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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Art. III courts

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.