Subject: Territorial Courts and Application of Law
EDUARDO M. RIVERA
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
CAL BAR NO. 52737
P.O. Box 14207
Torrance, CA 90503
310_370_3361
September 27, 2002
To: John Stuart Nolan
17339 SW Blue Heron Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon
postal code: 97034
Dear Mr. Nolan:
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 readerıs 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 peopleıs detriment. This opinion letter wil l 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 litigatethe 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 Ar ticle 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 IV of the Constitution:
1. The Congress shall have powerTo 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 StatesArticle I and IV courts have no such power .
Congress has established Article III district courts in Hawaii and the
District of Columbia. The 2 district courts of the United States that were
ultimately pronounced ordained and established by Congress pursuant to Article
III of the Constitution are the only ones that can exercise the judicial power
of the national government. 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
Californiaıs sovereignty and can prevent prosecution of terrorists in the
federal courts in all the states but onemaybe. Perhaps the increased demand for
medical uses for marijuana will break the lock that the Article IV 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
changeonly 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 IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory belonging to the United States." Puerto Rico is the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and it has not been incorporated into the United
States though its inhabitants are United States citizens. The inclusion of
Puerto Rico in Chapter 5 as § 119 does not make the d istrict 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 governmentıs law requires the total obedience of governmentıs 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 citizenıs failure
to carry out the investigation and determination of authority has grave
consequences both for the citizen, his fellow citize ns 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 o pinion. 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 courtthatıs 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 incontrovertibleHawaii 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 nationıs 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 s atisfies 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 nationıs 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 stateıs 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 final 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.
____________________________________________________________________________
A Treatise of Law
FOREWORD
The author has been deeply concerned with the woeful ignorance and
misunderstanding of the law and its application by the public. Being a Christian
I saw the deception being utilized to oppose the work of the Body of Christ in
this Age.
We are being destroyed by our lack of knowledge. Therefore, it became abundantly
clear to the author that a primer outlining our status and our relationship to
the law was required. It is to that end this treatise was prepared. It is not
intended to be a solution, but a step in the direction of regaining our true
status. Once we understand the principles. January 1, 1997 Jimmy Dean, Ziegler,
Author
TREATISE: ARE WE THE PEOPLE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS?
It seems as though the evolution our modern society, our lives are fraught with
ever more restrictions, rather than less complicated through technology.
Everyday living becomes more complex by the myriad of laws creeping into every
aspect of our lives. Much of this restrictive legislation is proffered in the
guise of necessity for the general public safety and welfare. However, in
reality, many of these laws do not apply to us __ We the People.
There are two classes of law enacted by the legislative bodies in this country,
public law and private or special law. Generally, the public has no idea that
there are different classes of law which affect different individuals and
classes. We tend to believe that all laws are enactments which are applicable to
each and every one of us. This presumption is a part of the deception to make us
subservient to our own government.
In any serious discussion, defining terms is a prerequisite. The author has
found that definitions of legal terms are not what the public perceives the
meaning to be. Therefore, let us define, analyze and understand the types of law
and the objects of these types of enactments.
PUBLIC LAW _ ...A law or statute that applies to the people generally of the
nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a public law, as
contradistinguished from private law, affecting only an individual or a small
number of persons. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
The courts refer to Public law as positive law and is defined as:
POSITIVE LAW _ Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper
authority for the government of an organized jural society. Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
An example of the foundation which I have presented above is expressed by the
California Supreme Court when it stated:
"Taxing and licensing statutes are not enacted as `positive law' which consists
of those statutes enacted by legislative bodies in pursuance to authority or
mandate granted in United States or California constitutions. Such tax and
licensing statutes are private, equity, maritime law contracts, which are
entered voluntarily by private persons with the private corporate state"
Escovedo v. State of California, 35 Cal.2d 870. (Emphasis added}.
The above two paragraphs show the application of positive or public law and how
it affects different objects or subjects. The ensuing paragraphs shall explore
the meaning and application of private or special law.
PRIVATE LAW _ that portion of the law which defines, regulates, enforces, and
administers relationships among individuals, associations, and corporations. As
used in contradistinction to public law,... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
SPECIAL LAW _ One relating to particular persons or things; one made for
individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a
selected class, rather than the public generally. A private law. A law is
"special" when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed
for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field
of action or operation. A "special law" relates to either particular persons,
places, or things, which, though not particularized, are separated by any method
of selected from the whole class to which the law might, but not such
legislation, be applied. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed.
The California Supreme Court has applied these definitions to their practical
sense in the following declaration: "A general or public act affects the whole
community, whereas a private act affects only particular persons or private
concerns." Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal 6; a selected class or particular object,
Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal 489; Smith v. McDermott, 93 Cal 421.
The above paragraphs establish an insight into the types of law, confirming that
their respective objects or subjects are not the same. Now we must consider how
they are being applied to us in their administration. It is in the
administration of these private or special laws that the average individual
experiences limitations which impacts his freedom.
When governmental agents attempt to enforce these laws, they are proceeding
under the presumption that each and every individual is the proper subject or
object of the law.
Under administrative law, the agency is permitted to proceed under these
presumptions. Remember, in law, all presumptions are rebuttable. If an
individual is ignorant of the fact that he is not the proper object or subject
of that law, he will acquiesce to it because of his fear of color of law, which
allows the honest law abiding_citizen to be brought under the control of laws
that do not apply to him. The United States Supreme Court recognized this
reprehensible state of affairs when it declared:
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens,
because of their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced
into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." United States v. Minker, 350 U.S.
179 at 187.
Does this mean that our own government is subverting the law to gain control
over us and our property? Unfortunately, this is generally all too true. Our
Founding Fathers warned us of government out of control. Our first President,
George Washington, cautioned the citizens about restraining the power of
government when he stated: "Government like fire can be a faithful servant or a
fearful master." We have been trained in recent years to view government, like a
beneficent father, that is loving, caring, and compassionate, who will take care
of us. Who taught us to look to government in these terms__our teachers in
government schools and politicians who want to expand their power over us
through an all_powerful central government. There is clear evidence of this
conclusion when we review current texts on the history of the United States
utilized in our public schools.
It seems text writers are rewriting history, deleting essential facts of the
citizens' true status and the significant historical sources of our system of
government. History which is being presented is the antithesis of what was
established by our Founding Fathers. We are going from sovereignty to slavery in
200 years.
One essential fact of our status is being omitted, and that is that all citizens
are sovereigns, We the People, are the Monarchs, the Kings and Queens of our
respective states and of the United States.
In California, the Legislature has confirmed this fact in Government Code
section 100:
" The People of California are Sovereign......."
There are leaders who would convert our inalienable rights to "human rights."
Inalienable rights are those rights that government is prohibited from abridging
or infringing upon, except in rare instances upon a showing of compelling state
interest. Compelling state interest runs to anything which poses a threat to the
existence of the state.
Inalienable rights existed before the creation of the state and cannot be
changed by Legislative act. "Human rights" are "civil rights," rights that are
legislated into effect and can be legislated away at the whim and caprice of
those in power, because civil rights are mere privilege.
Our system of government is one of limited powers granted by "We the People" to
create a political system of self_government. These limited powers are defined
and enumerated in state and United States constitutions. In addition to the
limitations specified, there are Declarations of Rights in state constitutions
and in the Bill of Rights added to the United States Constitution. The
Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights declare only a few of the more
important rights which belong to __ We the People. Recognition of all other
rights, though not enumerated, are reflected in the Reserved Rights Clauses.
The Reserved Rights Clauses, Article I, section 24, of the California
Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution further limit the power of government, to the consternation of
those who would deprive us of our birthright. These constitutions have been
described as the chains which restrain government. This principal is clearly
stated in the following decisions by the California Supreme Court:
"The constitutional declaration vesting legislative power in legislature by
Constitution Art IV, section 1, is not considered a grant of power, rather it is
a restriction thereby rendering the legislature competent to exercise all powers
not forbidden by state or federal constitutions" People v. Coleman, 4 Cal 46;
People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432.
It is well_established that the Legislature has broad powers, to enact law, but
the laws can be applied only to the proper objects or subjects within the
constitutional limits, including the Reserved Rights. This fact is clearly
supported by the following opinions of the courts:
"The legislature may command or merely permit a thing to be done" People ex rel
Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15;
but it may not violate what the Constitution prohibits or guarantees." Lockard
v. Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 553, cert. den. 337 US 939; or authorize others to do
so.
How can we know which laws are public and which are private? The codes very
clearly define the two sets. In the front pages of the Federal codes there is a
page which identifies all Titles of the United States Code. Each Title is
listed; however, only the following are identified by an asterisk: * Title 1.
General Provision * Title 17. Copyrights * Title 3. The President * Title 18.
Crimes and * Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Criminal Procedure Government and
the States * Title 23. Highways * Title 6. Official and Penal Bonds * Title 28.
Judiciary and * Title 9. Arbitration Judicial Procedure * Title 10. Armed Forces
* Title 32. National Guard * Title 13. Census * Title 35. Patents * Title 14.
Coast Guard * Title 37. Pay and allowances of the Uniform Services Title 39. The
Postal Service
Where there is an asterisk the footnote states:
* This title has been enacted as law.
The above_listed Titles are the only Titles of the United States Code that are
Public Law. What are the other codes? They are Private or Special Law, based on
contract, which is quasi_contract. This is contract between the government and
certain individuals or classes.
Why are they contractual? This is where the confusion is rooted, which deceives
the citizens. Further discussion on this matter will follow once we see the
development of the use of contract:
One of the great generalizations about social history is the thesis of Sir Henry
Maine;
"That the history of progressive societies may be described as a movement from
status to contract.": "Through all its course, it has been distinguished by the
gradual dissolution of family dependency, and growth of individual obligation in
its place. The individual is gradually substituted for the family, as the unit
of which civil laws take account. . . . Nor is it difficult to see what is the
tie between man and man which replaces by degrees those forms of reciprocity in
rights and duties which have their origin in the family. It is contract. Maine,
Ancient Law, pp. 163_165. (Emphasis added) With the decline of the
free_enterprise system due to the innate trend of competitive capitalism towards
monopoly, the meaning of contract has radically changed. Society, when granting
freedom of contract does not guarantee that all members of the community will be
able to make use of it to the same extent. On the contrary, the law, by
protecting the unequal distribution of property does nothing to prevent freedom
of contract from becoming a one_sided privilege. Society, by proclaiming freedom
of contract, guarantees that it will not interfere with the exercise of power by
enterpriser to legislate by contract and, what is even more important, to
legislate in a substantially authoritarian forms. Standard contracts in
particular could thus become effective instruments in the hands of powerful
industrial and commercial overlords, enabling them to impose a new feudal order
of their own making, upon a vast host of vassals . . . Kessler, "Contracts of
Adhesion" (1943) 43 Columbia Law Review, p. 640. (Emphasis added)"
The movement from status as sovereigns to contractual status is not just limited
to the development of the contract of adhesion. There is abundant evidence that
the powerful industrial and commercial overlords have manipulated politicians,
intellectuals and educators, in their attempts to destroy the sovereignty of __
We the People, from the very beginnings of our nation by imposition of
contractual status upon us. From the foundation of this Nation, beginning in the
post_ revolutionary period, there has been a faction which endeavors to create a
system other than as our Forefathers had in mind. To support their cause, they
asked George Washington to become king. This faction in the group called the
"Federalists" wanted a strong central government that paralleled English
aristocracy, a tiered society with civil rights residing only in the lowest
tier. This faction of the Federalists movement has survived to this day. They
are not called Federalists today, any more than the Illuminati are known by that
name today. This faction, like the Illuminati, seeks to control through
propaganda manipulated by them through government, news media, religion, and
education. Remember, it is historically well_established that the French
Revolution was manipulated by the agency of the Illuminati.
There is an abundance of literature available which provides evidence that
supports these conclusions. This Federalist faction has made clever use of the
power of contract to attempt to further their agenda. Private law creates a form
of contract called quasi_contract. When applied to the regulatory schemes
promoted by government at any level, there is the presumption that you are a
party to that contract.
However, a contract is created by application to the government for some
privilege: a license, or entitlement. We can then conclude that if the
Legislature creates a privilege, which has the appearance of law, regulating
some activity to which we already have a right, that privilege is private law.
If we acquiesce to that "law" and apply for the license or entitlement, have we
created a contractual relationship with the government?; or, Do we have to waive
our inalienable rights by applying for these privileges? The answer to both
questions is, YES.
There is another little secret that further demonstrates the author's contention
of sub rosa practices by government. Just as we are not aware that there are two
classes of law applying to different classes, we are not made aware that there
are two classes of citizenship.
Primary citizenship in this country is that of the state Citizen. This Citizen
is endowed with inalienable rights, and all of the sovereign powers of the
monarchy of England.
Until the Civil War, this was the only citizenship that existed in the united
States: Citizens of their respective states.
The term "united States citizen" was not generally utilized to describe the
state Citizen.
It has never been a designation of status, but a descriptive statement.
Upon issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, there was created a class of
freemen who had no citizenship status. They could not automatically receive
inalienable rights with their emancipation. This was a result of the fact that
they were considered chattel (property) at the time of the ratification of the
present United States Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation did not grant
any type of citizenship to these individuals when they were freed, they were
still legally property. This was one fact that was not considered; no rights and
no defense to protect themselves and their property against abuses.
Congress hurriedly enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to provide legal
protection for this class of individuals. When Congress enacted the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, it clearly spoke of the distinction between the citizen and the
"person":
"(A)ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any
previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, . . . shall have the
same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase,
lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal
benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as
is enjoyed by white citizens. . . . " Chapter 31, 39 Stat. 27 (1866)
It was found that these civil rights were only valid within a federal enclave or
territory, and did not apply in the states. Remember, the federal government has
authority only in federal enclaves, territories, or matters. The Fourteenth
Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1870 were required to provide part of the
Bill of Rights and other needful rights for these individuals within the states.
However, these individuals were not considered as state Citizens.
Congress had created a new class of citizens, vested with only civil rights.
They were citizens of the United States, a separate and distinct class. This was
a designation of status, distinctly apart from the state Citizen.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution of the United
States. It became part of the organic law July 28, 1868, and its importance
entitles it to special mention. It creates or at least recognizes for the first
time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;
forbids the making or enforcement by any state of any law abridging the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and secures all
"persons" against any state action which is either deprivation of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law or denial of the equal protection of the
laws. Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition (emphasis added).
From the beginning until some time after the Civil War, granting of Citizenship
was an act performed by the state, under the guidelines established by Congress.
In the Northern states, many Blacks enjoyed state citizenship during the time
prior to the Civil War. The freed slaves could receive state Citizenship;
however, it appears that the powerful industrial and commercial influences upon
the politicians redirected established citizenship procedure to create this
"second class" citizenship. It was just one easy step for naturalization of
foreigners to be assumed by the federal government, thus making it easy, over
the passage of time and re_education, to lead everyone to believe that they are
citizens of the United States, and not of their individual state, replacing the
prior practice of state granted Citizenship, by default.
We cannot begin to fathom the depth and extent that this deception has created;
the system is now "institutionalized," and the former status of state citizen is
almost completely unknown. In short, the newly adopted system may not only be
used "occasionally" for some "noble" purpose, but rather has become fundamental
to the operation of government. This method of establishing quasi_contractual
status with Citizens has become essential to the operation of government in
order to expand revenues through the imposition of "fines" and penalties for
alleged criminal violations of "law."
Monetary penalties or fines are a huge source of revenue to the State of
California and its political subdivisions. These revenues have become vital to
paying for the exponential growth of government. Without this huge revenue
source of income, the bloated government would collapse upon itself, becoming
manageable by "We the People."
In order to extend control over We the People, the illusion has been created
that all are subject to these private laws by calling us all "persons." As an
example let us look at the California Vehicle Code, since we all are connected,
to one degree or another, with the use of the public rights_of_way our every_day
lives. California Vehicle Code section 470 sets forth the Legislative definition
of the word "person": Sec. 470. Person _ "person" includes a natural person,
firm, co_partnership, association or corporation. It is well_established in law
that the term person, "is a broad and ambiguous word. In legal usage it is a
generic term, and by itself is an equivocal word requiring interpretation. Like
many words, it has no fixed and rigid signification." 70 C.J.S. 686.
Furthermore, "Persons are of two kinds; artificial and natural...". "In common
usage and in the ordinary signification, the term "person" does not include the
sovereign, and in neither ordinary nor legal sig nificance does the word embrace
a government" 70 C.J.S. 688. The term "person" like the term "corporation," are
legal fictions created by the Legislature and so recognized by the courts.
Having seen that the term person has multiple and distinctively different
meanings we must address the usage in statutes or codes:
Rule of ejusdem generis, which holds that where general words follow enumeration
of particular classes of persons or things, general words will be construed as
applicable only to persons or things with same general nature or class as those
enumerated, applies whether specific words follow general words in a statute or
vise versa; in either event, general term or category is restricted to those
things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically. People ex
Rel. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com'n v. Smith, 31
Cal.Rptr.2d. 488 (Cal.App. 1st 1994) This means that when a general word like
"natural person" is use in a context with other entities such as corporations,
which is an artificial entity, the word "natural person" becomes specific and is
to applied in its artificial sense. In other words, when natural person is used
in conjunction with artificial or fictious persons, it must be construed as that
entity that is called the citizen of the U nited States. Based on broad and
practical definition of the term as used in the code, "person" is one whose
status is the statutory definition as used in any statutory context is not
isolated, but is universal, as seen in the California Supreme Court decisions:
"It is thus well recognized, that for purposes of statutory construction, the
codes should be regarded as blending into each other and forming a single
statute." Proctor v. Justice's Court of Berkeley, 209 C. 39, 285 P. 312. ". . .
codes are regarded as constituting but a single statute," Pesce v. Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, 51 Cal 2d. 310, 333; P.2d. 15. The California
Legislature in enacting the Penal Code in 1879 enacted two sections wherein each
political status is identified precisely. Penal Code sections 228 and 232 deal
with the same subject, which is dueling, but different parties. This clearly
demonstrates that the political status of "Citizen" is different than the status
of "person" as used i n law: Penal Code ' 228 states as follows: "Any citizen of
this state who shall fight a duel . . . cannot vote or hold public office."
Penal Code ' 232 states: "Any person who fights a duel . . . cannot vote or hold
public office." Thus, Penal Code section 228 makes specific reference to a
"citizen" as the object or subject of the law. An identical statute, Penal Code
section 232, refers to "person" as the object or subject, thus qualifying the
term "person" as separate and distinct, excluding the identity as Citizen. Since
all the Codes are to be read as one single statute, which also includes the
Vehicle Code, Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Revenue and Taxation, et
cetera, we can readily see that the term "person" does not apply to citizens in
any of the codes. The following authorities confirm that an identification other
than Citizen, such as "inhabitant," could be a "person," and that a "person"
does not include a "state Citizen" in his sovereign status: "The word "person"
in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in
its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. Church of Scientology
v. United States Department of Justice, (1979) 6several meanings in law
depending upon the context. (Footnote omitted). In some contexts it is equated
with citizenship, (citations omitted); in other contexts, specifically that of
the Federal Civil Rights Acts passed during the reconstruction, (footnote
omitted) "inhabitant" has been held NOT to mean "citizen." Baldwin v. Franks,
120 U.S. 678, 690_692; 75 S.Ct. 656; 32 L.Ed. 766, (1887).(underlined_italics in
original). "After comprehensive analysis of the intent of Congress which drafted
this legislation, (footnote omitted), this court holds that the word
"Inhabitant" describes any person who is within the jurisdiction of the United
States. United States v. Otherson, (1979). 480 F. Supp. 1369, 1370_1371. Upon
introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 United States Code 242,
its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that this Bill was to protect
all "persons." (footnote omitted). He noted that this Bill would: "simply
extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws." (footnote
omitted, emphasis added). He added: "This Bill extends [the equal protection of
the laws] to aliens, so that all persons who are in the United States shall have
the equal protection of our laws. It extends the operations of the Civil Rights
Bill . . . to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States." Id. P.
1373. Additionally, "The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly extends the equal
protection and due process of law to all "persons." The law is well_settled that
these protections apply to all people within the jurisdiction of the United
States, . . ." (Citations omitted) Id. P. 1374. As we have seen, code
definitions applying to "persons" when including a natural person with firm,
copartnership, association or corp oration, are all one class. All of these
classes are legal entities, with the exception of natural persons. Legal
entities are artificial or fictious entities. Natural persons are human beings.
This naturally raises the speculative question: Is a human being, therefore, a
natural person as specified in the codes? Not necessarily.
This is where a serious question arises, and your earnest consideration is
respectfully requested. As we have shown, there are two classes of citizens.
Each class of citizen is comprised of natural persons. However, citizens of the
United States are the only natural persons implied as used in a statutory
context with entities such as "firms, co_partnerships, associations or
corporations". Again we must look to common and legal definitions in order to
sort out how the state Citizen relates to the term "natural person." "Person" is
commonly defined as:
PERSON _ 1. a human being, especially distinguished from a thing or lower
animal. . .;
2. a common individual; used in slight and contempt.
3. a living human body. . . Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition
HUMAN _ 1. of or characteristic of a person such as people have; 2. having the
form or nature of a person; that is a person; consisting of people. . .
Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition "Person" as defined in legal
terms: PERSON _ In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), Though by
statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations,
corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or
receivers. Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to
whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this
Amendment expressly applies to "person." Aliens. Aliens are "persons" within
meaning of Fourteenth Amendment and are thus protected by equal protection
clause against discriminatory state action.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. PERSON _ A man considered according to
rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds
entitles him, and the duties it imposes. . . . Term may include artificial
beings, as corporations. . Corporations are "persons" as that word is used in
the first clause of the XIVth Amendment;. . . and a statutory requirement of
such conditions is not in conflict with the XIVth Amendment;. . . It may include
partnerships. . ."Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural
person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or secession of
natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law
attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of
artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. . .It has
been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural
persons will be intended unless something appears in the context to show that it
applies to artificial persons. . .A person is such, not because he is human, but
because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject
or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. Black's Law
Dictionary, Fourth Edition. It is plain to see in the example shown above how
the definition of the Vehicle Code does not include the state Citizen. The
Vehicle Code applies specifically to those entities or natural persons who are
engaged in commerce, for the code is for the regulation of those in business or
commerce. It is acknowledged that this is not the interpretation that the
general public, even agency administrators, has been let to believe. We have
discussed, at length, the deception being perpetrated upon __ We the People. So,
the true purpose of private law is to control and regulate the manner in which
unlawful acts are conducted by those entities SUBJECT to that law. Are We the
People subject to every law enac ted? NO. [WELL, MAYBE?]