Limitations of the Federal District Court - issues explained

Digg, Reddit, Propellor, Stumble and more

Debt Elimination, Tax Freedom, Speed Equity Growth, and Real Money are Paths to Real Freedom. Eliminate Credit Card Debt. Get out of Debt Now! Get Your Bailout Started Today!

Debt Elimination Is Real Freedom
Accelerated Mortgage Payoff - Eliminate Credit Card Debt - Eliminate Student Loans - Mortgage Elimination - Tax Freedom - Avoid the Draft  -  Asset Protection - Credit Repair - Stop Foreclosure - Earn Real Money - Accelerated Equity - Eliminate Debt - Get out of Debt - Bailout for the People!

The statute law that establishes the federal district courts in the several states must confirm that the territorial composition of the district consists only of federal territory or Title 28 U.S.C. could not have been enacted into positive law.

 Congressional insiders know Congress can punish few acts outside federal territory, so the federal territorial trial courts have been disguised as courts of justice for those who voluntarily submit themselves to federal prosecution. Among others, lawful users of medical marijuana and those who aid and assist them often find themselves federally charged with crimes that do not exist where they were alleged to have occurred.

Note: This version is not yet complete. The text has not been thoroughly edited and the letters that appear at the end will be expanded and substantial revisions will be made to the ones you see. When this letter is completed and hundreds of pages of statute law complement it, it will be the Magic Bullet many have sought. The Magic Bullet is being provided to you in its present form solely for the purpose of making you aware that the underlying principle is sound and completion is only days away.

The Magic Bullet makes the federal trial courts disappear as Article III judicial bodies. The removal of the “least dangerous branch,” as the federal judiciary has been called, shrinks the federal government to a minor annoyance that arises only when entrance to a national park is sought.

For those who do not believe in magic I, also, am preparing a Silver Bullet that is based upon the hoopla gay marriage is getting. So far no one, excepting my clients, is aware that gay marriage presents the greatest tax issue since the income tax. Gays are not being denied marriage, for that it available to all consenting humans, they are being denied civil marriages, which are marriages with the state. The final outcome of whatever legal fights that will be fought is that come May 2004 gay couples will be getting legally hitched in Massachusetts. There is a “kicker.” The common law gave validity to all man and wife marriages when the spouses traveled among and between the states. Civil marriages are voluntary relationships formed between married persons and the state for the purpose of providing revenue to the state.

Re: Jurisdiction of United States District Courts

The enclosed or transmitted material has been sent to you by a person that obtained it directly or indirectly from Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, admitted to the practice of law before the California Supreme Court. Dr. Rivera has graciously permitted its dissemination and you may use it for educational purposes provided it is kept intact. The material is not legal advice. It is, however, the result of research of government and law that has engaged Dr. Rivera for over 45 years and is being provided to you for its educational value. Electronic transmissions may be changed and writings altered, so you are cautioned to verify any information upon which you intend to rely.

The Issue:

Dr. Rivera’s research of the United States district courts has established that only the United States district court in Hawaii has been established as an Article III court and all other United States district courts in the remaining states have no Article III judicial power, whatsoever.

The Impact:

1. The failure to understand that federal trial courts must be confined to causes of action that arise under federal territorial law in federal territory causes unnecessary hardship to defendants. The RIAA copyright infringement suits, for example, allege that defendants reside within and commit violations of the copyright laws within the judicial district. It is extremely unlikely that any of the young people that download music live in federal territory and very likely that these suits are frivolous.

2. Ignorance of citizenship and the territorial composition of the federal courts permit federal grand and petit juries to be drawn from outside the federal territory that comprise the district or division. These juries are improperly constituted and without authority. It is highly improbable that members of the grand juries that indicted media personality Martha Stewart or Enron executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, were actual residents of the federal courts’ judicial districts.

3. There are few if any federal crimes that can be committed outside federal territory. Congressional insiders know Congress can punish few acts outside federal territory, so the federal territorial trial courts have been disguised as courts of justice for those who voluntarily submit themselves to federal prosecution. Among others, lawful users of medical marijuana and those who aid and assist them often find themselves federally charged with crimes that do not exist where they were alleged to have occurred.

AN EXPLANATION

The federal government is renowned for its complexity, so it is extremely gratifying to be able to compress an understanding of that government and its law into a couple of sheets. Pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C. of the federal government’s own Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Code book printed by the Government Printing Office are the most important pages of law in the federal government. On those two pages, Congress explains that the territorial composition of the United States district courts is only that area subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress. Did you think that the 50 United States were subject to Congress’s lawmaking power? To answer that I offer a riddle: What country gets smaller the more land you add to it? The United States of America is thought to be a nation/state but it is a confederation of nation/states created by the Articles of Confederation and it consists of the 50 United States. If Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico are combined with the 50 United States, you don’t get a bigger and better United States of America you get the government of the United States and 50 sovereign states. Those odd two pieces of real estate won’t ever combine to form a whole nation/state and that is key to understanding the United States district courts.

The inability to combine the 50 United States, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to form one nation is what explains and gives us the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions found in Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C. In the rest of Chapter 5, Congress explains that only one district court in all of the 50 states, Hawaii, has been established as an Article III judicial court and explains why that court cannot function as a court exercising judicial power. If judicial power is to be exercised in the several states, it will have to be exercised by state courts, because the districts have none. The federal government in the several states will consist of two government powers since the federal courts have not been granted Article III, Section 2 judicial power. While one or two branches of government may be good enough to do government work, it takes all three to lawfully act upon a citizen.

The nature of the complete federal government cannot be understood unless the reader understands all that begins with the caption “CHAPTER 5—DISTRICT COURTS” and ends with the paragraph below: “HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES.” If you were not sent pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C. or if you have trouble reading or printing out these pages, you can also access Title 28 U.S.C. by going to http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm. The impatient reader is invited to go there and read first §91 and then examine every other district court to find one ordained and established under Article III.

The federal trial courts are universally but erroneously thought to include all the territory in the counties that comprise districts and divisions of the United States district courts. This perception of the federal trial courts is the result of the quick read encouraged by those who favor a strong, large and powerful federal government. Congress, on pages 42 and 43, must state in its curiously cryptic way that the territorial composition of the district courts is only the federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress because that is true. The statute law that establishes the federal district courts in the several states must confirm that the territorial composition of the district consists only of federal territory or Title 28 U.S.C. could not have been enacted into positive law.

By now, you should have those two pages in front of you, so that you can take a heavy pencil or marker and write the date: January 1, 1945 on each page and circle or highlight Alaska, Hawaii, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Now, you must determine for yourself, what is common to all the place names from Section 81 to 131 that are listed on these two pages. All the facts, including the date January 1, 1945, presented in legislation are important and must be accounted for. You must now write below this paragraph what you think is the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions of the United States district courts that make up the rest of Chapter 5. Remember that your inability to account for all the parts of the whole will make your determination of “territorial composition” faulty. If you wrote that the entire state or all of the county territory constitutes the district, go back and start over.

A wise Greek once said that the best law is discovered, as a gift from God. Statute law, to put it simply, is Godless. Statute law is completely and totally made up by legislators. This and the Constitution is the origin of all the titles of the United States Code. Nothing in these codes is for all time that is why January 1, 1945 is used as a reference to determine those federal areas in the several states subject to the exclusive Legislation of Congress.

Alaska and Hawaii are, today, states of the Union, but were territories on January 1, 1945. Washington D. C. is neither a territory nor a state, but is the product of “Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress” is the seat of government. Although it is treated like a state it is the “District” subject to the exclusive Legislation of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Puerto Rico is today and was on January 1, 1945 a possession of the United States and definitely not a state of the Union. The correct answer to the question: What is the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945, is pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, “all Places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.”

If the reader is having difficulty understanding the significance of “territorial composition,” there is a good reason for that. The federal government doesn’t want it understood. The federal government will even lie in print to cover-up the “territorial composition” of the United States district courts. Several editions of the United States Government Manual available on the web falsely state that the United States district court for Puerto Rico is an Article III court. The court for Hawaii was so established and ordained in 1959, so the “Historical and Revision Notes” §119—Puerto Rico can be compared to §91—Hawaii to resolve the issue. The only territory that is common to both the several states, territory and possessions of the United States is federal territory within each. Those Notes show that the district court judges for Hawaii are to be selected pursuant to §§ 133 and 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., which is territorial law.

Based on no evidence at all, and a big fat lie about the United States district court in Puerto Rico, the entire American legal community is convinced that the federal trial courts in the several states exercise Article III judicial power everywhere within those states. I say, the government has gone too far. I have examined the statute law that created every United States district court and I found only one instance where Congress appeared to ordain and establish an Article III United States district court in any state. In 1959 the Congress created an Article III United States district court for Hawaii but made no provision for Article III judges by specifically precluding the President from appointing them. The Code specifically provides for territorial judges for the Hawaiian Article III court. Title 28 U.S.C.—Judiciary and Judicial Procedure has been enacted into positive law so the Code shows the same kinds of courts as are found in the statutes. Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C.—District Courts consists of Sections 81 through 144. The names of all 50 states of the Union will found from Sections 81 to 131 and in addition in Section 88 will be found the District of Columbia and in Section 119 Puerto Rico.

The nature of the astounding revelations in this letter requires this unique format where facts are presented in support of the proposition that no United States district court in any state of the Union can exercise Article III judicial power, so these facts can be easily challenged. This kind of presentation invites facts that prove the contrary. I will give an example of a fact: Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law. This fact will be supported by material found in the notes to §91.

Those in federal litigation or who are contemplating that exercise should be aware that legal justice is available only from courts that have judicial power. Any litigant in any United States district court in any state of the Union is warned that these courts have no Article III, Section 2 judicial power, whatsoever. The United States district courts of the several states are not judicial courts and the judges that sit in those courts are not Article III judges. Judges of these courts are appointed for life terms but they obtain judicial powers only when appointed to judicial courts with Article III power. The court is the equivalent of an office. An office has power because the officer that occupies that office has duties to exercise in that office. District courts and district court judges of the United States have been mistaken for Article III courts and judges since the Judiciary Act of 1789. The mistaken belief that a court has jurisdiction is sufficient to confer it when everyone is equally mistaken, but that jurisdiction remains what it is and not what it is mistaken to be.

Names are labels and like book covers do a notoriously bad job of identifying contents. Just as a book cannot be accurately judged by its cover, a federal trial court is not accurately described by the name of the state where it is located. The names of the federal trial courts in the several states are labels that are fully explained in the first sentence of the “Historical and Revision Notes” that are part of the law: “Sections 81—131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.” Since the conclusion of the Civil War, the States of the Union are the federal territory within the state and the state officers who have taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Since President’s Day, the Mayor of San Francisco has extended the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to its logical conclusion by permitting same-sex couples to pay a tax in order to obtain an application, license and certificate of marriage just like anyone else. States cannot regulate marriage but like the federal government can tax it by license. The State of California like other opponents of gay marriage is learning that the courts cannot enjoin the collection of a tax, especially one that is voluntary. The right to marry is a human right and human rights are to be secured by government not abridged. Government involvement in marriage is limited to imposing a tax on those who submit to an application process and payment for a license and obtaining a certificate of registration.

The subject matter of Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. is the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945 of the courts named in Sections 81—131 which can only be the areas subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States—federal territory. These areas consist of places like the National Parks, military bases, federal buildings and federal courthouses. Crimes that occur on or in these federal places are federal crimes and the federal courts for the district is the proper forum for trials of those crimes. Article III judicial power is not needed for those courts and those courts are certainly without such power.

There is no room for legalistic interpretations of Chapter 5. On January 1, 1945, the judicial districts of United States district courts had only one thing in common—those judicial districts consisted of federal territory and some admiralty jurisdiction for some coastal courts. Those common characteristic have not changed since then and even if they had the January 1, 1945 date was to be used to reckon the federal territories existing on a given date. The January 1, 1945 date is critical to understanding the United States district courts territorial jurisdiction as consisting of federal territory as of a time in a span of time. The first day of 1945 forces the mind to focus on that which can change within geographical boundaries—federal territory, which can be increased by purchase and consent of the Legislature of the State.

The only legislation, since the first judiciary act on September 24, 1789, to create an Article III United States district court is found in §91 of Title 28 U.S.C. That section documents the change of a territorial court to an Article III court without actually giving the court Article III judicial power. Nothing can be done to change the nature of these courts in the several states without the direct intervention of Congress by legislation. A judge without judicial power can do nothing to change the jurisdiction of the court where he presides. Any litigant or defendant in any federal court proceeding who attempts to have the United States district court consider the issues raised in this letter should be aware that the American Law Institute’s Restatement of Judgments holds that such a litigant is bound by the court’s ruling. A federal judge sitting in a trial court in any United States district court is without judicial power. While such an official can be a life-tenured bureaucrat, such an official cannot be expected to rule other than administratively.

→facts
conclusion and recommendations
sample letters