No United States district court in any state may lawfully exercise Article III court power. The lawful jurisdiction of the federal district court or courts is limited to those places where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. It is also clear that federal judges and federal courts have been used in the past by the federal government to control those persons opposed to the usurpation of power by the national government. The federal courts known as United States District Courts are federal and territorial in that these courts implement administrative law on territory exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States.

United States district courts are being used by Congress primarily to prevent the rendition of law and equity in national courts by masquerading as Article III courts. These courts are incapable of achieving justice because they are not Article III courts. Generally speaking, we have a federal government that consists of a Congress of the United States, a President of the United States and district courts of the United States because there is one in Hawaii and one is Washington D. C.

The true nature of the government of the United States of America is libertarian. Very few of the “Posterity of the People” that ordained and established the Constitution are aware that the loose confederation of state governments that became the United States of America is a true libertarian government.

The purpose of the Constitution was to establish and limit government to the purposes for which it was established. Unfortunately, the Congress has used very effectively the mechanisms in the Constitution to limit the third branch of the national government to the people’s detriment. Congress has intentionally failed or refused to provide Article III courts in the several states.

The present intent of the federal government is to subject citizens of the several states to its administration. Most if not all people who find themselves in a federal court are not aware that court has no Article III judicial power.

Americans do not want to be in federal courts that cannot dispense justice. For more than 200 years Americans have been subjected to administrative law in courts they believed were dispensing the judicial power of the United States.

Disguised administrative courts are being used to subvert freedom. The federal district courts are administrative, legislative, non-judicial courts that are an extension of any administrative harassment caused by persons claiming to represent the national government.

Individuals appointed to United States district courts are permitted to believe that they are Article III judges because they are appointed for life. These individuals are actually urged by the other two branches of federal government to act like Article III judges.

Article III judicial power imposes self-restraint on judges. Only judges appointed to Article III courts may exercise the judicial power of the United States found in Article III, Section 2. Judicial power imposes restraints on the judges that have it and that serves as some protection from judicial abuse. All justices appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States are genuine Article III judges.

The judges of other than judicial courts, of course, have no constitutional judicial power so they tend to be extremely rigid in the way they administer their “judicial business.” These judges are or can be called territorial, legislative or administrative. The rigidity of the non-judicial court is the result of the tight rein that the Congress maintains over the personnel and business of non-Article III courts to solely achieve congressional purposes.

The Constitution is a limitation on Congress. The Constitution grants to Congress power to create courts by exercising three different powers. At various times in the history of this country Congress has created courts using these various powers under Article I, Article III and Article IV of the Constitution:

1. The Congress shall have power…To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; 
2. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 
3. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

Article III courts would also be limited to a territorial jurisdiction. Based on examination of the statute law that created the various territorial United States district courts throughout the several states, Article III courts would also be of limited federal territorial jurisdiction.

Lawyers and judges must be aware of the true nature of the courts they practice and preside in. Everyone must be made aware that the United States district courts established in California and in 48 other states by United States Statute are not Article III courts.

There should be no confusion as to the difference between Article III courts and those courts that are not Article III courts. Article III district courts are not territorially different from the tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that Congress may constitute pursuant to Article I. Federal courts do not extend their judicial districts beyond federal territory. Article III courts are “territorial courts” that may exercise the judicial power of the United States—Article I and IV courts have no such power.

Congress has established Article III district courts in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The 2 district courts of the United States that were ultimately pronounced ordained and established by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution are the only ones that can exercise the judicial power of the national government.

Lifetime tenure during good behavior is criteria for a judge not criteria for an Article III court. Lifetime tenure fuels the universal presumption in the legal academic community that the federal districts courts are Article III courts and the judges that sit on those courts are Article III judges.

Because Congress can make law locally or nationally, it must be presumed that law enacted by Congress is territorial in scope rather than national, Foley Bros. Inc. v. Filardo 336 U.S. 281(1949), unless a contrary intent is shown in the legislation itself. The legislation creating the district court for Hawaii is a clear example of the presumption and an example of a national legislative intent to create an Article III court.

Combining the district court for Puerto Rico with the other United States District Courts identifies them all as territorial. The federal district courts are found in Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the sections numbered from 81 to 131. Title 28 U.S.C. was enacted into positive law in 1948. The district courts were found in Chapter 5 just as they are today. The districts themselves had not changed from 1911 when they were described as the territory that existed on July 1, 1910. The territory was, for example, the “State of California” which then and now consists of the federal territory within California.

Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. Its inclusion in Chapter 5 and appearance in §119 identifies the “states” in the sections of Chapter 5 as mere labels for the areas of federal territory. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico includes the federal territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. Included, for example, in the “State of California” is the territory of the United States located in the California Republic. Use of the “State of California” facilitates the use of federal law to create a California personal income tax. State of California denotes those special federal places where the United States has jurisdiction.

Congress established the only Article III court for a state of the Union in Hawaii. Hawaii appears in §91 as the only Article III court but that court is qualified as to the way judges are to be appointed to that court. That qualification precludes the exercise of Article III judicial power by any judge appointed to that court. Under the heading for § 91 Hawaii, “Court of the United States; District Judges,” will found, Section 9 (a) of Pub. L. 86-3 which provides that:

“The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, of the Constitution of the United States: Provided, however, that the terms of office of the district judges for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall hold office during good behavior.”

All of Title 28 U.S.C. provides for the territorial government of the United States and nothing of Article III can be put back into it without destroying the entire Title 28 U.S.C. as positive law. In other words, there may be a present belief by all of the state and federal judiciary, all the legal academic community and all the local, state and federal government officials that the United States district courts for the 50 states of the Union are Article III courts, but they are wrong.

Congress prevented the ordination of the Article III it established for Hawaii by denying the court full Article III judges. Congress took a territorial court established by and existing under title 28 and created an Article III district court for Hawaii. It must be noted that the territorial jurisdiction did not change—only the description of the court.

Congress has provided that territorial Title 28 U.S.C. judges be appointed to the United States district court for the district of Hawaii are to be appointed to an Article III court. The district judges for the district of Hawaii are specifically to be appointed by the President pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as officers of the United States but not as judges of an Article III court. These two sections are also to be used in appointing any of 7 judges of the Puerto Rico district should a vacancy occur there. It can be deduced that appointment pursuant to § § 133 and 134 of Title 28, will always produce territorial judges.

The Hawaii judicial district established in § 91 of the Judicial Code of 1948 was a territorial court. Section 9 (a) above clearly indicates that prior to the admission to statehood, the United States District Court of Hawaii was not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution, to administer the judicial power of the United States, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922). In Balzac, Chief Justice William Howard Taft stated that United States District Court for Arecibo, Porto Rico, as Puerto Rico was known then, “created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.”

Puerto Rico is the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and it has not been incorporated into the United States though its inhabitants are United States citizens. The inclusion of Puerto Rico in Chapter 5 as § 119 does not make the district court for Puerto Rico an Article III court because Puerto Rico has not been incorporated into the Union. Puerto Rico fits comfortably among the names of the 50 states because the geographical areas are mini federal territories or federal enclaves.

United States Government people are required to obey the United States Code; it is their duty to obey that law. The government’s law requires the total obedience of government’s officers and employees.

Citizens are not part of government and they are not its subjects. Citizens can impose upon only themselves certain legal duties, if they want. There is only one duty that citizens have that indirectly protects the government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among men” to secure God given rights.

When government attempts to impose duties or obligations on citizens, a duty arises that demands that citizens must investigate and then determine the nature and extent of the authority of every person, group of persons, a grand jury, claiming any authority relationship with any government. As an abstract entity, a government maintains integrity through its agents and employees lawfully interacting with the public. A citizen’s failure to carry out the investigation and determination of authority has grave consequences both for the citizen, his fellow citizens and the government.

Only Hawaii has an Article III district court and that court cannot function as one. No other state has an Article III court. The federal district courts of California fall squarely within the mold of the federal courts of the 49 states that have no Article III district courts. Examination of copies of all the Statute Laws described in the annotations to all the Chapter 5 sections of Title 28 that establish district courts in the states and Hawaii reveals that Hawaii has the only Article III district court.

Citizens have a duty to discover the true authority of those claim government power. The consequences of not investigating and not determining the nature and extent of the authority claimed is that you may have to bear the costs of your failure to do so.

The use of the term, “district courts of the United States” refers to Article III courts. There are no more than two “district courts of the United States.” There is no doubt that the district court for Hawaii is an Article III court—that’s one. The § 88 court for the District of Columbia is another. The Historical and Revision Notes to that section makes it clear that the District of Columbia district court is a constitutional court established and ordained under Article III. The existence of at least two “district courts of the United States” permits the general usage of language that refers to the “district courts of the United States” as Article III courts.

State courts that were already established when the Constitution was ratified were duty bound to obey the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it. Reference to the Judiciary Act of 1789 clarified and substantiated that no Article III district courts had been created in the several states pursuant to that law.

The federal trial courts during the period of the Judiciary Act of 1789 were manned by two United States Supreme Court justices riding circuit and the district judge for the district. Districts were created for territories that by the date of enactment, September 24, 1789 had not yet ratified the Constitution because, of course, they were not states. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until after enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789. District courts created under that act could not have been created under Article III.

Grand and petit jurors determine if they are citizens of the United States and whether they have resided in judicial district for a year. In 1968 Congress enacted the Jury Selection and Service Act that uses the nation’s voter registration system as the basis for jury selection in the federal courts.

Examination of available jury selection plans the district courts have created and that have been approved by the federal courts of appeal reveal no knowledge of the true territorial composition of the United States district courts. The jury questionnaire in common use merely asks an applicant a half dozen questions beginning with, if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the judicial district for at least a year.

Very few Americans can prove that they are, indeed, citizens of the United States and practically no one understands that the Sixth Amendment requires that territorial composition be established prior to trial. For all of the states, district court vicinage is the federal territory within the counties that comprise the district. This is the only vicinage that satisfies the 6th Amendment command that the “district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” An individual jurors impression of what constitutes the judicial district does not satisfy the Constitution.

All trial courts must have districts which shall have been previously ascertained by law. Venue and vicinage are being confused because an erroneous assumption is being universally made that the federal district courts are Article III courts and federal judges are Article III judges. Vicinage corresponds to territorial composition and describes where jurors come from. The areas from where Article III court jurors are to be drawn is the same as the territorial composition of the federal court. from the federal territory within a district comprised of named counties but they are being drawn from outside the federal territory. Any grand and petit juror that resides outside a federal territory does not reside within the district and can successfully be challenged as unqualified.

A federal territorial court without Article III power cannot be conferred such power by the litigants. One United States district court cannot legitimately serve both local federal and national interests. The interests of the two courts are almost completely mutually exclusive. Territorial courts without judicial power tenaciously serve the need of Congress to administer government law. These courts only have the jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress and they guard that jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other judicial concepts.

All the United States district courts in 49 of the several states are other than Article III courts. There is no evidence that the United States district courts for any state other than Hawaii is ordained and established pursuant to Article III, Section 1; therefore, they are not vested with the judicial power of the United States. Article III has not been invoked by Congress in creating any other state’s federal district courts and the 1911 Judiciary Act specifically creates those federal courts from the territory of the United States. When it is apparent that court officials are unaware of the limitations on their authority, it is never wise to attempt to correct these officials in their own court.

Non-judicial, legislative, administrative and territorial courts are incapable of exercising the judicial power of the United States, which can only be found in an Article III court. Article III of the Constitution has expressly granted to Congress the power to vest courts inferior to the Supreme Court with the judicial power of the United States. The Constitution does not prohibit the creation of federal courts outside of Article III. It follows, therefore, that at the very least Congress must invoke the authority of Article III in creating Article III courts just so one court can be distinguished from another.

The evidence that exists to show that the federal district courts are ordained and established pursuant to Article III is anecdotal or circumstantial. The Constitution provides that Congress shall vest the judicial power of the United States in “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” That same language was used in the Preamble to the Constitution to “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” There can be no question that the Congress has established but not ordained an Article III in Hawaii and in no other states. All that remains is to understand the consequences of what has happened and to learn from it.

Legal scholars assume without justification that the federal district courts are Article III courts. I have discovered and I hope proven that no responsible public federal officer has ever questioned their assumptions. In all the legal literature I examined, status of the United States district courts as Article III was assumed despite all the contrary authoritative evidence. The United States Supreme Court in two cases: Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) made it clear that a “district court of the United States” described a court created under Article III and a “United States district court” described a territorial court. The former identified a constitutional court of the United States exercising the judicial power of the United States and the latter merely identified a court for a district of the government of the United States.

Legal scholars are interpreting the power and authority of the federal courts without resort to the statute law that created and established them. The complete statute law and enacted Title 28 U.S.C. is presented here for your consideration. You are again, however, cautioned not to take the issue of jurisdiction to the federal courts as they are presently constituted. The federal courts are territorial legislative courts. This means that they are administrative courts without judicial power and you are without judicial protections if you submit yourself to them. The judges of these courts are there to serve the Congress and not any of the people.