This results from the very theory of a republican constitution of government; for otherwise the acts of the legislature and executive would in effect become supreme and uncontrollable, not withstanding any prohibitions or limitations contained in the Constitution; and usurpations of the most unequivocal and dangerous character might be assumed without ant remedy within the reach of the Citizens. The people would thus be at the mercy of the rulers in State and national governments; and omnipotence would practically exist, like that claimed for the British Parliament.

    A denial of justice on the part of the sovereign, or affected delays can alone excuse the furious transports of a people whose patience has been exhausted, and even justify them, if the evils be intolerable, and the oppression great and manifest.

Monsieur De Vattel

The Law of Nations 1758

    As you can see the judicial department is the peoples protection against the usurpation's of government and the absence of justice has always been lawful grounds for uprising. If the elected representatives betray their constituency it is hardly a remedy to wait until the next election if the usurpation is great. Therefore the judicial system in this country was designed to be entirely separate from the other branches and have the power to overturn laws, rules and edicts that do not comply with the Constitution or the law. However, many of you have already noticed that justice is the one thing lacking in federal court rooms. You have noticed that there is great inconsistency to how the same 'laws' are applied in different cases. How often have you seen anybody win when the United States was the plaintiff? Further along we will discover just what a United States District Court is, why it flies the gold fringed flag and why you are dead meat if you are accused by government of anything. First we will ascertain what an Article III District Court is supposed to be then we will move on to describe the deception of the current court system and what you can do about it.

    Article III section 1 of the 1787 Constitution declares 'The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'. This is only one sentence but it says a lot. First of all the new government was granted judicial powers, the Articles of Confederation were defective here. Now note the terminology, 'United States'. The founders usage meant 'The Government of the United States of America', that was created by the 1787 Constitution. Our current oppressors however use it to signify a municipal corporation that operates as our government today. Deliberately confusing, the reasons for the deception will become clear later. The all important to liberty judicial power was vested in one supreme Court. This gives the United States (original usage) the power to enforce its laws and prosecute it's trespassers and ensures that national issues are handled uniformly across the nation as might not happen if State courts determined national issues. Also having only one supreme Court instead of one for each jurisdiction further ensured consistency of justice in all types of cases. The inferior courts are needed to uniformly handle matters throughout the land in a more local manner.

    Article III section 2 of the 1787 Constitution declares 'The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity...and to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.' This is the enabling clause for the courts, in other words, these jurisdictions are the areas they are empowered to adjudicate matters in. This section gives other specific instances of authority but we are not concerned with those. Because of the word 'shall' in section 1 & 2 it has been held, without controversy, that Congress was absolutely required to establish the judiciary of the United States in the proscribed manner. And this has been so strongly held that Story declares it outright Treason of Congress against the Constitution if Congress did not come up with a plan to make all jurisdictions available to all people. In the Judiciary Act of 1789 these responsibilities of Congress were faithfully carried out. Each State became designated a Judicial District containing lower Circuit Courts. The courts were logically called the District Court for the District of  Connecticut etc. It is most important to note that the three jurisdictions granted by the Constitution to the United States judiciary, Common Law, Equity, Admiralty and Maritime, were spelled out by name and carefully defined as to the venue and extent of jurisdiction allowed within each District. This was necessary because Congress was not granted power to create any other jurisdictions for service to the States.

    Now we will return to the present. You have been given a clue as to the nature of today's courts. It is the term United States. No longer meaning 'The Government of the United States of America', it is the name of the municipal corporation located in Washington DC. So now we have the 'United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. A subtle difference calculated to deceive you. Is there an operational difference you ask? First of all any name change of a government department or agency denotes a change within that department or agency. It is literally, out with the old, in with the new. If you go to a library and look at USC 28 you will find about 5,000 pages to deal with what the Judiciary Act of 1789 did in two pages. Why the enormous amount of written diarrhea? In 1789 the jurisdictions of Law, Equity and Admiralty, were well understood. The rules of procedure, evidence etc were well understood. However a United States District Court is not any of those former things, although it handles matters similar to the real jurisdictions. The reason for the excessive verbiage of USC 28 is when the original jurisdictions with all of their known rules etc were thrown out the new set had to be exactly specified. Because no one knew what the new courts required in the way of procedures and filings etc. To prove the substitution of traditional for contrived jurisdictions, simply look to the index under District Courts - Jurisdiction. You will not find the words common law, equity or admiralty. Why? The courts do not sit in those jurisdictions. They sit in manufactured and contrived jurisdictions that can handle issues similar to the original three. This of course is not authorized by the Constitution but what is a trifling detail like that to usurpers?

    These courts are not designed to adjudicate the law but to enforce statutes of the United States (newspeak meaning) The real name of this type of jurisdiction comes to us courtesy of King George III mimicking his system of oppression exactly, they are known as they have been created earlier as courts of Vice Admiralty. King George created his Vice-Admiralty courts to increase revenues based upon violations of his statutes, ordinances and regulations. A court of Law cannot 'fine' (collect revenues). At Law the plaintiff is the one damaged and due compensation. Government cannot partake in the damage awards. At Law there is no action unless someone or his property has been damaged or stolen. An unbuckled seatbelt is not a cause for which government can sustain an action, except in Vice-Admiralty courts.

    To what end is this hairsplitting of terminology? To your great detriment, that is what end. The 'new' United States is a foreign government it flies its own flag. The gold fringed flag which looks like an American flag just as United States sounds like United States. Or United States District Court sounds like District Court. Proof that it is a foreign flag is the attempts from time to time by Congress to try and get a law passed that makes it offense to desecrate the flag of the United States. Well guess what? USC 4 Chapter 1 Section 3 has provision for desecration of the flag of the United States. Also the flag of the United States is described in Chapter 1 Section 1, and it does not contain any fringe! The contrived courts are Martial Law courts, meaning created by legislature, not the Military. This means that any prosecution handed down is not arising out of the Judicial Power but the legislative. What is the difference you ask? This :

A bill of Attainder is a special Act of the legislature which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If punishment is less than death, the Act is called a "bill of pains and penalties."

"A bill of attainder is defined to be "a legislative Act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial," where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment". In re De Giacomo, (1874), 12 Blatchf. (U.S.) 391, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,747.

This is of course contrary to the Constitution. 

Art I section 9 United States Constitution " No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

    In these Vice-Admiralty courts you can kiss you common law rights secured by the 1787 Constitution goodbye. The presumption in these courts is that you are a citizen of the United States. ???? you ask. We are into more newspeak here. The 14th amendment pretends to be able to create a new status of citizenship. Of course government is not empowered to do so by the Constitution and the right is explicitly reserved to the States. But this was the beginning of federalism as it was known, or cooperative federalism today. In either case it is newspeak for feudalism. Feudalism is not living in a hut being a blacksmith and hoping Robin Hood beats Prince John. Rather it is the King holding title to everything including you. As Story mentioned a tyrant can be one person or an assembly of people.

    Under the original law a person was first a State Citizen where he lived in then ipso facto he was a United States Citizen. So he was a Colorado Citizen but not a 'citizen of the United States'. You did not belong to the United States as the 'of' commands. You were a member of a club that you had given 18 enumerated powers to. The Government of the United States of America did not, could not, own you and your property. However, the club Municipal United States does purport to own you and your property. When this shift in the law form was finally brought about the courts had to change in 1948 because a bona fide Article III court could not prosecute a person who was chattel property of the government, because such an absurdity did not exist in law. This was upheld in  

O'DONOGHUE v. UNITED STATES 289 U.S. 516, 53 S. Ct. 740, 77 L. Ed. 1356 (1933)
"It is, of course, well recognized that a constitutional court may not be empowered to determine legislative or administrative questions." Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Gordon v. United States, 2 Wall. 561; 117 U.s. 697; Federal Radio Comm'n v. General Electric Co., 281 U.s. 464.

    The 14th purported to create this fictional class of federal citizen who had no rights but only 'privileges and immunities'. The evidence of you being treated this way today is this, how many things do you need a permit for, how many things do you pay tax on? Those are privileges. Rights can not be turned on and off by government nor taxed. And only a very few items and activities were Given the ability be taxed by government. Not the life you are living? Through a series of legal absurdities and lunacies we wind up today as a prisoner to government. You can not claim the Fifth Amendment due process clause today because that clause ensures you of your rights to due process at common law! You must invoke the 14th due process and equality clause. And you can only enjoin government to assert your Civil Rights. These are privileges granted to you by government. You can not assert Unalienable Rights. Because you have none. To Wit :

"The privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens...Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship..." Jones v. Temmer (Aug. 1993) 829 F. Supp. 1226.

    To further point out your status as a non-common law citizen of the United States consider something declared first in 1803 then again in 1821 by the supreme Court of the United States. As stated first in Marbury v. Madison "It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution." Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, (1821)

    Now go down to your library and pick up a case book on the USSC. Thumb through it at random, you will find a high percentage of cases stating something like 'petition for writ denied'. In other words the USSC decided it did not want to try that case. Contrary to the Constitution. 

    For 70+ years the supreme Court of the United States (not the United States Supreme Court) maintained a vigil against the 14th amendment with its separate but equal doctrine. This preserved the Constitutional status of freemen while allowing freedmen (ex-slaves and their descendants) equal protection under the Constitution. When the courts changed their form State Citizens became treated as a 'citizen of the United States'. This is of course a Fiction of Law. Desiring to become more like the King of England who owned everything, these courts now engage in arbitrary confiscation of private property known as forfeiture. The King created at one time 230+ laws demanding the death penalty and many more 'felonia', felonies. In these cases the hapless defendant lost goods and land. Even though forfeiture is allowed only in the case of Treason, by the Constitution, in the Vice-Admiralty jurisdiction the District has thrown over the several States many more opportunities exist for hapless Citizens to unjustly enrich government.

     When you assert your Constitutional rights all you have 'protected' for you by the 14th is from the 13th amendment onwards. That is why you must assert 'Civil Rights' violations and use USC 42 section 1983 to sue government.

    To top it all off, ten Federal Regional Areas established by Presidential Executive Order of ex-president Richard M. Nixon in 3/27/69, Executive Order # 11649 entered in the Federal Register Feb. 12, 1972. (vol. 37, No 30) as amended. and Ten National Areas established by act of Congress Approved September 2, 1960, Public Law 86-682; 74 STAT.578. What this means is that you do not live in the 50 States but in a zip-coded STATE OF CO, for example. An artificial area for artificial people known as INDIVIDUALS. An area wherein 'justice' is the enforcement of legislative and executive edicts and the Law is forbidden.

    How do you escape this Malicious predicament? Basically because it is a legal Fiction such a state does not exist except in the minds of the perpetrators. Congress was given complete legislative freedom over their tiny bit of land, the District of Columbia. Within their back yard they can pass any law they wish and it will be the law in the District and any other lands it owns. Maybe this is why government is anxious to declare everything a 'National Preserve' of some sort or another? However, the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791 very clearly conferred only the jurisdictions of common law, equity and admiralty and maritime upon the government thus created. The Founders were oppressed by King Georges Vice-Admiralty courts, it does not take rocket science to see why they wouldn't confer that power upon national government to rule them again. There are only 4 crimes national government can prosecute but in their Vice-Admiralty courts any rule made up by Congress can be a revenue trip wire for these courts. Many States have thrown off the common law for the revenue bonanza Vice-Admiralty jurisdiction also.

Index.

Home.