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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Art. III courts

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.