Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6833Re: [tips_and_tricks] Art. III courts

Expand Messages
  • Bob law
    Oct 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Don,
      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.
      Here goes:

      --- Don Schwarz <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > RE: Art. III courts and common law
      > jurisdiction.................
      >
      >
      > 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?
      [Yes it does matter, for example, in these Article I
      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
      contempt!"]
      >
      > If you were in a legislative or other court, would
      > not the authority of the
      > subject
      > matter rule the jurisdiction of the court?
      [No it would not, jurisdiction is not conferred upon a
      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.]

      >
      > 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.
      [I am not trying to be difficult here, but why would
      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.]

      >
      > If the court you are in cannot hear Article III
      > arguments, then they have
      > to tell you?
      [Yeah when pigs fly they will tell you.]

      >
      > It would be like bringing your lamp in to be
      > re-wired, but you bring it into
      > the plumbers shop.
      [Exactly, but the plumber has no responcibility to
      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.]

      >
      > They can't act upon this subject for you, and would
      > have to tell you that.
      [Wanna bet. They will move forward any controversy
      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
      me right.)
      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
      situation.

      Respectfully,
      Bob L.





      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic