|AUTHORITIES ON JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
To get started, let's look at the Criminal Code of the United States government:
TITLE 18 > PART III > CHAPTER 301 > Sec. 4001.
Building on this theme, we now add a corroborating citation from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, paragraph 2, in the middle,
In order to define the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to conduct criminal prosecutions, one would have to find out what the specific definition of "Act of Congress," is. We find such a definition in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prior to Dec. 2002, wherein is defined "Act of Congress." Rule 54(c) states:
After we cited the above in our book, the Supreme Court subsequently removed this definition from the rules to obscure the very limited nature of their jurisdiction. They merged it with Rule 1 and the above limitation was removed, although it still applies. This scam is documented in section 6.9.6 of our Great IRS Hoax book. THE QUESTION IS, ON WHICH OF THE FOUR LOCATIONS NAMED IN RULE 54(c) IS THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ASSERTING JURISDICTION WHEN THE U.S. ATTORNEY HAULS YOUR ASS IN COURT ON AN INCOME TAX CRIME? Hint, everyone knows what and where the District of Columbia is, and everyone knows where Puerto Rico is, and territories and insular possessions are defined in Title 48 United States Code, happy hunting! This information from Rule 54(c ) was so damning , in fact, that the federal judiciary decided to remove it from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure following publishment of it in this book. That change occurred in Dec. 2002, when rule 54 was transferred to Rule 1 and the definition of “Acts of Congress” was conspicuously removed. We explain this fraud earlier in section 6.7.5. Do you think your government wants you to know the truth. They’re systematically hiding it, and people like us have told them exactly what they need to hide using this book. There is a name for this, and it’s called obstruction of justice and it’s a federal offense. The people who changed those rules are CRIMINALS.
The U.S. Attorney Manual, section 9-20.000 entitled "Maritime, Territorial, and Indian Jurisdiction" clearly explains the very limited extent of federal jurisdiction in agreement with the above. That jurisdiction describes federal enclaves within the Constitutional states but excludes every other area of the Constitutional state.
The fact is that those occupying the sovereign 50 states living outside of the federal zone (THAT'S YOU IN MOST CASES!) come under Rule 54(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure entitled "Offenses Outside a District or State":
The above rule was conveniently censored by the U.S. Supreme Court after 2002 in a rewrite of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure because it was too revealing, but it still applies.
Here is what 18 U.S.C. §3238 says about jurisdiction outside of any District or State:
TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 211 > Sec. 3238.
Federal courts are, by definition "inside their own district" and inside the "federal zone". What the above is saying is that if they can kidnap/extradite you or get your to walk voluntarily inside one of their districts by walking into a federal courthouse near your home, then they can conduct a trial on you, but they only have jurisdiction based on where the crime was committed, not where the trial is held! The place of the "crime", however, is outside of the territorial jurisdiction for Subtitle A federal tax crimes, such as Willful Failure to File, found in 26 U.S.C. §7203 or Tax Evasion under 26 U.S.C. §7201, which must happen inside the federal zone. Furthermore, neither of these two statutes even have implementing regulations that apply them to the income tax found in Subtitle A of the I.R.C. so they are unenforceable. There are only five ways the "federal mafia" (as Irwin Schiff calls them!) can get jurisdiction over a sovereign inhabitant of the 50 states living outside of the federal zone, and any one of the below methods will incorrectly establish you as a "U.S. person" at great injury to yourself and unnecessarily subject you to the jurisdiction of a corrupt and communist federal court:
For the purpose of federal statutes and "Acts of Congress" defined above, the several states of the Union of states, collectively referred to as the "United States of America", are considered to be legislatively "foreign", but not “foreign countries” with respect to the national government. This is because the national government has admiralty jurisdiction over the sea and waterways external and internal to the states of the Union. Here is the definition of the term “foreign country” right from the Treasury Regulations:
A frequent term used to describe states that are legislatively foreign like Constitutional states of the Union are "freely associated compact states". If we examine the Title 28, which is the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure statutes governing all federal courts, including the United States District Courts, we find the following relevant evidence mentioning the term "freely associated compact states"::
The term "freely associated compact states" does NOT refer to states of the Union, however, even though they are legislatively foreign with respect to the national government. Instead, they refer to Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau and possibly others in the conext of the above statute. Section 297 above deals with reassigning federal judges to the Pacific Islands properties that are associated with the U.S. Government. For proof, see:
Note that Congress, in subparagraph (a) above refers to the “freely associated compact states” in subparagraph (b) as “countries”. That is because they fit in every respect the description of “foreign country” found above in 26 C.F.R. §1.911-2(h):
The California Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of this section when it stated in the case of People ex re. Atty. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 234 (1850):
Once again, Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, describes the jurisdiction and operation of the federal district and circuit (appellate) courts. Section 1603 contains definitions and includes a very interesting and related definition of the term “foreign state”:
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 97 JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES
We have no choice to conclude, based on the definition above that the sovereign 50 states of the United States of America are considered “foreign states”, which means they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts in most cases. There are exceptions to this general rule, but most of these exceptions occur when the parties involved reside in two different “foreign states” or in a territory (referred to as a “State”) of the federal United States and wish to voluntarily grant the federal courts jurisdiction over their issues to simplify the litigation. The other interesting outcome of the above is that We the People are “instrumentalities” of those foreign states, because we fit the description above as:
1.A separate legal person.
2.An organ of the foreign state, because we:
2.1.Fund and sustain its operations with our taxes.
2.2.Select and oversee its officers with our votes.
2.3.Change its laws through the political process, including petitions.
2.4.Control and limit its power with our jury and grand jury service.
2.5.Protect its operation with our military service.
Without the involvement of every citizen of every “foreign state” in the above process, the state governments would disintegrate and cease to exist, based on the way our system is structured now. The people, are the sovereigns, according to the Supreme Court: Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884); Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935); Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). Because the people are the the sovereigns, then the government is there to serve them and without people to serve, then we wouldn’t need a government! How much more of an “instrumentality” can you be as a natural person of the body politic of your state? We refer you back to section 4.1 (of our Great IRS Hoax book) to reread that section to find out just how very important a role you play in your state government. By the way, here is the definition of “instrumentality” right from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 801:
Another section in that same Chapter 97 above says these foreign states have judicial immunity:
Why is this important? Because as you will find out below, your income qualifies as “foreign income” and you qualify as a nonresident alien who lives in a foreign country if you were born outside of the federal zone and inside the United States of America. This is important because if you have only income not connected with a “trade or business in the United States” and you are a nonresident alien, then your income is not subject to federal income tax:
IRS Publication 515 (Nov. 2001), Withholding Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities, confirms the nontaxability of income earned outside of the federal United States (or federal zone) by a Nonresident Alien on page 21::
Now can you see why our deceitful federal government might not want you to know that as a person living in one of the several states and outside the federal zone, you live in a “foreign country” and are a nonresident alien, and are therefore not liable for federal income taxes?
In the context of federal taxes, 28 U.S.C. §2201 says that federal courts may not make declaratory judgments regarding income taxes and may not address "rights or legal relations":
The "rights" they are talking about in the above statute, folks, are your Constitutional rights found in the Bill of Rights! The questions then becomes, where is the only jurisdiction in which the U.S. Congress can legislate away enforcement of your Constitutional rights or abrogate their responsibility and oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? A careful reading of the supreme Court case Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) provides the answer.
The table below summarizes the results our reading the Downes case to answer the question of where Constitutional rights apply:
The answer to the question of where Congress can legislate away rights is the federal zone, and in particular, those lands where the Constitution has never been applied, such as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. These areas, incidentally, are the only areas where "U.S. citizens" actually reside under 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(e). The reason for this is that the Constitution is an irrevocable social contract between the inhabitants and the government that attaches to the land. Congress cannot unilaterally extricate itself from this contract. The District of Columbia is an example of federal land where the Bill of Rights apply, because that area once belonged to the states of Maryland and Virginia and was ceded to the federal government when it was formed and after the Constitution was ratified by those two states. This conclusion is also confirmed by the fact that only one of the two Article III (of the Constitution) courts anywhere in our country are located in District of Columbia, and the only District Court in the District of Columbia must be an Article III court, because it is one of the few courts that exists on land that is not part of the federal zone.
Furthermore, there is only one place in the federal courts where the Congress can pass legislation that suspends enforcement of the Constitution, and that is in Article I courts inside the federal zone or Article III courts in administering laws that only apply to the federal zone. This ought to be a BIG clue that Subtitle A federal income taxes can only apply in federal territories that are already devoid of Constitutional protections.
To show you how the courts are ruling and thinking in the current time frame, it is necessary to go to what the Supreme Court has written. One of the best insights available is Schlup v. Delo, 130 L.Ed.2d 808, 818, 832 (1995) 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, where the Supreme Court stated:
This illustrates that the courts are not making "legal decisions" they are making "decisions legal", in the engineering world, this is called reverse engineering. This also illustrates that the courts are doing nothing more than making a ruling legal by affirming a decision that has already been made administratively. But with this kind of subjectivity in our court system, one has to ask, folks:
Some questions are:
This line of ruling from the Supreme Court shows you that the "law" is not in force today, but public policy is, and public policy changes at anytime the people in power say that the public policy has changed.
Now, I know you are going to ask, how is this possible, how did it happen, and what can I do to change it?
Those are the real questions and the answers that we are attempting to explore here. In order to truly understand this problem and how to remedy it, one has to fully digest the true status of the "law" and how the Federal government is really operating and not just how the Federal government says it is operating.
Justice Harlan gave Americans fair warning of what was possible to happen, back in 1901, by stating in a dissenting opinion:
The start of our quest is to first determine whether or not the nation is under the social contract the people have made with the Federal government, the Constitution for the united States of America (1789), or not. Part of the answer to that question can be found in documentation from the Senate of the UNITED STATES in Senate Report 93-549, which shows that we have been in a state of national emergency for quite some time.
See for yourself what the document says.
An anonymous legal scholar has so graciously pointed to a U.S. supreme Court decision that states "the Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, . . ." in the whole paragraph in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120(1866):
There seems to be a difference of opinion between the legislative branch of the Federal government and the Judicial branch as to the effectiveness of the Constitution in a state of war. This difference certainly needs to be explored to find the real truth, after all that is exactly what we all want, is the truth.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has stated the truth about the courts of the United States as far back as 1933, in an obscure case brought by a U.S. Court of Claims Judge concerning the diminishment of his salary while he was still in office. This case, Thomas S. Williams v. United States, 77 L.Ed. 1372 (1933) is called by the government of the United States a "judicial embarrassment", but the fact of the matter is that this particular case opinion tells the story about the United States Courts under Article I, III and IV. The reader only has to read this case about 10 to 15 times before all that is said will sink in.
We begin with one of the great masters of Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in the year 1828. Here, Justice Marshall makes a very clear distinction between judicial courts, authorized by Article III, and legislative (territorial) courts, authorized by Article IV. Marshall even utilizes some of the exact wording of Article IV to differentiate those courts from Article III "judicial power" courts, as follows:
To come to the truth of what is really happening in the courts of the United States, one has to undertake a study of the three (3) articles in the Constitution under which courts of the United States are created and may operate, Article I, III, and IV.
Article I courts are legislative courts and are created by Congress and operate within very special limited areas of operation. Article III courts are of the third Branch of government, the Judicial Branch, and are supposed to be independent of the other two Branches of the government with no influence or coercion from those two Branches of the government on the Judicial Branch. Article IV courts are created by Congress for the territories, and even though called territorial courts, which they are, the said territorial courts are still under the thumb of Congress and not independent but serve their master, the Congress.
There are actually three areas in the court concerning jurisdiction. There is the court itself, operating on a location that is actually specified by statute or Rule, see Rule 54(c), above listed, and the cause of action needs to be authorized by the Congress or the Constitution as a cause of action requiring the judicial power of the United States, and the "judge" is required to be a member of the third branch of the government, the Judicial Branch, with no coercion or intimidation from either of the other two branches of the government, in order to be a true independent impartial decision maker.
The Supreme Court of the United States covered the matter of Article III courts very thoroughly in Northern Pipeline Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (1982) in Footnote 39:
While Northern is principally about the power and the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Courts under Title 11, the case also goes into a lengthy discussion about Article III courts and their power and jurisdiction or the lack thereof.
Historical precedents are mentioned in Part II, Section A, from the Founding Fathers and their reasons for the need for an independent and impartial Judicial Branch of the government. The whole Part A is very informative and illustrative of the need for the judiciary's independence and impartiality, with one of the reasons being for the confidence of the people to reside in the decisions of the judiciary, and not be made a mockery of. Compare that with today when the judiciary is nothing more than a stooge for the people in power and everybody knows it, but to date lacks the courage to rectify the situation.
Northern Pipeline is full of case cites for the student of the history and functioning of the federal courts, and sums up the matter by stating:
And at the same time most if not all of the federal judges sign contracts with the Executive Branch, for which they can be investigated, prosecuted and placed in prison, and that being a Form 1040 executed with the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, a part of the Treasury Department, which is in turn a part of the Executive Branch.
SO WHERE IS THE INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY
OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY?
There is an opinion by some, strongly expressed and backed up with case law and legal opinions, that stands for the proposition that all the Federal government is operating under an "unrevealed" or SECRET Maritime Jurisdiction. For the complete discussion on this matter you may click here on, SPECIAL MARITIME JURISDICTION, and copy or download the whole treatise.
Even before the treatise SPECIAL MARITIME JURISDICTION was published, I was of the opinion that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT was operating in admiralty/maritime jurisdiction when I had been directed to the volumes on the subject known as "BENEDICTS ON ADMIRALTY" and had found therein the Section on Crimes and lo and behold, therein listed were some of the offenses listed that I had been charged with. When I confronted the "judge", Edward C. Prado, with this information and demanded an explanation, his response was, "Do you see any ships here, Mr. Kearns?", to which everybody in the courtroom laughed. I put a Demand into the court to shut down the admiralty side of the court and to convene the common law side of the court, which can be read by clicking on DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE.
My desire and attempt at the time was to seat a common law jury of my peers and to have that common law jury act on an ACTION TO QUIET TITLE.
After you have familiarized yourself with the concepts and the law in the SPECIAL MARITIME JURISDICTION, you can click on the PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to view the said Petition filed on March 28, 1998 along with a MEMORANDUM OF LAW. The concepts in the SPECIAL MARITIME JURISDICTION treatise were listed in the said Petition and the Memorandum of Law, just not as concise and with the clarity of the later work.
I am of the opinion that you will find, just as Justice Harlan above stated in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), that there are actually two Federal District Courts in each Federal District, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, created as an Article IV, section 3, administrative tribunal, American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 7 L.ed 243; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) and the District Court of the United States, created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, under Article III, currently vacant. In order to confirm the above stated opinion, you can go to the Federal Judiciary Homepage, which is the Directory for the United States Courts to confirm that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the territories of Puerto Rico is in the First Circuit, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT of the Virgin Islands is in the Third Circuit, and the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for Guam is in the Ninth Circuit, and these three UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS are treated the same as the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT within the States of the Union. Could it be, that the Federal Government is treating the Judicial Districts within the States of the Union as Federal Territories? Something to think about.
While the United States District Judge is appointed and confirmed under Article III of the Constitution, when he/she steps into the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, they do so not as an Article III judicial officer but as an Article IV administrative hearing officer, who is not independent nor impartial.
Should a person attempt to go to the United States District Judge, in his Article III capacity, obviously NOT in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, but in chambers, I am of the opinion, one will find that the independence and impartiality of the Article III judicial officer has been co-opted by virtue of the fact he/she has signed a contract with an Executive Branch agency known as the Internal Revenue Service, either a W-4 contract or a Form 1040 contract.
After reading the case of Hatter, et al v. United States of America, USCC # 705-89 C, 21 Cl. Ct. 786(1990) filed December 29, 1989 in the U.S. Claims Court, now the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and ruled upon by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 91-5039, decided January 16, 1992, I am thoroughly convinced that none of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGES ARE ARTICLE III JUDGES, because of what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in their opinion:
Now folks, you and I can read plain English, at least I hope we can, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clearly stated that none of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES OR THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES was an Article III judge in 1984, and in my opinion, have not been since.
In the final analysis, I think you will find, we the State Citizens of America, designated as "Citizens of the United States" in the Constitution for the United States of America, long before the 14th Article of Amendment to the Constitution was ever thought of, do not have an independent impartial judicial remedy, from Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America, when it comes to actions by the said State Citizens against or involving the Federal United States of America. It appears the only remedy for State Citizens who have a Petition for Redress of Grievances against the Federal Government of the United States of America, is to go directly to Congress for relief.
The lack of a "competent, independent and impartial tribunal [judicial forum] established by law" for the State Citizens of the United States of America is in direct violation of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States of America is a party signatory, on June 8, 1992, and came into force in the United States on September 8, 1992, while coming into force for the rest of the signatories on March 23, 1976, after being proposed on December 16, 1966. Also, you will want to check out the Reservations and Declarations made by the United States of America specifically governing the application of this Covenant (Treaty/Contract) in the United States of America.
The United States issued a Report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1994, and you may read the complete Report right here, just click on the name above.
You will find reading the above that that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, an Article 1 legislative tribunal, and the district court of the United States, an Article III judicial court, which has been for the moment shelved in violation to our Constitution. A process of invoking the district court of the United States with it's Article III powers is being developed by Michael Joseph Kearns for his own Federal case. You can read about the history of his dealings to come to the bottom of this matter by clicking here.
We are of the opinion that most people have been in the wrong court for the wrong action, and that the proper court to have been in for any criminal action would have been the district court of the United States and not the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
6. ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE AND ARTICLE IV TERRITORIAL COURTS: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS"
All “United States District Courts” are territorial and/or “legislative courts” that may only operate as administrative rather than Constitutional or Common Law courts. Nearly all of the courts in our federal system are “United States District Courts”. In fact, the only Constitutional or common law district courts in the country United States exist in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. This is confirmed by looking at the Notes under 28 U.S.C. §88, which says for the District of Columbia:
The Notes section under 28 U.S.C. §91for Hawaii say the following:
All district courts other than Hawaii and the District of Columbia are, by implication administrative courts, which means that they are territorial courts which may not rule on constitutional rights. Even courts that are Art. III can only exercise that power when the judges are also Article III judges, which few judges are. There is a great deal of confusion over this issue within the legal profession and few lawyers fully understand the implications of this distinction in our experience.
All of the territorial “United States District Courts” are listed in Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5. The notes at the beginning of this chapter indicate the following:
“Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945. All references to dates were omitted as unnecessary. “
The important thing to note is the date of January 1, 1945. At that time, Alaska and Hawaii were still territories instead of states of the Union. Consequently, the U.S. District Courts had jurisdiction throughout these two territories at the time this chapter was codified. All of the sections listed under this chapter identify the boundaries of the various districts, but the actual territory within these districts that falls under federal jurisdiction and under jurisdiction of the U.S. district courts is limited ONLY to areas of land that have been ceded by each state to the federal government by an act of the state legislature or which were owned by the federal government since before the state joined the Union. Anyone who is not domiciled in a federal area within the outer boundaries of these districts does not reside "within the district", and therefore does not come under federal jurisdiction, including jurisdiction to enforce the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A.
In the case of the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court admitted in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) that it was covered by the Bill of Rights because it had belonged to the states of Maryland and Virginia before it was ceded to the federal government after the Constitution was ratified in 1789. At the point when D.C. was ceded in writing by Maryland and Virginia to the new federal government, the land was covered by the Bill of Rights and no formal agreement was subsequently worked out by Maryland and Virginia to remove the applicability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to that area. Consequently, all courts trying issues in that area must be Article III courts.
Though the judicial system set up in a Territory of the United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase "court of the United States", when used in a federal statute, is generally construed as not referring to "territorial courts." See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627. In Balzac, the high Court stated:
Below are some additional cites clarifying the terms “District Court of the United States” as compared with “United States District Court”.
7. ARTICLE III CONSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT COURTS: "DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES"
Under our Constitutional system of government, Article III courts are the only types of courts empowered under the Constitution to rule on matters that concern the rights of natural persons living inside states of the Union.
The following paragraph from Mookini is extraordinary for several reasons: (1) it refers to the "historic and proper sense" of the term "District Courts of the United States", (2) it makes a key distinction between such courts and application of their rules to territorial courts; (3) the application of the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius is obvious here, namely, the omission of territorial courts clearly shows that they were intended to be omitted:
Below are some additional quotes helping to define the term “District Court of the United States”:
Below is a listing of specific powers granted by the Constitution or by the Supreme Court that allows federal jurisdiction to reach outside of the federal zone. The powers below are the only areas of subject matter jurisdiction that authorize federal jurisdiction outside of the federal zone:
"Other authorities to the same effect might be cited. It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the 13th Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime. In the exercise of that power Congress has enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude. This legislation is not limited to the territories or other parts of the strictly national domain, but is operative in the states and wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends. We entertain no doubt of the validity of this legislation, or its applicability to the case of any person holding and wherever the sovereignty of the United whether there be a municipal ordinance or state law sanctioning such holding. It operates directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his residence may be."
There are a few cases which must be filed in federal courts. By virtue of federal law, state courts have no power to adjudicate (no subject matter jurisdiction):
In order to get a fair trial, you must understand how the court system works and how to use it to your advantage. We already explained, for instance, that if you decide to enter a federal court as a last resort, then you want to do so in an Article III court with Article III judges. The courts do not directly tell you whether they are Article III courts nor do the judges tell you if they are Article III judges. You must have enough knowledge to understand that you will have to go to a third party to get this information. That third party is the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, Articles III judges division at:
Administrative Office of the Federal Courts
Article III Judges Division
Washington, D.C. 20544
You can look up the biographical information on any federal judge since 1789 on the Federal Judicial Website at:
Magistrate and bankruptcy and Tax Court judges, which are Article I judges, are not listed in the above database. These serve a term of 14 years. Oaths are the same for all judges. The judge oath is prescribed in 28 U.S.C. §453and 5 U.S.C. §3331. The oath that all judges take is a combination of the previous two sections and reads as follows:
The Article III Judges Division keeps the oaths of all federal judges on file. They told us on 9/23/03 on the phone that they don’t give out copies of judges oaths and that the federal judiciary is not covered under FOIA, but they could not give us the authority for this. We asked what would we would get if we did an FOIA for the oath of a federal judge, and they said they would send out a certificate that the oath is on file, but would not provide a copy of the original oath. The lady we talked to said the oath form that judges sign says “Judicial officer” and does not say “employee” nor does it say “Art. III judge” on the form. We asked them what legal basis they had to believe that District Judges were Art. III judges and they could not tell us what statute in Title 28 said that.
We also asked the legal counsel of the Art. III Judges division on 9/23/03 how to establish what courts are Art. III courts, and she said it was in Title 28, but could not give the section. We pointed out that there were only three courts mentioned in Title 28 as Article III courts, and this included the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and the Court of Claims, and that none of the other courts were specifically identified as Art. III courts. We reminded them that if it ain’t in the law, then you can assume it ain’t so. The legal counsel didn’t have any further information on this subject and recommended further research in the Federal Judicial Center website.
We wish to thank the following resources for their contributions to some of the ideas found in this article beyond those of the author:
|Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship||Last revision: 8/16/09|
|This private system is NOT subject to monitoring|