Misc RM 36    Misc reference material  Part 2

Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

EDUARDO M. RIVERA

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW CAL BAR NO. 52737

P.O. Box 14207

Torrance, CA 90503

310-370-3361

September 27, 20xx To: J SN

(address deleted)

Dear Mr. N:

Re: Jurisdiction of United States District Courts

The nature of the revelations in this letter requires this unique format. District courts of the United States have been mistaken for Article III since the Judiciary Act of 1789. Nothing can be done to change the nature of these courts in the several states without the direct intervention of Congress. A judge without judicial power can do nothing to change the jurisdiction of the court where he presides. However, there are countless miscarriages of justice that must be corrected. Following my conclusion, I offer recommendations that should be considered by anyone that has had contact with a federal court in the past or may have such contact in the future. Under no circumstances should any litigant or defendant in any federal court proceeding attempt to have the court consider the issues raised in this letter. You must first assure yourself that opinion I provide in this letter is absolutely correct before you confront any federal judge. I suggest that you create a support group for yourself if want to challenge a federal judge.

First time recipients of this opinion letter are provided with the statutes mentioned in my letter. These materials should be reproduced and distributed to all persons interested in proper and efficient judicial administration. I have prefaced each paragraph with a descriptive sentence in bold so that a rather long letter can be shortened to suit the reader's needs.

OPINION

In my opinion the United States District Court in your state is not an Article III court. I have been retained to provide you with my legal opinion of the lawful jurisdiction of the federal district court or courts that have been used in the past by the federal government to control those opposed to the loss of their freedom to 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. These courts are being used 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. This opinion letter will explain in summary fashion why we have two such courts.

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. It is true that the nation created by the Articles of Confederation lacked the autonomy to compete with the European empires but that was of small importance to the people. Nevertheless the Constitution of the United States was proposed and intended to perfect the Union and establish a government that would carry out the aims expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution. 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. This opinion letter will offer some recommendations to correct what the Congress has done but there can be no doubt that Congress has failed to provide Article III courts in the several states.

The present intent of the federal government is to subject you to its administration. If you would be content to survive or thrive on your own without interference of a national government, in a short time an organization with federal government ties would attempt to draw you into its administration of some social welfare program. Because you are in America you are free not to participate if you so choose. However, many people find themselves in a federal court that gives no assurance of being optional. Americans do not want to be in a court that denies them their freedom, however, 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 your freedom. If you are being harassed by persons claiming to represent the government especially the national government, and you steadfastly refuse to consent to their demands you will likely later find yourself near or in an administrative, legislative, non-judicial court. You can bet that the court causing you immediate concern is not an Article III court. Since the court determines the judges' power and authority, the judge will not have judicial power, temperament or restraint. Individuals appointed to these United States District Courts are lead to believe that they are real judges and they are actually urged by the other two branches of government to act like 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. Judicial power imposes restraints on the judges that have it that serves as some protection from judicial abuse. All justices appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States are real Article III judges. Forget about having a judge of this temperament involved in any federal case you might ever have. The judges of the other two types of courts, of course, have no constitutional judicial power so they tend to be extremely rigid in the way they administer their "judicial business." That rigidity 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.

United States District Court judges are lifetime administrators. Congress has provided for the appointment of administrators to lifetime tenures to courts created without Article III power and obtained a means by which it can continue to legislate long after a typical legislative enactment and executive approval would have run its normal course. The federal income tax is the best example. Just when genuine tax protesters in civil federal juries were about to decimate the tax, the Collector of Internal Revenue was abolished and the tax was made collectible by "voluntary compliance." Article I and Article IV courts now drain off all opposition to the federal income tax. A tax that is paid by "voluntary compliance" cannot be litigated because there is nothing to litigate—the tax is, of course, paid voluntarily. Alleged tax crimes do not take place in Article III courts because none exist in the several states. Those who do not volunteer to pay their taxes are prosecuted in Article IV courts where a conviction is practically assured because the court is organized primarily to collect taxes and administer the federal government.

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 W 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;

Even Article III courts are limited to their territorial jurisdiction. Based on the statute law that created the various United States district courts throughout the several states, I have concluded that these courts are of limited federal territorial jurisdiction and that you are not to assume these courts have any power over you. A United States court with the name of a state of the Union is little different from a state court. In order for a court to have jurisdiction over you, there must be minimum contacts by you with the territory that makes up its geographical jurisdiction. Never voluntarily appear in these courts because your presence gives the court jurisdiction over you. These courts are not subject to regular judicial rules because they are not Article III courts. The Article III district court in the seat of government will not be of any value because its purpose is to support government and not to provide you with protection from its abuses.

DISCUSSION

Lawyers and judges must be aware of the true nature of the courts they practice and preside in. During the more than 30 years that I have been a practicing attorney in California, I have appeared in and represented clients in many different courts, but I only recently began researching how the courts are constituted. I have discovered that the United States district courts established in California and in 48 other states by United States Statute are not Article III courts. There is confusion as to the difference between Article III courts and those courts that are other than 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 W 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. The judicial power of the Hawaii district court securely bound up in that court without a chance of extraction. California and the other 48 states of the Union must have United States courts with judicial power if the people are to obtain justice in law and equity from United States courts. That is not something that Congress wants to happen anytime soon. Congress and the President will stop at nothing to keep a steady stream of voluntary tax payment into the United States Treasury. Administrative federal courts pretending to be courts of law and equity are interfering with California's sovereignty and can prevent prosecution of terrorists in the federal courts in all the states but one—maybe. Perhaps the increased demand for medical uses for marijuana will break the lock that the Article W territorial courts have had on state government.

Lifetime tenure during good behavior is criteria for a judge not criteria for an Article III court. A natural for the law school set, 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. I have found no basis for that presumption. Lifetime tenure as a predictor of judicial independence itself seems an invalid assumption. There is only one viable Article III district court in Washington, D. C., so there is little evidence to support that presumption. 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 the only example of a national legislative intent to create an Article III court in any of the 50 states of the Union. I have personally examined all the Statute Law used to create the district courts in the several states and Hawaii stands alone as the only state to have an Article III district 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 and today is defined in Rev. & Tax. Code Sections 5304 and 6017.

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 power of the court. Congress has not, however, provided that the judges to that court 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) 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 W, § 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.

Government people are required to obey the law; it is their duty to obey the law. The government's law requires the total obedience of government's officers and employees but can impose upon citizens only certain legal duties. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among men" to secure God given rights. Citizens are not part of government and they are not its subjects. There is only one duty that citizens have that indirectly protects the government. That duty demands that citizens must investigate and then determine the nature and extent of the authority of every person or group of persons, such as 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. That duty has caused you to retain me to assist you in evaluating the claim that you should present yourself to give testimony. You have sought my counsel so you can determine the authority of a grand jury and of a person claiming to be the United States Attorney or one of his delegates or deputies.

A Citizen has a duty to question the authority of all who claim to represent government. You are cautioned against following any instructions that may be given you in any initial correspondence with any United States Attorney federal court. Agreeing to abide by any instructions set out in such a document is tantamount to accepting jurisdiction of what I have proven to be a territorial court. Because the law imposes a duty that you investigate the authority of all the persons from all departments of the government whose names appear on any document that even suggests that you act in a certain way, acting in a way suggested by them is evidence of your consent to their authority over you. Since these individuals are all connected with the United States district court for the territorial district of your own investigation should begin there.

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. I have examined 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 has the only Article III district court. I am convinced that none of the other states including California federal courts are Article III courts and that the district judges that sit in those courts are appointed pursuant to Title 28 and not Article III. When I examined all other related legal literature, I could find no evidence or reference to evidence that either the California federal courts or district judges were established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. I now make it my business to provide my opinion of the current state of the judicial system along with the statute law that supports that opinion. I am prepared to share what I have found with other interested researchers.

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 federal income tax is local legislation directed at taxation of federal income in the hands of its officers and employees that agree to the taxation before they receive any income. However, anyone can participate in the system of federal income taxation by making a return and as a consequence many do without conscious realization. The court system that assists in its administration is necessarily administrative itself because no judicial powers were ever conferred to it. The research that is included with this letter proves that the federal courts are administrative law courts and not courts that have been ordained and established under Article III to exercise the judicial power of the United States.

The use of the term, "district courts of the United States" refers to Article III courts. There are at least two "district courts of the United States," but probably no others. 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. 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. 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. The Judiciary Act of 1879 and every other Judiciary Act since that one are also supportive of my position on these United States district courts.

The evidence is incontrovertible—Hawaii is the only state in which the Congress has established an Article III United States district court. In the very same law, Congress has neutralized the Article III district court by installing district court judges without Article III judicial power. This creates a crisis of immense concern in our war against terrorism. Any terrorist indicted by a grand jury of any United States district courts may effectively challenge the grand jury array because that court is a territorial court and the grand jury is drawn from a vicinage outside the federal territory that actually and legally constitutes the territorial district of all district courts.

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. I have examined many of the Plans the district courts have created and that have been approved by the federal courts of appeal. 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 vicinage 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. Today most federal grand jurors live outside the judicial district and any apprehended terrorist can easily challenge them and any true bill of indictment.

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. Of the 50 states only Hawaii can be shown to have an Article III district court. Vicinage describes where jurors come from. The areas from where Article III court jurors are to be drawn is the same as a territorial federal court. Grand and petit jurors for other than an Article III courts are territorial and they must only come 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 and not necessarily the needs of the nation's people. There are in the several states only territorial courts and these courts cannot be used to further national interests and certainly they do not have the capacity to examine their own limitations. These courts only have the jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress and they guard that jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other judicial concepts.

Based upon the research I have done and that is provided herewith, all the United States district courts in 49 of the several states are other than Article III of the United States Constitution courts. There, simply, is no evidence that the United States district courts for your state are 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 of your 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. Congress must start with the language of the Constitution if the fmal outcome is to be courts ordained and established by Congress under that article.

Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 5 which has been enacted into positive law provides for an Article III for Hawaii and no others. To support all the conclusions that I have made in this opinion letter, I have provided the portion of Title 28 U.S.C. that deals with the federal courts in your state, the statute law cited by Title 28 U.S.C. as involved in the creation of the federal courts in your state and the same for the district court in Hawaii. In 1959, Congress established the only state district court under Article III, so the statute and code law for the Hawaii district court will prove interesting when you examine the creation of your own state's federal courts. It is apparent that the district court in Hawaii is not functioning as an Article III court, so the issue of what additional acts of ordination and establishment must be undertaken to create Article III courts will be the subject of another opinion letter. I advise you to read all the written material after you have read my letter so you can understand how consenting to the general territorial jurisdiction of these territorial courts obviated any need for national Article III courts.

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. There is no way to change the language of statutes decades old. 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.

CONCLUSION

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 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 harass 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

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".