Limitations of the Federal District Court - conclusion and recommendations

Protect your privacy. The national government was granted no power in the Constitution that permits it to obtain information about you without your consent.

Besides avoiding any contacts within property under the jurisdiction of the United States, you will want to avoid claiming that you are a citizen of the United States. The best advice is to never claim anything that you cannot prove. I personally know no one that can prove United States citizenship. A birth certificate from one of the 50 states or a naturalization certificate is sufficient to establish citizenship in any state of the Union and in the United States. A claim on United States citizenship, being a taxpayer or a U.S. person, unfortunately, is a fast track to loss of freedom and privacy.

All other courts established by Congress may be tribunals but they do not exercise judicial power.

The purpose of this letter is to advise and counsel those who fear that they are being oppressed by a distant government. You will find that when you first remove the oppression caused by your own ignorance foreign oppression will subside and then disappear altogether. The United States district courts are territorial and without judicial power. This has been so since the Judiciary Act of 1789. If you do not believe this to be true, I have provided the means by which you can dispute my opinion. The complete absence of any Article III district courts in 49 of the 50 states is a “judicial” disaster waiting to happen. So far, it appears that no terrorist is aware that he or she may escape prosecution for a crime of terrorism because there is only one judicial court in the United States trial court system. Past Congresses may have been able to successfully construct a complex administrative criminal law process where an accused voluntarily accepts the jurisdiction of a non-article III federal court and judge, but dedicated and emboldened terrorists may be able to destroy it in one case. Congress must immediately establish Article III courts.

My task was to determine the legitimate jurisdiction of the federal district courts in your state. I fulfilled my objective in the only reasonable manner possible; I gathered all the statute law and enacted code law used to create the federal courts in all the states. I found only one instance in which Congress had declared that Article III was used to create the court. The one exception is the district court of Hawaii. Without exception, all the federal courts in your state are territorial. The territory that constitutes each of the judicial districts of each court is the federal enclaves within the counties of the state that comprise those judicial districts. Once the documentation for your local federal courts is reviewed and compared to the cross references provided in the government’s own Title 28 U.S.C., the public deception becomes flagrant.

The occasion of Hawaii’s admission to the Union in 1959 was certainly an appropriate event to establish an Article III court for the federal territory in those islands. Why has Congress not acted to create Article III courts in the remaining 49 states? The simple answer is that would have reduced its power. The more complex answer to that question lies in the need that early Americans felt to declare their independence from an unjust king. The following passage from the Declaration of Independence should teach that history repeats itself, especially, for those who refuse to learn it the first time around.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Your personal Declaration of Independence can be a simple recognition that Americans have managed to govern themselves without real federal judicial trial courts for more than 200 years.

Very truly yours,

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the federal courts in your state are, just that, federal courts, you are cautioned again not to enter United States territory lest you be taken into custody on a trumped up administrative tax evasion or similar charge. Despite the overwhelming evidence, I predict that the federal courts will not readily admit their territorial status and less than Article III status. The last place you would want to appear to prove these courts are territorial is in one of them. The federal courts are only presumed to be Article III. The abuses and usurpations complained of in the Declaration of Independence are common symptoms of all governments. No form of government is immune to them. Judges dependent on the will of the king are like the territorial judges disguised as Article III judges. Under no circumstances should you believe that you will be the first litigant to correct an Article I judge’s perception of his Article I court. The only way to correct an erroneous presumption is to correct the public’s and the legal profession’s perception of these courts.

You should immediately prepare letters setting forth the issue of federal territorial courts in place of Article III courts to your Congressman and Senators, and other influential people especially those in the media. Federal judges and court personnel are without power to correct abuses caused by Congress. Do not attempt to communicate with the judges or court personnel. The realization that socialism would never work destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We have not built our nation on such a flimsy economic system but the federal courts are an important part of the federal government and they need to be reformed.

Protect your privacy. The national government was granted no power in the Constitution that permits it to obtain information about you without your consent. The right to privacy is the most difficult right to regain once it has been lost. Most of those who retain my services are attempting to terminate a past association with the Internal Revenue Service or one that the IRS is attempting to initiate, in order to regain their privacy. The IRS and Department of Justice have used the public’s perception of Article III courts to persuade federal grand juries to bring true bills against innocents. Any legally constituted grand jury that intends to encroach upon your privacy has not been made aware of the material presented in this opinion letter. Every federal grand jury is led to believe that the court that is to provide the trial for any indictments they bring is the lawful one and that the indictment gives them the right to invade your privacy. The individuals on the grand jury have no idea of the difference between an Article III court and an Article I court. The persistence of the men and women of the IRS is attributable to their collective status as employees. Their collective job and the IRS Mission is to get everyone to voluntarily comply with Subtitle A, Title 26 U.S.C. by self-assessing a tax on a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. The Internal Revenue Service Mission is a relentless assault on the privacy of Americans. Nothing would be more detrimental to the IRS Mission than the establishment of real Article III national government courts. Begin your own investigation of the local federal grand jury and assist others making their own investigations. Once it is apparent to the reader that my research establishes that there are no national government courts, any action of the federal grand jury becomes transparent and it can be seen as the machinations of the United States Attorney. He is attempting to either lure you into the United States territory upon which the United States district court sits so that he can institute or pursue a territorial criminal action against you or he seeks to have you admit jurisdiction. It is often suggested that an appearance should be made as is suggested in the initiating documents. This should never be done because it is an admission of jurisdiction. The doctrine of the Separation of Powers dictates that Article III courts never have jurisdiction over internal revenue issues. An understanding of this basic structure of our government should be all that is necessary to support the statute law establishing the district courts.

Do not claim anything that you cannot prove. Besides avoiding any contacts within property under the jurisdiction of the United States, you will want to avoid claiming that you are a citizen of the United States. The best advice is to never claim anything that you cannot prove. I personally know no one that can prove United States citizenship. A birth certificate from one of the 50 states or a naturalization certificate is sufficient to establish citizenship in any state of the Union and in the United States. A claim on United States citizenship, being a taxpayer or a U.S. person, unfortunately, is a fast track to loss of freedom and privacy. Once lost, these intangibles cannot be regained through the intervention of any of the courts that will be discussed here.

Demand from academics proof of the assumptions they peddle as facts. In the future I will publish a bibliography of the pertinent legal literature on the subject of the ordination and establishment of courts inferior to the United States Supreme Court that exercise the judicial power of the United States. My review of all the legal literature show that the academics assume Article III status for the United States district courts. Of course, anecdotal or circumstantial evidence is completely inadequate to establish a functioning part of the third branch of government, but can be competent to show how deficient government and public education are.

The best legal advice is always to stay out of all litigation. Ordinary litigants seldom, if ever, fare very well in any kind of federal court. You will learn in this opinion letter that all United States district court judges believe that they sit in Article III courts. This belief is based on the notion that the holding of an office during good behavior is the sole criteria for an Article III court and judge. Apparently, good behavior doesn’t mean that you know what kind of court you, as a judge, are in or what the limits of your authority is. No federal judge has been impeached for impersonating an Article III judge.

Your voluntary appearance at courthouse will be interpreted as a consent to territorial jurisdiction of that court, so, any appearance or acquiescence with a demand or request will constitute acceptance of jurisdiction. Any compliance with requests, commands or demands of a territorial court is a conformation of its power. Since we know that you have no federal income tax liability and no other contacts that can form the basis for territorial jurisdiction, any appearance before that court or any agreement to provide testimony is evidence of your consent to that court’s jurisdiction.

Responsible citizens question the authority of all government officers that present themselves as lawful representatives. When you fully understand the principles set out, you will see why only the alert citizen can protect himself, the government and the people from unlawful or untrue claims of authority. Aside from retaining me to provide you assistance of counsel, the best advice I can give you is to always question authority and never to act or acquiesce unless you are fully satisfied that the government is authorized. Those who have real authority will never object to demonstrating it and discussing its limits. This, however, will never occur in a United States district court for any state, because there can be no demonstration of Article III authority in any of the federal court for any of the fifty states. Legislative territorial courts cannot be introspective. Such self-examination can only be conducted in real courts by real judges.

All courts including the federal district courts are territorial courts. They have no jurisdiction beyond the federal territory embraced within the judicial district. Some clients feel that they should accommodate the local United States Attorney because that official is located locally. The proximity of the federal prosecutor has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It would be foolish for you to begin to accommodate every prosecutor of every jurisdiction with a claim that you omitted to comply with its local laws. The voluntary acceptance of jurisdiction of territorial federal courts based on their proximity to you is not a rational basis upon which to establish jurisdiction. There must exist some national legislation that concerns you in order to establish jurisdiction. I am aware of no national laws that can be adjudicated in a territorial administrative court.

Begin your investigation of the local federal court and local federal grand jury immediately. Do not allow yourself to be rushed into consenting to the jurisdiction of a court without judicial authority. Without judicial authority no court can set deadlines and without authority a court can only make a void judgment. Making even a special appearance to contest jurisdiction in an administrative court is unwise. Sample letters have been prepared for those who are not certain of the conclusions that must result from my research. Federal courts that are exclusively territorial enable terrorists to escape prosecution by the national government if a crime against Americans is committed outside of federal territory. The total absence of national courts and national laws weakens the nation’s stand against international terrorism.

Your own study should be undertaken of any self-proclaimed local federal judicial authority to determine the legitimacy of their claims. You ought to join other investigators of all other United States district court judges particularly those of the Hawaii and Puerto Rico district courts. The study should include what judges claim to be able to exercise Article III judicial power of the United States. These judges appear no different from the other Title 28 judges appointed to other than Article III district courts. Section 9 (a) provides conclusive proof that judges appointed pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code are not “Article III judges” unless appointed to Article III courts without Title 28 restrictions. The district court judges to the United States District Court for the district of Puerto Rico The Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and the inferior Article III courts Congress has yet to ordain and establish in any significant number. All other courts established by Congress may be tribunals but they do not exercise judicial power.