=====
NOTE from hobie: A primary rule in the RMN Reading Room is "no ad hominem attacks". Texts that speak disparagingly of another Agent or Reader may be deleted or withheld from being posted at all.
=====
(Thanks, C. :)
Reader Charles Miller writes at length:
***************************************************************************
Re: Anna Von Reitz: 'About Your Courts'
More Hyperbole & Crap, Misleading, Easily Countered.
Dear Anna.
PROPER understanding of Article I and Article III courts.
It might behoove you to actually look at the sources you claim are the basis for your pontifications.
Below please find the facts and law sourced from actual public records that may be relied on as accurate.
Please, remember, all public records qualify as perfect evidence because they are openly published under intent to be binding statements of government operations.
Under what law, theory of law, or other acceptable available reference, do you believe your defective pontifications, supersede, overcome, change or control the effect of public record statements defining jurisdictional powers?
SPECIAL NOTE: Lack of constitutional Judicial Power in California Federal Courts
As filed and being addressed in the courts now.
Thus, Alan M.
, removes the above identified California civil action to the properly constructed United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
Alan M.
is not a ward of the court nor any of its licensed franchised, regulated agents, Bar attorneys.
Alan M. Stark acts sui juris, with full standing and capacity of a State Citizen of the Republic State of California begun 1849.
No federal court in any state holds any judicial power contemplated by the National Constitution.
All federal courts are created by Congress. None of the federal courts in the States hold constitutionally recognized judicial power, with the ones identified herein being the exceptions, along with the one supreme Court created by the Peoples Constitution in the construction of our constitution as directed to be executed by our agents the States United. See Article VII.
No, federal judicial officer ever held the authority to define the jurisdiction of his own court. No current federal judge in California holds an appointment to a court created by Congress holding judicial power of the United States.
No federal judicial officer, operating in the state of California holds an appointment as a constitutionally recognized judicial power court or office. The proof of fact is their appointment documents and their federal form 61s executed prior to taking office.
Verification of these statement takes less than JLO30 minuets reading time. More to the point identifying the federal courts with actual judicial power contemplated by the constitution takes 10 minuets reading. After completing this reading perhaps the impression of fraud of a massive proportion will expose its self.
28 United States Code §§ 1 through 144, identifying Supreme, Appeals and District courts, does not identify nor assign either Article III nor inferior Article I judicial power to any of the courts identified by legislative act of Congress re-presented in the finding aid United States Code Title 28.
Article I inferior judicial power are found in the creation of the United States Court of Federal Claims, at § 171, with Article III powers found in the same Title 28 USC, the Court of International Trade at § 251.
Creation and Composition of Federal Courts.
ACTS OF CONGRESS AS ARCHIVED PUBLIC RECORD.
§ 171, (a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, sixteen judges who shall constitute a court of record known as the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court is a court established under article I of the Constitution of the United States.
§ 251, (a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, nine judges who shall constitute a court of record to be known as the United States Court of International Trade. Not more than five of such judges shall be from the same political party. The court is a court established under article III of the Constitution of the United States.
(b) The offices of the Court of International Trade shall be located in New York, New York.
Compare, § 171 and § 251 with § 132, (a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district.
(b) Each district court shall consist of the district judge or judges for the district in regular active service. Justices or judges designated or assigned shall be competent to sit as judges of the court.
(c) Except as otherwise provided by law, or rule or order of court, the judicial power of a district court with respect to any action, suit or proceeding may be exercised by a single judge, who may preside alone and hold a regular or special session of court at the same time other sessions are held by other judges.
§ 1, The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
§ 41, The thirteen judicial circuits of the United States are constituted as follows:
citing federal districts in the states.
For perfect clarity on federal courts holding properly identified judicial powers contemplated by the Constitution, District of Columbia Code settles the unfounded conjecture passed out by judges and attorneys in their bogus pontifications concerning judicial power and jurisdiction.
Code of the District of Columbia
§ 11101. Judicial power.
The judicial power in the District of Columbia ( seat of government ) is vested in the following courts:
(1) The following Federal Courts established pursuant to article III of the Constitution:
(A) The Supreme Court of the United States.
(B) The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(C) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
(2) The following District of Columbia courts established pursuant to article I of the Constitution:
(A) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
(B) The Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Further reading at the finding aid Title 4 USC § 72; All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, exposes limits on venue, the place on the land, to which federal jurisdiction is attached, which is set in concrete by Article I section 8, clause 17 and 18, exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.
Jurisdiction may be waived, venue is always fixed, and a requirement to be identified before jurisdiction can be attached over that venue.
Venue: The proper geographical area (county, city, or district) in which a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter may hear a case.
Thus, Alan M.
removes the California civil action to the only federal court having proper venue and jurisdiction over the subject matter of protecting federal civil rights.
***************************************************************************
