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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Art. III courts

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.

      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 2 of 8 , Nov 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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

        > 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

        > 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

        > 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
        Bob L.

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