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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Art. III courts

Expand Messages
  • Bob law
    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
    Message 1 of 8 , 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
    • Majic man
      [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
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        [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 agree here, but I would clarify the acts of Congress are from the
        specific State Legislatures conveying authority and Jurisdiction as
        expressed and limited to the Statutes of the specific (ex. traffic)
        court.

        [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.]
        I more fully agree here and am glad you made the distinction
        of "jurisdiction over the matter" (Very Important) because "they"
        will move fwd. nevertheless, unless you are a "belligerent claimant
        of your Rights". Using your example of the lamp to the plumber shop,
        Those "plumbers" will gratefully outfit your lamp for gas operation
        so they can get the return work. You will have to know to take it to
        a different venue. If you also walk on a football field with baseball
        equipment, well … good luck.

        Moderator/Bear: Is this the same "god of luck" people from the Far East make reference too?


        Good point. Don't assume you have
        article III protections because you claim a challenge to
        jurisdiction. Do I know you Bob L.? MJC
      • Don Schwarz
        Bob, {{{sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted to digest you thought carefully.}}} ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don ... {{{{ Bob, the court cannot take jurisdiction of
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 19, 2004
        • 0 Attachment


          Bob,

          {{{sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted
          to digest you thought carefully.}}}

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don



          At 02:50 PM 10/2/04 -0700, you wrote:


          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!"]

          {{{{ Bob,  the court cannot take jurisdiction of that which
          it has no power to hear. The litigant is bringing the suit
          to be heard, based upon their lawful exercise of the rights
          they seek to protect. If the court has no jurisdiction to
          hear same, they must inform the litigant. How can a court
          dependent upon the Constitution, tell anyone the Constitution
          is not to be argued in a constitutional court? }}}

          >
          > 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.]

          {{{ Correct, and if the court cannot hear Article III arguments,
          then they do not have the jurisdiction to hear the case you
          are presenting. They must tell you where such is to be heard. }}}


          >
          > 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.]

          {{{ Well, if a court rules on something outside there jurisdiction, then
          they have acted unlawfully. Exactly and you bring up your Article
          III jurisdiction in your pleading. If they ain't an Article III court, they
          must inform you of their lack of jurisdiction for then on the record, you
          made your pleading to an Article III court. }}}

           
          >
          > 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.]


          {{{ Bob, if they act on something outside their
          jurisdiction, then the ruling is moot. If you assert you
          are arguing before an Article III court, and they are not, then your
          pleading sets the stage for them to act under for they have
          accepted, without challenge, you statement of record of Article III.}}}


          >
          > 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.]


          {{{ But the plumber cannot wire your lamp lawfully, for he
          is not licensed to do so. He must tell you he has no jurisdiction
          to perform the action you request. Yes he can tell you
          if you want to change jurisdiction to gas I can help you, but if
          you do not accept a change of jurisdiction, he must not do
          that which he has no jurisdiction to do.  He must show you the door
          for he has no jurisdiction over your argument - wire the lamp.
          We are dealing with facts, and if the court can't rule on the facts,
          they must recuse themselves. }}}


          >
          > 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.]

          {{{ This is exactly what I have been saying - you set the jurisdiction
          in your pleading. Have I not said this? }}}}


          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.)

          {{{ If the US Supreme Court is an Article III court, then in fact,
          if you want to plead to that court as a last resort, then you start
          off your argument with that in mind. NO court can deny you
          this right. why have an Article III court of last appeal, if somehow,
          lower courts could act to prevent you from reaching that court? }}}

           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.

          {{{�It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is
          something more than mere will exerted as an act of power. �
          Hurtado Vs California,  110 US 516 @ 535


          Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons
          and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as
          the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude.
          And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the
          action of the governments, both state and national, are essential
          to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding
          the representative character of our political institutions. The
          enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device
          of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals
          and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against
          the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful
          authority
          , even when acting in the name and wielding the force
          of the government."
          Hurtado v. California 110 U.S.516, 536 (1884)

          Bob, it appears then, that just because Congress did or did not do
          something, doesn't always make it lawful. Just because a court
          is given certain jurisdiction, doesn't make it lawful. This is where you assert
          your jurisdiction and then the court must tell you that they can't hear
          it.  }}}

          Thank you for the comments and thoughtful response.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`  Don
        • Bob law
          Don, As to your postings which is hereby deleted for sake of brevity, all I can say is that I ve personally read close to a dozen different cases where the
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Don,
            As to your postings which is hereby deleted for sake
            of brevity, all I can say is that I've personally read
            close to a dozen different cases where the justices
            told the defendant that they were not an article III
            court and if they raised a constitutional issue one
            more time they would be held in contempt of court.
            This along with the other information which I have
            read from the public record, from legal counsel, and
            from other legal researchers, I am convinced that
            there are no Article III District Courts within the 50
            Union States. You are obviously free to take any
            position, and to believe any legal theory you wish.
            Best wishes to you in all your efforts to find remedy
            in these fictional courts.
            Respectfully,
            Bob L.


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

            >
            >
            > Bob,
            >
            > {{{sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted
            > to digest you thought carefully.}}}
            >




            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
            www.yahoo.com
          • Don Schwarz
            AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511 (1828) from the opinion----------------------- at page 543--------------------------- The 8th section
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 7, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511 (1828)

              from the opinion-----------------------

              at page 543---------------------------

              The 8th section enacts 'That each of the said Superior Courts shall
              moreover have and exercise the same jurisdiction within its limits, in all
              cases arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States, which,
              by an Act to establish the judicial Courts of the United States, approved
              the 24th of September 1789, and an Act in addition to the Act, entitled an
              Act to establish the judicial Courts of the United States, approved the 2d
              of March 1793, was vested in the Court of Kentucky district.'

              at page 545-----------------------

              If we have recourse to that pure fountain from which all the jurisdiction
              of the Federal Courts is derived, we find language employed which cannot
              well be misunderstood. The Constitution declares, that 'the judicial power
              shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this
              Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which
              shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors,
              or other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and
              maritime jurisdiction.'


              at page 546 of the ruling on constitutional principles -----------------

              "We have only to pursue this subject one step further, to perceive that
              this provision of the Constitution does not apply to it. The next sentence
              declares, that 'the Judges both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall
              hold their offices during good behaviour.' The Judges of the Superior
              Courts of Florida hold their offices for four years. These Courts, then,
              are not constitutional Courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the
              Constitution on the general government, can be deposited. They are
              incapable of receiving it. They are legislative Courts, created in virtue
              of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in
              virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and
              regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The
              jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial
              power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is
              conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that
              body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although
              admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the states in those Courts,
              only, which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the
              Constitution; the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In
              legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the
              general, and of a state government."
              ==============================

              Bob,

              a constitutional court is determined by the fact, that the judges therein
              "shall hold their offices during good behavior".

              those judges who accept salary for their positions in federal
              courts that are to be held during periods of "good behavior",
              the Supreme Court has defined as being Article III courts.

              This ruling discusses territorial courts and constitutional courts.

              It defines both.

              If the judges in a federal court sit "during good behavior", it is
              first a constitutional court.

              Have judges given bad rulings? Yes.

              Have the cases you have referenced been brought to
              the Supreme Court, I do not know.

              All I know is what I read in the rulings themselves.

              Judges have been known not to obey the
              Constitution or the Supreme Court.

              Clearly in AMERICAN INS CO above, the court did recognize
              Article III courts in Kentucky, which included Florida at that time
              if I am correct.


              So in 1828, the US Supreme Court acknowledged that
              Article III courts existed in the several States.

              I don't know what else to say.

              But I do thank you for your input for I do not
              claim to have all the answers.

              Please comment on any and all other knowledge
              you have about Article III court and on what I have
              posted above.

              By having thoughtful discussions, we all learn.

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don





              At 04:16 PM 11/6/04 -0800, you wrote:


              >Don,
              > As to your postings which is hereby deleted for sake
              >of brevity, all I can say is that I've personally read
              >close to a dozen different cases where the justices
              >told the defendant that they were not an article III
              >court and if they raised a constitutional issue one
              >more time they would be held in contempt of court.
              >This along with the other information which I have
              >read from the public record, from legal counsel, and
              >from other legal researchers, I am convinced that
              >there are no Article III District Courts within the 50
              >Union States. You are obviously free to take any
              >position, and to believe any legal theory you wish.
              >Best wishes to you in all your efforts to find remedy
              >in these fictional courts.
              > Respectfully,
              > Bob L.
              >
              >
              >--- Don Schwarz <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Bob,
              > >
              > > {{{sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted
              > > to digest you thought carefully.}}}
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >__________________________________
              >Do you Yahoo!?
              >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
              >www.yahoo.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • John Wilde
              This Article III Courts (or the lack thereof, by some guru s) bull is just that. Bull. BTW the Article III issue only applies to federal courts. Not state
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 8, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                This "Article III Courts" (or the lack thereof, by some guru's) bull is
                just that. Bull. BTW the Article III issue only applies to federal
                courts. Not state courts. That's the other part of the foolishness
                that needs to be disspelled. It's an excuse for the guru's inability to
                figure out his errors.

                The Court's when they are created are conferred with both Article
                III and other powers. It is the nature of the case, and what is done
                that determines whether the Article III Powers are invoked. If you want
                the Article III powers invoked then have a case before the Court that
                involves private rights, particularly in contracts and property. Then
                the only judge that can adjudicate those rights are judges possessing
                the Article III attributes of life tenure and non-diminishment of salary
                during that tenure.

                The problem that most of the people have with dealing with the
                courts is their pleadings. I doubt there are 3 people on this list that
                can craft a complaint and make it stick without getting a motion to
                dismiss. Unless 80% of the complaints you draft for you or your
                clients get an answer, then you haven't figured it out.

                We're not necessarily going to win this battle because we win our
                cases, we're going to win this battle because the gummint's ability to
                administer of this stuff is going to become virtually impossible. That
                is what finally broke the back of prohibition in the 30's. The only way
                it is going to become impossible to administer is by tying up the
                bureaucrats and lawyers in court. The only way to tie up the
                administration in court is to get answers to the lawsuits and then get
                into pretrial and trial preparation. As I said, winning the suit isn't
                the ultimate goal. If you do that's simply icing on the cake. Making
                the bureaucrats and attorneys spend hundreds if not thousands of man
                hours defending against your suits.

                So stop making excuses about whether a court is Article III, Article
                I or simply a tyrant. You marginalize the judge by making sure your
                complaint states a claim. It get's an answer, and the battle is
                essentially between you and the other side.

                I've been doing it this way for almost 20 years and have been having
                a lot of fun.

                g'day
                John Wilde


                Don Schwarz wrote:

                >
                >
                >AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511 (1828)
                >
                >from the opinion-----------------------
                >
                >at page 543---------------------------
                >
                >The 8th section enacts 'That each of the said Superior Courts shall
                >moreover have and exercise the same jurisdiction within its limits, in all
                >cases arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States, which,
                >by an Act to establish the judicial Courts of the United States, approved
                >the 24th of September 1789, and an Act in addition to the Act, entitled an
                >Act to establish the judicial Courts of the United States, approved the 2d
                >of March 1793, was vested in the Court of Kentucky district.'
                >
                >at page 545-----------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Bob law
                Don, ... (Eliminated Court case citations for brevity) ... [This is not what constitutes an Article III Court Don, what does is the Article of Ordination
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 21, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Don,
                  I will reply in text:


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

                  (Eliminated Court case citations for brevity)
                  >
                  > Bob,
                  >
                  > a constitutional court is determined by the fact,
                  > that the judges therein
                  > "shall hold their offices during good behavior".
                  [This is not what "constitutes" an Article III Court
                  Don, what does is the "Article" of Ordination of the
                  Court. It's foundational documents are what creates
                  the court, not the manner in which the justices live
                  their lives. Sorry, but that is only according to your
                  citation would allow them to remain justices, not what
                  made them one. Another indication fo their non-Article
                  III authority is that one branch of government can not
                  tax another branch. All Justices in our current
                  judicial system pay income taxes upon their salaries.
                  This was tried and lost by a group of justices who
                  claimed article III (seperation of powers) immunity to
                  taxation and they lost. I don't remember the case
                  citation off the top of my head but I am sure there
                  are others out there with it who can confirm it.]


                  >
                  > those judges who accept salary for their positions
                  > in federal
                  > courts that are to be held during periods of "good
                  > behavior",
                  > the Supreme Court has defined as being Article III
                  > courts.
                  [Again, we are presuming facts not in evidence here.
                  The officer of a thing must by the very nature of his
                  office have been established by an act of Congress (de
                  jure authority), the act you referenced was the
                  Judiciary Act of 1789, is this not correct, and was
                  also referenced by the court in question. The
                  Judicairy Act of 1789 was provisional act of a
                  provisional government awaiting the ratification of
                  the Constitution which could not establish any
                  "Article" authority upon anything as it had not been
                  ratified by the consensus of state legislatures at
                  that point in time. Therefore, unless the States had
                  made provision by and through their representatives in
                  Congress assembled after the ratification of the
                  Constitution for the Courts to have Article III power,
                  then same does not exist. Now, another point is shown
                  to be errant is that the "Courts" as defined by the
                  citation you provided showed the "Territorial courts"
                  of the district of Kentucky to have Article III power.
                  How can that be when in fact at that time the
                  Consitution did not apply to the territories, and had
                  not been so extended until a much later time.
                  Therefore, we see even then a dicotomy of terms and
                  authorities. Under a territorial court which is where
                  the Congress has "exclusive territorial
                  jurisdiction"(Article I) apply "Constitutional"
                  constriants which apply only to the Government of
                  "States"??

                  >
                  > This ruling discusses territorial courts and
                  > constitutional courts.
                  [True enough]

                  > It defines both.
                  [Maybe, but it doesn't show where in fact they were
                  ever established by act of Congress in eityher
                  instance.]

                  >
                  > If the judges in a federal court sit "during good
                  > behavior", it is
                  > first a constitutional court.
                  [Not true, this is a presumption on your part, again
                  the actions of a justice does not confir authority to
                  act, or the nature of the forum on which he sits.]

                  >
                  > Have judges given bad rulings? Yes.
                  [ This is under the presumption of their authority as
                  you understand them and the rules of engagement in
                  their courts.]

                  >
                  > Have the cases you have referenced been brought to
                  > the Supreme Court, I do not know.
                  [Yes, Balzac v Porto Rico is one of them.]


                  >
                  > All I know is what I read in the rulings themselves.
                  [Most of the rulings are Dicta which has no "force and
                  effect" or holding on anyone other than the parties to
                  the controvercy.]

                  >
                  > Judges have been known not to obey the
                  > Constitution or the Supreme Court.
                  [The reason for this is it isn't holding upon their
                  court!! Got it. It is hard to get ones mind around
                  this concept I am sure. But when in fact they tell you
                  they can not hear a Constitutional issue then it
                  should make you ask why, if they are a Constituional
                  Court????]

                  >
                  > Clearly in AMERICAN INS CO above, the court did
                  > recognize
                  > Article III courts in Kentucky, which included
                  > Florida at that time
                  > if I am correct.
                  [Both if memory serves me were territories at the
                  time, therefore how could they possibly have had
                  Article III Power? It is like reading Tax cases from
                  different time periods as same were concerning the
                  nature of the tax in question, some say it is direct,
                  and others say it is indirect. Then one has to ask
                  what tax were they discussing at the time?]

                  >
                  >
                  > So in 1828, the US Supreme Court acknowledged that
                  > Article III courts existed in the several States.
                  [They were supposed to be known at the time in
                  question as the District Courts of the United States.
                  However, there was an apparent problem with this and
                  they later combined the two and declared there was no
                  longer any ferderal "common law"?? Do we know why this
                  is?? Many make various claims as to why this is, but
                  few have offered any conclusive proof as to why.]


                  >
                  > But I do thank you for your input for I do not
                  > claim to have all the answers.
                  [Nor do I my friend, as I can only say that I have had
                  many conversations with "authorities" on the subject,
                  and each time they go away scratching their
                  heads...including a Professor Emeritus from the Notre
                  Dame school of Law. He offered no rebuttal of my
                  position, other than he disagreed, nor did he offer
                  any evidence to support his psotion. I believe it
                  almost impossible to prove a negative. If it doesn't
                  exist, then how can one prove it does?]

                  >
                  > Please comment on any and all other knowledge
                  > you have about Article III court and on what I have
                  > posted above.
                  >
                  > By having thoughtful discussions, we all learn.
                  [Don, I respect your position, and as a student of
                  history and law I am thankful for your thoughtful
                  commentary and will be glad to open a dialog with you
                  on the subject matter. However, I would like to do so
                  in a private forum, as it is often a bad idea to offer
                  subjective information in a public forum as there is
                  always someone who can take good issues and try and
                  apply it to their issues in court and cause problems
                  therein for everyone who comes later.]


                  >
                  {Another comment I would like to interject herein are
                  these few questions: What is the Constitution, and to
                  whom does it apply, and what was/is it for? Whom does
                  it bind? and why???? In our Republican From of
                  Governance, what is the structure of Authority?? Who
                  created who, and who is the ultimate supreme
                  Sovereign?]
                  Respectfully,
                  Bob L.



                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
                  http://my.yahoo.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.