>[I am not trying to be difficult here, but why would
> If the court could not hear such a case based upon
> jurisdiction, then the court
> would have to tell you where you could have your
> Article III based case heard.
you think a court would tell you it couldn't hear the
issue???? Do you think it is their "duty" to educate
you on the matters their court can hear? The maxim is
"Everyone is supposed to know the law and ignorance of
the law is no excuse." It is up to you to raise the
jurisdictional challenge, not for the court to do so.]
>[Yeah when pigs fly they will tell you.]
> If the court you are in cannot hear Article III
> arguments, then they have
> to tell you?
>[Exactly, but the plumber has no responcibility to
> It would be like bringing your lamp in to be
> re-wired, but you bring it into
> the plumbers shop.
tell you that you are in the wrong place. He will try
to tell you that you need to change your way of
thinking and to use gas instead of electricity. When
you don't understand he holds you in contempt, and
tells you to get counsel to explain it to you. The
sets of rules don't play in each court the same way.
Your trying to go to a baseball game, and you take
your equipment to the game, but once your on the
field, you find your in the middle of a tackle
football game and your un-prepared in both mind-set,
and game preparation.]
>[Wanna bet. They will move forward any controversy
> They can't act upon this subject for you, and would
> have to tell you that.
they want to and if you don't raise a jurisdictional
challenge, they will continue to move forward under
the presumption of the forum having jurisdiction over
the matter. If you doubt it, try it and see.]
Furthermore Don, the People in Congress assembled,
only instituted four courts with Article III Powers.
They were the District Court fro the District of
Columbia, (read the Congressional record fro the
establishment of the courts in D.C.), The District
Courts in Hawaii (unfortunately they never completed
it by seating Article III Justices there), The Supreme
Court, and the U.S. Court of Claims (if memory serves
Most "Justices" and I use this term loosely, will
tell you they get their authority for Article III
ordination from the Judiciary Act of 1789. The problem
with this is that the act in question was a
provisional act of the Continental Congress prior to
the ratification of the Constitution and our
establishment as a nation (union of nation states),
and therefore was void after the Constitution was
ratified. Since the ratification of the Constitution,
no court has been sat in the manner so described in
the Judicairy Act of 1789. If I am wrong, I look
forward to seeing the information from the "public
record documents" which will show me where I am wrong,
and when the changes were made to our present
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>