Sunday, January 18, 2004
UNITED STATES v. RICHARD MICHAEL SIMKANIN - Revisited
It is now apparent that Mr. Richard Michael Simkanin ran into an invisible brick wall in the United States Courthouse Building located at 501 West 10th Street, Fort Worth, Texas o/a the 5th day of January 2004 AD. He had "law" on his side. He had "facts" on his side. But, the question arises: Did he have access to ALL the law and ALL the facts available?
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, Attorney and Counselor At Law, has researched Title 28 of the United States Code. Part I, Chapter 5 is entitled Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - Organization of Courts - District Courts. Could there be any more appropriate information to have at one's fingertips when entering that den of iniquity on 10th Street? Dr. Rivera's research casts a bright light on facts that were not placed in evidence on the 5th day of January. Perhaps it is not too late. Here, in his own words, is his factual analysis:
"In September 2002, I prepared an opinion of the jurisdiction of the United States district courts. My opinion that those courts have no judicial power has not changed, but I have created this much shorter version of that opinion with links to federal government web sites to encourage you to share what I have written with others. Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol warned Ebenezer Scrooge and us to beware Ignorance for it will bring Doom if it is not soon corrected. The federal district courts must, therefore, be seen as incapable of dispensing justice if we are to be free.
Today's federal trial courts familiar to everyone following corporate scandal, music file sharing and medical marijuana have their origin in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That act created thirteen judicial districts although all the thirteen original states had not ratified the Constitution. The title of the act that created the first district courts caused the misconception that these courts exercise constitutional judicial power? They do not. A close examination of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and every subsequent ?judicial? legislative act of Congress since will reveal but one United States District Court created in any of the several states. This history of the district courts is a severely abridged version of the full story as told in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. The story as told there requires some deciphering of Title 28 U.S.C., which has been enacted into positive law. Title 28 U.S.C. thus enacted reflects accurately what is in the statutes covering the federal judiciary.
Territory is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction." In America there are two kinds of territory one is federal territory and the other is not. The Judiciary Act of 1789 is concerned with constitutional judicial power when it deals with the Supreme Court and other powers when the district courts are created in federal territory. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 grants to Congress the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Congress is, thus, exercising this "exclusive Legislation" when it establishes the district courts in the several states in Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. and a "like Authority" when it creates a district court in Puerto Rico in section 119 of that chapter and title, unless it can be shown to be exercising Article III jurisdiction to "create such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish." Has Congress created an Article III court in Puerto Rico?
To pose the question in this fashion is to answer it because Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. It is well settled that Article III judicial power cannot be exercised in a mere possession of the United States. Or is the law well settled? The United States Government Manual for many years has appeared to claim that the district court in Puerto Rico is an Article III district court. To see for yourself, go to www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/. To learn the truth go to sections 91 and 119 of Title 28 U.S.C. http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm.
Chapter 5, Title 28 U.S.C., of course, disposes of the issue by reference to the political condition of the present 50 several states of the Union, Washington D. C., and Puerto Rico as of January 1, 1945. On that date Hawaii and Alaska were most certainly territories, so if the "territorial composition" of the list of courts presented from Section 81 to 131 is to be consistent it must be and is today the federal territory that is contained within the counties and parishes of geographic state names listed.
Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5 - District Courts does, indeed, show the territorial composition of the districts and divisions by counties even though Louisiana contains no counties and is instead divided into parishes. On January 1, 1945, the territorial composition of the United States District Courts in the 48 states consisted of the same kind of federal territory that existed in Alaska and Hawaii, the two territories, as it does today. Federal territory is the only kind of territory common to the several states, the District of Columbia, the territories and Puerto Rico.
The Historical and Revision Notes to section 91, Hawaii, clearly states that the district court that had existed in Hawaii on January 1, 1945 was a territorial court established by and existing under Title 28 U.S.C. by making it, upon achieving statehood, "a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law because it was used to establish the district court in Hawaii when it was a territory. Congress, also, specifically provides for territorial judges to be appointed pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., thus preventing the Hawaii court from actually functioning as an Article III United States District Court. District court judges it turns out are life-tenured administrators not constitutional judicial officers.
The reader should examine Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm in its entirety to dispel any thoughts that any of the United States District Courts are capable of exercising Article III judicial power anywhere within their lawful federal territorial jurisdiction. The reader is hereby given permission to distribute this paper in its entirety.
The statements which appear above are entirely the thoughts and opinions of the author based upon a literal reading of the statutes and the application of common facts to reach a conclusion. Conclusions are reached so that additional facts can be obtained. Argument is to be avoided because argument does not aid in the attainment of additional facts. For example, from the statement in ? 91 that the territorial court in Hawaii was established by and existing under Title 28 U.S.C. we can conclude that Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law.
I am combating ignorance by sticking to facts and intentionally making no argument. Administrative process precludes argument. I invite others to add to the facts I present here. While the facts I present do establish that the territorial jurisdiction of a non-judicial court cannot be decided by one of its officers, that result follows from the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from those facts. The determination of what is territory is an act of sovereignty that cannot be decided administratively.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera"
Thank you Dr. Rivera for your seminal effort. I urge all readers of this blogspot to seize upon Dr. Rivera's invitation and add to the body of knowledge he has initiated. Knowing the terrain of the battlefield amounts to having a home "court" advantage.
We hold these Truths ...
HDGoltz@juno.com
It is now apparent that Mr. Richard Michael Simkanin ran into an invisible brick wall in the United States Courthouse Building located at 501 West 10th Street, Fort Worth, Texas o/a the 5th day of January 2004 AD. He had "law" on his side. He had "facts" on his side. But, the question arises: Did he have access to ALL the law and ALL the facts available?
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, Attorney and Counselor At Law, has researched Title 28 of the United States Code. Part I, Chapter 5 is entitled Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - Organization of Courts - District Courts. Could there be any more appropriate information to have at one's fingertips when entering that den of iniquity on 10th Street? Dr. Rivera's research casts a bright light on facts that were not placed in evidence on the 5th day of January. Perhaps it is not too late. Here, in his own words, is his factual analysis:
"In September 2002, I prepared an opinion of the jurisdiction of the United States district courts. My opinion that those courts have no judicial power has not changed, but I have created this much shorter version of that opinion with links to federal government web sites to encourage you to share what I have written with others. Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol warned Ebenezer Scrooge and us to beware Ignorance for it will bring Doom if it is not soon corrected. The federal district courts must, therefore, be seen as incapable of dispensing justice if we are to be free.
Today's federal trial courts familiar to everyone following corporate scandal, music file sharing and medical marijuana have their origin in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That act created thirteen judicial districts although all the thirteen original states had not ratified the Constitution. The title of the act that created the first district courts caused the misconception that these courts exercise constitutional judicial power? They do not. A close examination of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and every subsequent ?judicial? legislative act of Congress since will reveal but one United States District Court created in any of the several states. This history of the district courts is a severely abridged version of the full story as told in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. The story as told there requires some deciphering of Title 28 U.S.C., which has been enacted into positive law. Title 28 U.S.C. thus enacted reflects accurately what is in the statutes covering the federal judiciary.
Territory is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction." In America there are two kinds of territory one is federal territory and the other is not. The Judiciary Act of 1789 is concerned with constitutional judicial power when it deals with the Supreme Court and other powers when the district courts are created in federal territory. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 grants to Congress the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Congress is, thus, exercising this "exclusive Legislation" when it establishes the district courts in the several states in Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. and a "like Authority" when it creates a district court in Puerto Rico in section 119 of that chapter and title, unless it can be shown to be exercising Article III jurisdiction to "create such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish." Has Congress created an Article III court in Puerto Rico?
To pose the question in this fashion is to answer it because Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. It is well settled that Article III judicial power cannot be exercised in a mere possession of the United States. Or is the law well settled? The United States Government Manual for many years has appeared to claim that the district court in Puerto Rico is an Article III district court. To see for yourself, go to www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/. To learn the truth go to sections 91 and 119 of Title 28 U.S.C. http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm.
Chapter 5, Title 28 U.S.C., of course, disposes of the issue by reference to the political condition of the present 50 several states of the Union, Washington D. C., and Puerto Rico as of January 1, 1945. On that date Hawaii and Alaska were most certainly territories, so if the "territorial composition" of the list of courts presented from Section 81 to 131 is to be consistent it must be and is today the federal territory that is contained within the counties and parishes of geographic state names listed.
Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5 - District Courts does, indeed, show the territorial composition of the districts and divisions by counties even though Louisiana contains no counties and is instead divided into parishes. On January 1, 1945, the territorial composition of the United States District Courts in the 48 states consisted of the same kind of federal territory that existed in Alaska and Hawaii, the two territories, as it does today. Federal territory is the only kind of territory common to the several states, the District of Columbia, the territories and Puerto Rico.
The Historical and Revision Notes to section 91, Hawaii, clearly states that the district court that had existed in Hawaii on January 1, 1945 was a territorial court established by and existing under Title 28 U.S.C. by making it, upon achieving statehood, "a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law because it was used to establish the district court in Hawaii when it was a territory. Congress, also, specifically provides for territorial judges to be appointed pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., thus preventing the Hawaii court from actually functioning as an Article III United States District Court. District court judges it turns out are life-tenured administrators not constitutional judicial officers.
The reader should examine Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm in its entirety to dispel any thoughts that any of the United States District Courts are capable of exercising Article III judicial power anywhere within their lawful federal territorial jurisdiction. The reader is hereby given permission to distribute this paper in its entirety.
The statements which appear above are entirely the thoughts and opinions of the author based upon a literal reading of the statutes and the application of common facts to reach a conclusion. Conclusions are reached so that additional facts can be obtained. Argument is to be avoided because argument does not aid in the attainment of additional facts. For example, from the statement in ? 91 that the territorial court in Hawaii was established by and existing under Title 28 U.S.C. we can conclude that Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law.
I am combating ignorance by sticking to facts and intentionally making no argument. Administrative process precludes argument. I invite others to add to the facts I present here. While the facts I present do establish that the territorial jurisdiction of a non-judicial court cannot be decided by one of its officers, that result follows from the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from those facts. The determination of what is territory is an act of sovereignty that cannot be decided administratively.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera"
Thank you Dr. Rivera for your seminal effort. I urge all readers of this blogspot to seize upon Dr. Rivera's invitation and add to the body of knowledge he has initiated. Knowing the terrain of the battlefield amounts to having a home "court" advantage.
We hold these Truths ...
HDGoltz@juno.com
