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

Re: Art. III courts

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.