Cryer on Federal District Courts
Below is a sequence of posts between Rich Cantwell, Bob Lawrence, and Tommy Cryer:
Bob, the problem with sitting back and leaving these fakers alone is that they are doing harm. Sitting silent to avoid hurting the feelings of those who would harm the movement and those in it is not a rational option.
If we were seeking the same goals I would call this fighting among ourselves, but those who derive some satisfaction, or, worse, enjoyment, from leading others into self-destructive behavior are not part of this movement any more than a brain tumor is part of the brain that hosts it.
I realize that those who are infected are beyond saving and I don't argue with them with any expectation of changing their minds. You can't snap your fingers in front of a zombie's face and expect him to "snap out of it."
But those who are not infected can be saved a lot of grief by the confrontation of the lies and fabrications that are at the foundation of the BIC, UCC, BOE and alphabet soup of Tin Foil Hat notions. Ed Atwell, five years in prison--too late. Sherry Jackson, an appreciable upward departure in her sentence--too late. Not for some cause or purpose, but for a lie, a ruse. As long as it is not too late for some I'll have to keep warning them.
There are many who are imprisoned for espousing the truth, and as unjust as that is there is some nobility in their sacrifice. But to go to prison for a myth, the figment of some pay-triot's imagination, while the pay-triot walks away counting his money and laughing at the attorneys who could not save his mark, is simply wrong, unjust and without any redeeming or offsetting value.
When Larry, or I, or others challenge these charlatans to verify their claimed "successes" and reveal the false underpinnings of their snake oil recipes we are not "arguing among ourselves", we are arguing with intruders and interlopers feeding on the flock. If they shared our objectives the truth would be (and it certainly is) good enough, but you can't sell what is lying there in the open, found in any law library for all to see for free.
It would be imprudent and counterproductive to fight the beast's legal and administrative forces but grant a free and unfettered hand to the beast's disinformation and misdirection forces. We have to fight all three.
So, while I understand your desire for peace and quiet in the valley, there won't be any peace and quiet so long as the wolves are prowling, taking down innocent lambs for the beast to drag off to its cave for slaughter. As long as I have breath to bark, teeth to bare and jaws to bite the valley is going to be a noisy and conflict-filled place.
richcantwell1@... writes: Tom Cryer:
I say you are preaching to the choir. I believe you are absolutely correct. Too many false leaders are out there selling a BS bill of goods. For money and that's a travesty. I agree. I sell no advice, counsel or direction of any kind. Don't want the moral, ethical or legal responsibility. My interest lies elsewhere.
However, I do a fair amount of research. Research on the basis that when we step back for a macro view I see a well planned crime, from before the 1900's, of immense cunning and enormous scale. However, my research from time to time on a micro level turns up certain anomalous information. It generates "questions" that beg to be answered.
Let me explain. Actually since you are an attorney, and one I have great respect for, contrary to what you might believe, let me ask you this question below. But first…
The United States District Court is NOT a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the JUDICIAL power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory BELONGING to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does NOT change its character as a mere territorial court.
Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312][42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1921)
The words "district court of the United States" commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution, NOT the LEGISLATIVE courts which have long been the courts of the Territories.
Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al. v. Juneau Spruce Corp. 342 U.S. 237 (1952)
"United States District Courts" have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution. U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344 Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972) headnote 2. Courts
[Emphasis added to all of the above.]
Tom Cryer said below and I quote:
"If they shared our objectives the truth would be (and it certainly is) good enough, but you can't sell what is lying there in the open, found in any law library for all to see for free."
Tom, given that the above cites can be found in any law library for all to see for free let me sincerely ask this question:
Why, just why do we always see at the heading of all court actions against virtually anyone in a federal court… (since 1921) "United States District Court" instead of, at least from time to time… "district court of the United States"?
I should also add that when this, otherwise not so anomalous distinction, is brought to the attention of the "Court" in the form of a question, the Court responds with one of two answers:
Never anything of material substance.
What say you?
I approach legal research from both micro and macro, since you can't understand the law without the details but can't apply it without an understanding of the entire picture.
I generally refuse to discuss issues with those espousing false and fictitious renditions of the law because I assume that they know them to be false and fictitious. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, however, since I don't have a clue who you are or whether you are advocating some Jones Kool-Aid recipe (and that in spite of the fact that were the case otherwise you would not have invited Larry Becraft's disagreement). I am, therefore, assuming your inquiry as a genuine interest in knowing the answer and will do my best to provide you a genuine answer.
The Balzac case you cite is not a case dealing with the "district court" you and I are under, but rather a district court in one of the territories. Puerto Rico is a territory and is governed under the provisions of Article IV giving Congress exclusive legislative authority over the territories.
The federal district and appellate courts in the United States are not created by virtue of Article IV, but rather by the Judiciary Act in its various versions that is enacted by virtue of Article I, Section 8, cl. 9. Congress grants jurisdiction to those inferior courts to hear cases presenting federal questions and certain diversity cases as well as federal crimes to the district courts and appeals courts created per I,8,9.
The Juneau Spruce decision to which you refer draws that distinction very clearly for you, but it was somehow missed. The use of the words district courts of the United States was not the name of the court, but rather descriptive of district courts, so courts' referring to themselves as "United States District Court, District of . . . " or District Court of the United States, District of . . ." is of no import.
The law has long stressed that there are no magic phrases, no mystical power of phraseology, in the law. Titles and names of statutes, entities, agreements and transactions are given no weight.
In fact, the laws that create the district courts within the States, 28 U.S.C. 81-131, do not provide a specific title for the district courts other than to characterize them as districts courts. They can call themselves "District Court in and for the Soandso District of Suchandsuch" or the "District Court of the United States" or the "United States District Court, Suchandsuch District".
Again, however, their creation by Congress is pursuant to Article I, not Article IV.
We have to look at cases for what they are, not for what we want to bend them into. We cannot take one phrase from one sentence in one opinion and build a philosophy of law any more than we can take one chapter and verse from the B-ble and build an entire religious philosophy. That requires an understanding that cannot be borrowed. It must be earned and received through years of study and instruction.
The Tin Foil Hat brigade seems to me to be more intent on finding an explanation or justification for our loss of freedom than in finding a way to recover it. The socalled bankruptcy of the United States, the "secret oath" of attorneys, the conspiratorial displacement of the Constitution, are all attempting, through myth and extrapolations from myth and misconstrued authorities (like Dunn and Bradstreet?) are costing people their fortunes and putting them in prison and they are discrediting the movement.
We need to look at the law for real because our rights and our freedom still reside there. Those who would distract people from that real road to freedom are not helping, but hurting, the movement.