Freedomwriter.com Logo
Eagle

Headline News

America
FOR CURRENT NEWS & COMMENTARY IN BETWEEN ISSUES, PLEASE CHECK EACH AMERICAN LINK
IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND COLUMN OR VIEW THE GUEST FORUM SECTION THRU
FREEDOMWRITER'S IKONBOARD.
About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home

AMERICA LINKS


Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.

District Court of U.S. V. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Dr. Rivera
Family Guardian
Mar. 1, 2004

Are you afraid of being criminally charged for willful failure to file? Or perhaps you have received a court summons to appear with your books and records.

Dr. Rivera is on his way to eliminating that possibility for good. He along with others have found that only courts of the United States can exercise the Article III judicial power of the United States. He recently had to respond to a district court who notified him that his client was the target of a Grand Jury investigation. Following is a little of what he put in the letter, in which he attached the Statutes At Large Acts relating to Illinois and its district courts.

The name of the District Courts indicate that they are Article II courts without any judicial power over people of the 50 states. Taking the Fifth is inappropriate in a criminal proceeding until the lawful jurisdiction of the court has been determined. It is more appropriate to satisfy the requirements of the Sixth Amendment that "the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law" be identified. The relevant portion of the Judiciary Act of 1911 shows that the district consists of the federal territory that existed on July 10, 1910. Additions and subtractions have surely been made since then, but the district is still limited to federal enclaves.

As an example let's look at the United States statute law establishing the district courts for Illinois. The first district court was created in 1819 and the judge of that court was to exercise the judicial authority of judge of the district court of the Kentucky district. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created that district while Kentucky was still a territory. I have found no statutory evidence since that time of any Article III district court in Illinois and so I must conclude there is none.


We have not yet scanned the state statutes and research that Ed has done so I have asked Dan Meador if I could post one of his articles on the subject.

Dan Meador

Virtually every Federal initiative in the Union of several States in both civil and criminal actions is defective by virtue of being without lawful authority. All cases are prosecuted in United States District Courts{7} in the name and by authority of the United States of America. At first blush, this process would seem innocent enough, but the underlying difficulty is akin to remembering if the order of stripes on the deadly coral snake is red then black, or red then yellow. The United States District Court isn't what it seems; the 'United States of America' isn't what it seems, either.

These are fatal flaws. Only district courts of the United States, as defined at 28 U.S.C. ' 451{8} (Section 451 of Title 28 of the United States Code), and three remaining territorial courts{9}, are courts of the United States. United States District Courts situated in the Union of several States are private courts; they do not exercise Article III or Article I (legislative-territorial) judicial authority of the United States.

The Article III district court was defined in a 1938 Supreme Court decision styled Mookini v. United States, as follows:

  • The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States."{10}

The legitimate territorial court, designated as a United States District Court, was defined by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico in 1922:

  • The United States District Court is not a true United States court established und er article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial powers of the United States therein conveyed. It is created in virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, ' 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.{11}

One of the better listings of "courts of the United States" is the definition of courts which the Administrative Office of Courts of the United States has jurisdiction over, at 28 U.S.C. ' 610. However, this list is dated. Since the definition was last amended, the United States District Court for the Canal Zone has been abolished, and the territorial court (United States District Court) for the Northern Mariana Islands has been added:

  • As used in this chapter the word "courts" includes the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade.

A somewhat different but maybe clearer approach is used in the definition at 28 U.S.C. ' 1869(f). This subsection 'defines' what courts of the United States are authorized by statute to convene grand and petit (trial) juries, and effectively bridges civil and criminal so far as lawful courts of the United States are concerned:

  • (f) "district court of the United States", "district court", and "court" shall mean any district court established by chapter 5 of this title, and any court which is created by Act of Congress in a territory and is invested with any jurisdiction of a district court established by chapter 5 of this title ...

Criminal jurisdiction of the United States, found at 18 U.S.C. ' 3231, is vested in "district courts of the United States", not "United States District Courts", and the same is true in civil forums in title 28 of the United States Code.{12} Sections of the Code which reflect jurisdiction similar to district courts of the United States in territorial courts are found for the most part in title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. The Virgin Islands territorial court is unique in that it is vested with concurrent maritime jurisdiction at 18 U.S.C. ' 3241. However, the 'territorial' jurisdiction can and does extend only to the insular possession itself, along with territorial waters. The Canal Zone territorial court had concurrent admiralty and maritime jurisdiction until it was abolished, and prior to admission as States of the Union, concurrent maritime jurisdiction was vested in various of the territorial courts.

No Article III or Article I jurisdiction of the Uni ted States is vested in United States District Courts situated in the Union of several States party to the Constitution. They are not courts created by Congress -- they are private courts created by a judicial consortium. These folks garbed in black were for the most part appointed under authority of Article III ' 1 of the Constitution to preside in lawful courts of the United States, but without constitutional or statutory authority, elected to set up a system of private court system which operates under the territorial illusion.

Whenever territories of the United States were admitted to the Union, Article I territorial courts were replaced by Article III district courts of the United States. Prior to the 1920s, however, there doesn't seem to have been any real distinction in text so far as the district court of the United States v. the United States District Court is concerned. The problem was resolved via Supreme Court definition in Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922), cited elsew here. However, in at least some legislation, court nomenclature was avoided, as was the case in the judiciary act of March 3, 1911 in statutory language governing transition from territorial to Article III courts. The fact that the territorial courts were abolished with admittance of a territory to the Union of several States party to the Constitution is verified in '' 62-64 of the act of March 3, 1911, ch. 231, 36 Stat. 1104:

  • Sec. 61. When any Territory is admitted as a State, and a district court is established therein, all the records of the proceedings in the several cases pending in the highest court of said Territory at the time of such admission, and all records of the proceedings in the several cases in which judgments or decrees had been rendered in said territorial court before that time, and from which writs of error could have been sued out or appeals could have been taken, or from which writs of error had been sued out or appeals had been taken and prosecuted to the Supreme Court or to the circuit court of appeals, shall be transferred to and deposited in the district court for the said States.
  • Sec. 63. It shall be the duty of the district judge, in the case provided in the preceding section, to demand of the clerk, or other person having possession or custody of the records therein mentioned, the delivery thereof, to be deposited in said district court; and in case of the refusal of such clerk or person to comply with such demand, the said district judge shall compel the delivery of such records by attachment or otherwise, according to law.
  • Sect. 64. When any Territory is admitted as a State, and a district court is established therein, the said district court shall take cognizance of all cases which were pending and undetermined in the trial courts of such Territory, from the judgments or decrees to be rendered in which writs of error could have been sued out or appeals taken to the supreme Court or to the circuit court of appe als, and shall proceed to hear and determine the same.

The sections above were derived from '' 567-568 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, page 97, so they weren't new in 1911 or even 1878, but originated a considerable time before. They clearly demonstrate that the nature of courts of the United States is an either/or proposition: Either they must be district courts of the United States, vested with judicial power of the United States via Article III of the Constitution, or they must be Article I legislative courts, with territorial courts having jurisdiction limited to territory subject to Congress' Article IV ' 3.2 legislative authority. There is no statutory provision or justification for maintaining territorial courts once a territory of the United States is admitted to the Union of several States. When a territory is admitted to the Union, only Article III courts of the United States may make determinations that deprive the sovereign people of life, liberty, or property. The Fi fth Article of Amendment, as well as the 'arising under' clause at Article III ' 2.1 of the Constitution, cannot be abridged by Congress or the judicial branch of government.

Restating the obvious, United States District Courts situated in the several States are not Article III district courts of the United States, and they are not Article I territorial courts, known as United States District Courts. It is fair to say that they are 'outlaw' courts -- courts which do not exist by laws of the United States promulgated by Congress, and do not exercise judicial authority of the United States.

This is not conjecture. Judges and the court clerk in the Eastern District of Kentucky have effectively confessed this conclusion in administrative and judicial forums. Law of the United States speaks clearly to the matter. Litigation is already filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky with the mandate to convene the Article III district court of the United States, with an affidavit of b ias and prejudice that disqualifies all judges appointed to the district, the object being to force the Chief Judge of the 6th Circuit to convene the constitutionally-authorized district court. The contention is supported by a letter from the office of the General Counsel for the Administrative Office of Courts of the United States. As of this writing, these initiatives are stalemated by inaction, but there has been no rebuttal to the obvious conclusions or legitimacy of the initiatives.

The character of the United States District Court is addressed several times in the body of this discourse, so we will leave it here for now.

Next, it is particularly important to understand that the "United States of America" responsible for civil and criminal initiatives in United States District Courts is a government foreign to the United States that has no constitutional or statutory authority in the several States party to the Constitution. Where United States government has two capaciti es or characters, there are two distinct political alliances or coalitions named the "United States of America".

The original United States of America, spelled with capital first letters, was comprised of the thirteen original States joined to fight the American war of independence, and was formally established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation (1777). This same "United States of America" appears in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States: "We the People of the United States..," "established the Constitution, " "... for the United States of America." The United States of America also has a function in Article II of the Constitution: By way of electoral college, the President is elected President of the United States of America, then at his inauguration is sworn in by oath as President of the United States.

The relationship of the Union of several States party to the Constitution, designated as the United States of America in the Articles of Confeder ation, is somewhat on the order of member nations who participate in the United Nations. By way of charter, signatory nations established the United Nations, but the charter does not vest unilateral authority in any of the participating nations; all actions of the United Nations, regardless of what nations participate, are engaged in the name and by authority of the United Nations. The Constitution of the United States enumerates certain powers vested in the governmental entity known and designated as the United States, not the United States of America.

Analogously, suppose several people decide to undertake an enterprise of some sort. Maybe they want to build cars. They might create a corporation, which is a legal fiction, and the might name the 'agent' responsible for carrying out the enterprise the Ford Motor Corporation, General Motors, Chrysler, or anything else. Likewise, delegates of the United States of America compact could have named the confederation agent anything th ey wanted to. Rather than the "United States", they might have named the designated governmental entity the 'Confederated Authority'. The sense of what they did is related in the first three articles of the Articles of Confederation:

  • Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
  • Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
  • Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

Essentially the same limitations on United States author ity is articulated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

  • Ninth Article of Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • Tenth Article of Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Obviously, even the original United States of America had no significant constitutionally delegated powers -- the Constitution was "for" the United States of America, its primary function was to delegate authority to the United States as the general government agent, and therefore, the Constitution is the Constitution of the United States. The original draft of the Constitution made at the Constitutional Convention actually doesn't have a title. The title was later added for classification and other purposes, but the intent is clear even without the ti tle. But substituting the "United States of America" for the "United States" as the principal of interest in Federal civil and criminal initiatives is only the beginning of fraud.

The United States of America currently responsible for Federal civil and criminal initiatives is not the original. It is a political coalition, compact or alliance of insular possessions of the United States subject to sovereignty of the United States via Congress' plenary power (near-absolute) in territory belonging to the United States under authority of Article IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 of the Constitution.{13} By way of various sections of the United States Code, delegations of authority, treaties, etc., we know the substitute "United States of America" is territorial, it is a jurisdiction foreign to the United States, and it is defined as an agency of the United States (see notes following 18 U.S.C. ' 1001, and 18 U.S.C. ' 6, 1994 edition, derived from 18 U.S.C. ' 80, 1940 edition). The entity is very proba bly classified or designated as a municipal corporation.

By putting the "United States" and the "United States of America" in the same statute or regulation, the two entities are distinguished as being unique and separate -- the "this is not that" test applies. The following is reproduction of 18 U.S.C. ' 80, 1940 ed.:

  • ' 80. (Criminal Code, section 35(A).) Presenting false claims.

Whoever shall make or cause to be made or present or cause to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or whoever shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or co ver up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [Emphasis added]

The general fraud is made possible by the likeness of the two names where the second is a familiar name. For example, years ago when I lived in Oklahoma City, I was listed in the telephone directory as "Dan L. Meador," and there was also a Daniel Meador who was listed as "Dan'l Meador." I occasionally received mail and telephone calls intended for Daniel, and he sometimes r eceived mail and telephone calls intended for me.

Then there is a similar kind of confusion: When I first began attending a university, I kept running into what I thought was the same guy. It was disconcerting because he would show up at places that didn't make sense. I might see him somewhere, then see him a second place and wonder how he had gotten there. The problem was resolved when I saw two of the same guy in the same place -- the two were identical twins.

The example here isn't precisely the same as the "United States" isn't the "United States of America," but knowing there are two entities identified as the "United States of America" helps, then seeing the "United States" and the "United States of America" clearly set out in the same section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations provides the means for conceptual clarification and orientation. It is clear that, "The United States is not the United States of America," then conclude by way of the Constitution and laws of the United States that the United States, not the United States of America, has lawful authority in the Union of several States party to the Constitution.

Ironically, proper authority is tied together in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. ' 7402. This section, in subsection (a), is specific with respect to the "United States" being the lawful principal of interest, and the "district court of the United States" being the court where government may secure lawful remedies:

  • (a) To issue orders, process, and judgments

The district courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of injunction, and of ne exeat republica, orders appointing receivers, and such other orders and processes, and to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. The remedies hereby provided are in addition to and not exclusive of any and all other remedies of the United States in such courts or otherwise to enforce such laws.

The "United States' must bring the action -- "... at the instance of the United States..." -- in a "district court of the United States," in all "civil actions."

Making a non-criminal claim or complaint in a court is a "civil action," and it may be in two different forms. It may proceed "in the course of the common law," or "in the course of the civil law." The terminology of law is at best confusing for most people even where there is no deceptive intent, so there is an inherent problem of explaining the meaning of words and phrases even for many people who practice law. The problem is even worse where there is intentional deception, which is the case for the Internal Revenue Code and other titles of the United States Code.

The Internal Revenue Code is full of deception. One example relates to forfeitures. In the Internal Revenue Code, forfeitures are designated as 'in rem' actions, and are to be executed in United States District Courts, this stipulation at 26 U.S.C. ' 7323:

  • Sec. 7323. Judicial action to enforce forfeiture.

(a) Nature and venue.

The proceedings to enforce such forfeitures shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem in the United States District Court for the district where such seizure is made.

The United States District Court is a territorial court, and the in rem action is an admiralty/maritime action, which proceeds "in the course of the civil law," contrary to due process in the course of the common law secured by the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of Amendment, and presumed by the "arising under" clause at Article III ' 2.1 of the Constitution. Again it is necessary to understand terminology and implications of terminology to grasp meaning of 26 U.S.C. ' 7323. However, with what has already been addressed, we can conclude that the current Internal Revenue Code do es not authorize seizures and forfeitures in the Union of several States party to the Constitution -- these portions of the Internal Revenue Code are limited to territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, 'venue' for forfeitures, venue meaning territorial jurisdiction, is determined in the context of ' 7323 by designation of the territorial court rather than the Article III district court of the United States as the court with authority to effect seizures and forfeitures. Only three legitimate territorial courts remain, designated via 1994 legislation at 18 U.S.C. ' 23 -- United States District Courts of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Therefore, per 26 U.S.C. ' 7323, all suits for seizure and forfeiture must be in one of the three remaining territorial courts, not in district courts of the United States situated in the Union of several States party to the Constitution.

That the "United States", not the "United States of America" , is the constitutionally and statutorily-authorized principal of interest, and must therefore be the prosecuting party via lawful courts of the United States, is reasonably easy to track through statutory authority relating to revenue laws. By going to the 1934 edition of the United States Code, authority of the "United States" is verified for actions to enforce forfeitures, etc. Authority is found at 28 U.S.C. ' 732, 1934 ed., as follows:

  • ' 732. Suits for duties, imposts, taxes, penalties, or forfeitures. All suits for the recovery of any duties, imposts, or taxes, or for the enforcement of any penalty or forfeiture provided by any act respecting imposts or tonnage, or the registering and recording or enrolling and licensing of vessels, or the internal revenue, or direct taxes, and all suits arising under the postal laws, shall be brought in the name of the United States.

The origin of 28 U.S.C. ' 732, 1934 ed., is ' 919 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, the beginning-place for the United States Code. By going to the Revised Statutes of 1878, we can compare the section with that in the Code to see proper authority:

Sec. 919. All suits for the recovery of any duties, imposts, or taxes, or for the enforcement of any penalty or forfeiture provided by any act respecting imports or tonnage, or the registering and recording or enrolling and licensing of vessels, or the internal revenue, or direct taxes, and all suits arising under the postal laws, shall be brought in the name of the United States. [Emphasis added]

The 1934 U.S.C. section duplicates ' 919 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, the Revised Statutes of 1878 providing the point of demarcation for current law of the United States. Annotation to ' 919 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 cite original legislation as follows: Act of 4 Aug., 1790, c. 35, s. 67, v. 1, p. 176. 31 Dec. 1792, c. 1, s. 29, v. 1, p. 298. 18 Feb., 1793, c. 8. s. 35, v. 1, p. 317. 2 Mar., 1799, c. 22, s. 89, v. 1, pp. 695, 696. 13 July, 1866, c. 184, s. 9, v. 14, pp. 111, 145. 8 June, 1872, c. 335, s. 303, v. 17, p. 323.

Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined authority of the "United States" to sue in the absence of statutory authority specifying the principal. In the absence of statutory authority, or statutes to the contrary, the Attorney General may initiate suit in the name and by authority of the United States (United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U.S. 273 (1888); United States v. Beebe, 127 U.S. 338 (1888); United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888)).

Finally, the matter is ultimately put to rest by the original judiciary act of September 24, 1789. The first section which speaks to authority of the United States is ' 9, 1 Stat. 76:

  • Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts (c) shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizabl e under the authority of the United States...

Actions of a civil nature are addressed in 11, 1 Stat. 78:

  • Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter is dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs...

Duties of the United States Marshal clarify authority of the United States, with no other authority listed, at ' 27, 1 Stat. 87: Sec. 27. And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for the term of four years ... (b) And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States...

To close the loop, this same basic charge of responsibility for the U.S. Marshal is found in the 1994 edition of the United States Code at ' 566(c):

  • (c) Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States...

Nowhere is there constitutional or statutory authority for the "United States of America" to serve as principal of interest in civil or criminal causes in the Union of several States party to the Constitution. This might be a minor thing of no consequence if the "United States of America" wasn't a distinct, separate geographical and political entity foreign to the "United States", but the evidence clearly shows that the United States and the United States of America are distinct and different with distinct and separate geographical authority. There is no other "law or Rule of Procedure" authorizing the United States of America as prosecuting principal in civil or criminal judicial forums; all writs, process, and orders of courts of the United States which the U. S. Marshal's Service may execute must be "issued under the authority of the United States."

In sum, virtually all Federal civil and criminal initiatives against individuals and non-governmental enterprise are filed in private United States District Courts situated in the Union of several States party to the Constitution in the name and by authority of the United States of America, a government foreign to the United States that has no constitutional or statutory authority in the several States party to the Constitution. These are the 'least common denominators' for virtually all Americans assailed in civil and criminal forums since approximately 1948.

The broader scheme will make more sense after reading the next two sections. Motives behind the Cooperative Federalism scheme are simple -- wealth and power.


Fam Guardian

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

World News Alaska News

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright 2004. All Rights Reserved