Article III the Constitution creates one supreme court
Fri Dec 8, 2006 16:38
 

Re: look at Article III the Constitution creates one supreme court

Big Al bigal123@ncol.net


All I can say is the Informer's book, Which One Are You , published 1990,
goes way beyond this and explicitly tells you the answers to the questions
here in this article. It even shows the federal states , not the union
states, were/are Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, etc ., and Montgomery
showed how Washington made "district states" that hovered over the land
mass of the states in union. I think Rivera is a tad bit behind times
like 16 years and still does not comprehend what is going on as neither
does Berg, the author.
Big Al


On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:36:51 -0500, Jack Lancaster
wrote:

> From: "rivera office"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:21 PM
> Subject: Another Example of a Student's Great Work
>
>
> Dear Reader,
>
> Enclosed is a copy of the Constitution of the United States, the
> Judiciary Act of 1789, 28USC, Chapter 5, sections 81 through 131, a
> couple of supreme court decisions and a few other selected
> documents. I have highlighted some passages in order to support the
> legal conclusions contained herein.
>
> Please notice that in Article I of the Constitution, impeachment
> proceedings are to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Now, take
> a look at Article III and see that the Constitution creates one
> supreme Court and it speaks of Judges of that Court. Moreover, the
> judicial power of the United States is vested in this Court. Moving
> back to Article II the Constitution shows that the President has the
> power to nominate "Judges of the supreme Court "
>
> Now if you will turn for a moment to The Judiciary Act of 1789,
> Section I, you will see that "the supreme court of the United States
> shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices "
> Notice, that in place of a Court we are now presented with a court.
> So here's the question: Is the supreme Court created by Article III
> of the Constitution the same court as the supreme court of section I
> of the Judiciary Act of 1789?
>
> Before answering that question I'd like you to take a look at 28USC,
> Chapter 5, sections 81-131. I have highlighted a sentence from the
> "Historical and Revision Notes," near the bottom of the second page.
> "Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of
> districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945. That
> sentence has been overlooked or ignored by the entire legal
> establishment, so it is important for those who wish to understand
> the law to firmly grasp the meaning of this sentence and to
> comprehend why it was placed here after Title 28 was written. The
> reason it was inserted was to make Chapter 5 conform to the
> Constitution, specifically the sixth amendment.
>
> If you were to look at sections 81-131 on the internet (FindLaw.com)
> you would find that each of the states could be opened up and that
> you would then be able to see counties and that the counties are
> arranged into the districts and divisions (circuits) of the federal
> court system. So the question here is what is meant by territorial
> composition?
>
> Well, let's take a closer look at sections 81-131. We see that it
> includes all of the states. But wait, there is Puerto Rico, which
> is a possession and then there are Alaska and Hawaii which on
> January 1, 1945 were territories and there is the District of Columbia
> which is the seat of government and falls under Article I,
> section 8, paragraph 17 of the Constitution; namely, "the
> legislative control" of Congress. What's going on?
>
> The sixth amendment makes jurisdiction conditional on "state and
> district " and the footnote to 28USC, Chapter 5, sections 1-131
> speaks of territorial composition of districts and divisions. A
> look at the sixth amendment reveals that, "In all criminal
> prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a " trial, by an
> impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
> have been committed " Would this apply to Puerto Rico? If you read
> the preamble to the Constitution you will see that the "Constitution
> of the United States" is written for the "United States of America".
> So, now we have more questions. What is the difference between the
> United States and the United States of America?
>
> One thing should be clear at this point and that is, we have
> different types of territory, all appearing to fall under the
> jurisdiction of United States District Courts. We have the several
> states of the union, which have their own constitutions, which are
> in a sense, the articles of incorporation of individual state
> governments, which have joined together in a confederation known as
> the United States of America. These state governments are bound by
> the Constitution of the United States and they in turn oversee the
> territory of the people of the several states. Then we have the
> District of Columbia, which falls under Congress as described above.
> We have Alaska and Hawaii, which until admittance to the Union were
> governed by Congress under the authority of Article IV of the
> Constitution, which I have highlighted and then we have Puerto Rico,
> which also falls under Congress by virtue of Article IV because it
> is a possession. Can we have a court with jurisdiction over places
> where the law is clearly different? Remember 28USC, sections 81-131
> are dealing with the establishment of United States District Courts
> so the question here is where do these courts have jurisdiction?
>
> Let's go back in time. The year is 1781. There is one independent
> state left which has not signed the Articles of Confederation. That
> state is Maryland. Maryland is concerned that some states, which
> possess vast territories, will become richer and more powerful than
> the smaller states. So Maryland makes it a condition of signing the
> Articles that these states give up their territories to the new
> corporation being created by the former colonies; the corporation
> known as the United States of America, of which the new states are,
> in a sense, shareholders. A deal is struck and on March 1, 1781,
> Maryland becomes the final state to join the confederation and the
> territorial holdings of states like Virginia and Massachusetts pass
> to the United States of America and become the first federal
> territory.
>
> Let's move forward to 1787, the constitutional convention in
> Philadelphia. All the states are in attendance except fiercely
> independent Rhode Island. The representatives of the twelve states
> in attendance sign off on the document intended to create "a more
> perfect union" and return to their individual states to lobby for
> ratification. According to the Constitution, it will take at least
> nine of the thirteen states to ratify.
>
> Now it is 1789 and the first Congress has assembled in Philadelphia
> and on September 24th the Judiciary Act is passed. Section 2 of
> that act reads; "And be it further enacted, That the United States
> shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts " But
> two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina have still not ratified
> the Constitution. So Congress creates the thirteen districts to
> coincide with thirteen states, but instead of a Rhode Island
> District and a North Carolina District, Congress creates a Maine
> District and a District of Kentucky. So from this it is clear to
> the discerning that the territory of the United States is all of the
> territory owned and administered by the United States of America;
> federal states comprised solely of federal territory or territory
> within the "several states", which has been ceded by the individual
> state to the United States of America. If this were not true than
> the United States District Courts would have jurisdiction in places
> where the law is completely different; Maine, formerly territory of
> Massachusetts and Kentucky, formerly territory of North Carolina as
> opposed to Massachusetts and North Carolina themselves. Thus, we
> have the Constitution of the United States, consisting of the
> federal territory and state governments, for the United States of
> America, the existing confederation, whose organizational rules are
> superceded, but whose structure is not altered.
>
> Let's return to the present. Title 28 is a direct descendant of the
> first Judiciary Act. Sections 81-131 deal with the establishment of
> United States District Courts So if there is a question remaining
> about where these courts have jurisdiction, we have a clue in the
> "Historical and Revision Notes" referred to above. "Sections 81-131
> of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and
> division by counties as of January 1, 1945." This one sentence
> gives us the key to unlock the door to a place not very different
> from Lewis Carroll's Wonderland of our childhood, the world of
> federal law and where and to whom it applies.
>
> It must be clear from all of the above that; 1) a court can only
> have jurisdiction in the state and district where the crime was
> committed; 2) there are distinctly different kinds of territory
> within the counties that comprise the districts and divisions and 3)
> the "territorial composition of districts and divisions," is a
> direct reference to these distinctly different kinds of territory.
> In order to pinpoint the area of jurisdiction of United States
> District Courts, these two categories of territory must be clearly
> defined within the counties of the several states.
>
> Federal territory is what the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has in
> common with the California Republic. The difference is that while
> Puerto Rico is entirely federal territory, in California, federal
> territory comprises only those areas that have been ceded to the
> United States of America, created by the Articles of Confederation,
> which is then administered pursuant to Article IV of the
> Constitution of the United States, by the separate corporation known
> as the United States, created by that Constitution. This is what
> makes it possible to create a judicial system that applies in both
> the several states and territories while remaining in compliance
> with the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
> All federal territory ceded by the California Republic is still
> contained within the outer limits of its boundaries. That is why,
> for example, a person born in Yosemite National Park would still be
> a Citizen of California. By glossing over the distinction between
> federal territory and the peoples territory, the territory
> administered by the several states, comprising the Union, Congress
> has illegitimately extended the jurisdiction of its handmaiden, the
> United States District Courts.
>
> Before moving on, let's continue to clear up the distinction between
> the United States of America and the United States. Article 1 of
> the Articles of Confederations says, "The Stile of the Confederacy
> shall be 'The United States of America.' "The government under the
> Articles was known as "The United States in Congress Assembled,"
> since it only consisted of the one branch. At the time of the
> Constitution the name of the government was shortened to The United
> States, since " in Order to form a more perfect Union " two
> branches were supposed to be added.
>
> In addition the Constitution says; "No Person except a natural born
> Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the
> Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of
> President " In this regard the United States is to be understood as
> all the states comprising the Union. To add to most people's
> confusion "the term 'United States' may be " merely the name of a
> sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other
> sovereigns in the family of nations..." or " It may designate the
> territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends."
> (Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652). You will recall
> that the District of Columbia, which was created by the
> Constitution, is under the Article I legislative control of Congress
> and the other territories such as Maine and Kentucky at the time of
> the Judiciary Act were under Article IV legislative control of
> Congress. This is where United States District Courts have
> jurisdiction! This is the United States from a territorial
> standpoint. The United States in Congress Assembled is the combined
> representatives of corporate like entities know as states, which
> comprise no territory, and it is these states for whom the United States
> makes law. It is a government of the states and all of its
> law is administrative law. It can only govern directly in the
> territories and the District of Columbia, which is where it gets its
> status as a sovereign among nations.
>
> As for the states, their governing powers are also limited because
> the Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of
> government, which means there is no King, no sovereign to reign
> supreme over the people. The laws of the state legislatures cannot,
> like Parliament, be applied to the people through the sovereignty of
> a King. The democracy only exists on federal territory. Nowhere in
> the fundamental law of the United States of America, comprising the
> Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation and The
> Constitution of the United States of America, can there be found
> anything that grants any person the right to make law for any other
> person. . "The legislative power herein granted," is power to
> legislate for the States and for government. The law for the people
> is the common law referred to in the 7th Amendment. The power of
> the people is the jury. The power of the states is the police
> power, wherein the state can provide for the safety and the general
> welfare of the population by, for example zoning ordinances,
> inspections of restaurants to make sure the food is safe to eat,
> inspections of public buildings, etc., and may impose excise taxes,
> sufficient to provide for such work.
>
> The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution reads in part: "All
> persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
> jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
> State wherein they reside. Notice the small c in citizen as opposed
> to the capital C in Citizen of the United States of Article II of
> the Constitution. Also, notice the word reside following the word
> State. The fourteenth amendment citizen is subject to the
> jurisdiction of the United States or to be clear is made a citizen
> of Washington D.C., living under the "legislative control" of
> Congress. Getting people to admit to being citizens of the United
> States, for example on a voter registration form, rather than
> Citizens of their birth states, is one way the United States extends
> its jurisdiction and robs Citizens of their birthright.
>
> Speaking of capitalization, let's return to the subject of the
> supreme court as opposed to the one supreme Court. I noted this
> seemingly small anomaly at the beginning of the essay. Then I add
> another little anomaly, the difference between Judges and Justices.
> There are more, but rather than catalogue them, I'll state clearly
> and unequivocally that the supreme court of the Judiciary Act is not
> the Article III supreme Court vested with the judicial power of the
> United States. It is clearly a court inferior to the one supreme
> Court. It is an Article IV administrative law court, which
> surreptitiously acts as a Constitutional Court capable of
> administering the judicial power of the United States. This supreme
> court does not constitute a separate and independent branch of the
> United States.
>
> Please refer to Article VI of

Main Page - Sunday, 12/10/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)