NOTICE THERE ARE NO JUDGES!
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Shhh…these folks do not know….that there has never been a Constitutional federal republic…it was a flim-flam…SURPRISE!!
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter since 1996
The extension of federal law beyond federal territory by federal territorial officers is causing an unnecessary conflict with the implementation of California’s Compassionate Use Act. Concerned Californians are filing judicial misconduct complaints against federal district court judges in order to have them removed from their offices.
"BY THE WAY, iF you do a FOIA on the judges in that court, you will find that all of them have a Form 61 stating that they are in fact all "Employees of the United States ." You can't be an employee and also an "Officer of the United States " under Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2. You must have an Office created by law (Congress). Their purported Civil Commission is in the Dept. of Justice, it should be in the Secretary of State's office under the seal of the United States , but it is under the seal of the DoJ."
NOTICE – THERE ARE NO JUDGES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
United States district court Judge A.B. Fair
This sample judicial misconduct complaint made against the United States district court judge named above is filed, in accordance with the Ninth Circuit Rules of the Judicial Council only for the purpose of demonstrating the official Title 28 U.S.C. judicial misconduct complaint process. Actual complaints should only be made after consulting the rules governing such complaints. This sample complaint exceeds the five page limitation on the Statement of Facts imposed by the Ninth Circuit Rules. Each circuit has different rules. Those rules are available from the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the judge subject to complaint. Rules for the Ninth Circuit can also be accessed on the Internet: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/misconduct To access the other circuits try inserting the number of the circuit you want in place of the 9.in this link: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov
Complainant charges that this territorial district judge, who claims to be an Article III judge, has committed an impeachable offense for failing to reside within the district to which he was appointed in violation of Section 134 Title 28 U.S.C. and for violation of Section 2384 Title 18 U.S.C. by conspiring with others “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The recent death of Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. revealed that he resided in the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles , while a district judge. The resignation of Judge Nora Margaret Manella caused the Los Angeles Times to reveal her Studio City residence in a news story. The Torrance Daily Breeze identified Judge Manuel L. Real as a Rancho Palos Verdes resident. These district judges, as well as all other federal district judges in the 50 states have violated §134 Title 28 U.S.C. by not residing within the judicial district to which he or she had been appointed.
The District of California cannot be both the federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress on January 1, 1945 and the territory that is not subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress. The territory that comprises the District of California must be one or the other. Any place in any one of the 50 states is, similarly, either subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress or it is not. From the very beginning Congress viewed the creation of genuine Article III courts as a threat to its own power, so it created none. Congress did make it possible for district court judges to act like Article III judges and did nothing when they lived outside the district to which they had been appointed. The first district courts and today’s United States district court for the District of California are legislative courts that Congress must pass off as an Article III judicial court to extend its territorial jurisdiction beyond federal territory. Californiadistrict judges claim to be Article III judges despite taking an obvious territorial oath. To complete the deception, the United States Congress, the United States Department of Justice and district judges of the District of California have conspired to remove the high misdemeanor penalty from Section 134 Title 28 U.S.C., so that the public will not be aware that failure to reside in the judicial district is still an impeachable crime for a district judge. The purpose of this complaint is to expose the factual basis of the conspiracy to prevent, hinder or delay the application of the residency requirement to United States district judges and United States Attorneys.
Section 84 lacks a critical factor—a date to mark it either as a Sixth Amendment district “previously ascertained by law” or to identify the federal territory subject to Article IV disposition by Congress. The first and the most important sentence in Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. supplies that date and is an announcement that the sections that follow are to be descriptive of the federal territory that comprises the district: “Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945 .” The 52 sections consist of 48 States, the District, the two territories of Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico . The date: January 1, 1945 does not subject the judicial district to the Sixth Amendment because the district is made up exclusively of federal territory.
The territorial composition of the districts and divisions is determined by finding territory that can be common to States, the District, territory and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as of a certain date. By random substitution we can determine that the only territory common to all is federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress. State territory, it will be seen, must be excluded as any part of a federal judicial district or division because Puerto Ricoand the two territories had no State territory on January 1, 1945 . The District of Columbia was created from State territory, but Puerto Rico and the territories can contain no such territory.
Judge Fair was obligated to presume under the authority of Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949) that the territorial composition of §84 was territorial. Based on that presumption his residence outside federal territory violated federal residency law once he took a territorial oath of office. Upon entering his office, he began an active conspiracy with the other judges and magistrates of the district, the United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of California to conceal his residence outside the judicial district to which he had been appointed. Knowing that he had not taken an oath for an Article VI “Office or public Trust under the United States,” he proceeded to act as if he was an Article III judicial officer and that he resided within the District of California. He knew or should have known that he was a territorial officer and did not reside within federal territory in California . He could only carry out this deception in an active conspiracy with the United States Attorney and other conspirators.
The first act of the First Congress was to create an oath that conformed to the requirements of Article VI of the Constitution, 1 Stat. 23, 24. Congress enacted a different oath containing a religious test for the Chief Justice, Associate Justices and district judges, 1 Stat. 76, that did not conform to the no religious test requirements of Article VI. The oath and religious test enacted and imposed on the federal judiciary by Congress clearly set the Justices and judges apart from any Office or public Trust under the United States . The federal judicial oath precludes the holding of an Office or public Trust under Article III of the Constitution. Federal judges must find authority in Article I or Article IV and only Article IV can provide the territory for a Chapter 5 Title 28 U.S.C. judicial district or division.
Section 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., which is based on Section 1 of the 1940 edition of the United States Code requires all the district judges of State of the Republic to reside within the district to which they have been appointed and provides that it is a high misdemeanor for not doing so. As the Sixth Amendment requires a district previously ascertained by law and one subject to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Judge Fair had an additional duty to determine the territorial composition of the district before he accepted the appointment of United States district court judge. The public is keenly aware of the loss of rights, which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The public lost those and more when Judge Fair conspired with others to conceal the fact that Section 84 identified a district comprised entirely of federal territory that is subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress.
Judge Fair should not be permitted to claim that he merely assumed that the District of California was all of California . He and the other Central District of California district judges had a duty to identify a district that conforms to law in all respects. He, especially, had to conform the district to the requirements of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Judge Fair did none of this. Section 2(b) of the Act of 1948, 62 Stat 985 provided that the Judiciary Act of 1948 would be a continuation of existing law in order to conform that act to statute law. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789, the judicial districts have consistently been composed of federal territory.
There can be no other conclusion: Judge Fair is a criminal with respect to §134 and he continues to be a criminal every moment that he fails or refuses to reside within the judicial district to which he was appointed. He remains a member of a criminal conspiracy “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States ,” as long as he fails or refuses to disclose the true character of the California Judicial District.
There is no easy way to correct the injustices caused by Judge Fair, however, they must not be allowed to continue. Corrections are possible only to the judges now in office.* Judge Fair had a duty to make his own determination of what parts of the counties comprised the district and he chose to accept assumptions of what the district is rather than determine for himself the district previously ascertained by law. He must not be allowed to excuse his criminality by claiming that he merely relied on the assumptions made by others.
In 1789, when the U.S. Supreme Court and district courts were first organized, the concept of “the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States was so important that that Congress was able to create a government around its disposition. Congress was responsible for vast tracts of land not part of any state and for maritime and admiralty laws in the coastal states. The requirement that district judges reside within the federal territory that comprised the district to which they had been appointed is found in Section 3 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and appears in Section 1 Title 28 U.S.C. of the 1940 Code. Congress made the violation of the residency requirement a high misdemeanor, when it enacted Chapter V.An Act concerning the District and Territorial Judges of the United States on December 18, 1812 , 2 Stat 788. Today, the residence of a district judge in a federal enclave is practically an impossibility. To satisfy the § 134 residency requirements, federal district judges would have to reside within national parks as some United States magistrate judges are required, pursuant to § 631 (b) (3) Title 28 U.S.C.
It is certain that no district court judge anywhere complies with the residence requirement that district judges reside on federal territory located within his or his district. No federal judges of the District of California can comply with the federal residency laws because there is no suitable residence available within any district or division. Congress has not repealed the residency requirement, but the House of Representatives and the law revisers have conspired with the federal judiciary and the United States Department of Justice to remove the high misdemeanor penalty editorially. The past success of the law revisers and other conspirators suggests an established and elaborate congressional policy to concoct legislative protections for district court judges violating federal residency requirements. Removing the penalty from the Code did not repeal the law that established the penalty; judges will still be subject to impeachment.
The §134 Historical and Revision Note in the current Title 28 U.S.C. claims Congress did not intend that the high misdemeanor penalty apply to the residence requirement. No support for the alleged Congressional intention is provided, but the assertion is made in the note that the penalty attached to a district judge’s residency at the time of the 1878 compilation of the Revised Statutes. That assertion is a pure fabrication because section 551 of the Revised Statutes continues the residency requirement within the district and continues the high misdemeanor designation for the crime of failing to reside within the district. References to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the December 18, 1812 act in Sec. 551 in Title XIII. should completely dispose of the reviser’s claim that the high misdemeanor penalty was only meant to attach to the unauthorized practice of law in 1878. This totally inaccurate claim is continuing evidence of the conspiracy to “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States .”
Without exception the federal district judges of California have refused or have otherwise failed to reside on federal territory within the counties of the State that comprise the district. District judges who have violated and who continue to violate Section 134 cannot possibly administer the business of their court in an effective and expeditious manner. The United States district court judge named above has engaged in and is now engaging in conduct that has been a crime since 1812. What can be more prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts than the totally inaccurate determination of the territorial jurisdiction of the court? Once aware of his criminal violation of federal law, the district judge must act positively to stop violating the law.
The fact that there is no statutory evidence that any United States district court in California has been ordained and established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution is consistent with all that is known about the district courts and judges that predate California ’s federal courts. That additional fact makes it conclusive that Judge Fair is a territorial officer who is misusing his authority to extend federal law beyond the jurisdiction of the federal district court to which he was appointed.
A district court judge’s appointment during good behavior is statutory and it requires continual good behavior. The failure or refusal to reside within the district to which he was appointed violated the oath of his office and §134. The business of all the federal district courts is limited to their territorial jurisdiction and the judge named above is criminally liable because he must have been aware of his court’s territorial jurisdiction and he conspired to conceal it. Federal law makes him criminally liable for the knowledge that his court and jurisdiction is limited to the federal territory within the counties that comprise the district and its divisions. United States Marshals are providing personal security for United States district court judges who are in violation of federal residence laws. Judge Fair may be liable for the costs of such security because it was not provided within the judicial district to a person authorized to receive it.
Section 545 of Title 28 U.S.C. requires each United States Attorney to reside in the district for which he or she is appointed, except for certain exceptions in the District of Columbia and the District of New York. Federal grand and petit jurors must, according to Section 1865 of Title 28 U.S.C., be residents of the judicial district for one full year. How can a federal district judge determine if a grand or petit juror has resided in the district for a year if he or she is in violation of the same residency requirement? How can any United States district court judge in active violation of the federal residency requirement participate in the preparation of a written plan for the selection of grand and petit jurors if that judge has been effectively given immunity from prosecution for violation of those same residency requirements by a United States Attorney who is violating the same kind of law? Such violations of federal law cannot be permitted in any United States district court judge no matter how long his tenure.
It is a matter of historical fact that Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enacted on September 24th of that year, provided “that the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts,” when two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution. Section 1 of the Act, therefore, created a Supreme Court for theunincorporated territory in the federal territory of the eleven states that had ratified the Constitution and the two federal districts, Maine and Kentucky . Section 2. created the first United States district courts for the federal territory within the eleven states that had ratified the Constitution up to that time and for the territories of Maine and Kentucky . Maine was territory until it was admitted as the 23rd State of the Union on March 15, 1820 . During the time that the District Court of Maine operated as a territorial district court, Congress declared the violation of the residency requirement to be a high misdemeanor, an impeachable offense. Kentucky didn’t become the 15th State of the Union until June 1, 1792 , so up to its date of admission into the Union the District of Kentucky was a territory without State sovereignty, incapable of exercising Article III judicial power.
It is a fact, therefore, that prior to their respective dates of admission to the Union , the territorial composition of the two federal courts in Maine and Kentucky were all federal territory within the two federal States’ exterior boundaries. The two judicial districts consisted of territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress. It must follow, therefore, that the U.S. Supreme Court and the other district courts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 were not ordained andestablished pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, because the territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress constituted the territory that comprised the judicial districts of those district courts.
Every judiciary act and judicial code
since the first has confirmed the composition of the districts and divisions to be the federal territory to be found within the state or counties that comprise the districts and divisions. The Judiciary Act of 1911 uses the date: July 1, 1910 to reckon the territorial composition of the districts and divisions. The Judiciary Act of 1948 uses the date: January 1, 1945 for the same purpose and, of course, to conform the district to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. That amendment requires the district to be previously ascertained by law. The official residence of the judge, jurors, U.S. Attorney and Marshal must be in federal territory not because of anything in the Bill of Rights, but because law enacted pursuant to the exclusive legislative power of Congress can only be applied on or in United States territory.
Judge Fair is unable to perform a constitutional Article III function because he has sworn a territorial oath and has functioned as a federal territorial judge for about twelve [?] years. He cannot qualify to be a territorial judge because he cannot reside on any federal territory within the district. Congress in 1804 impeached John Pickering, the first district judge to be charged and removed from office, to support the erroneous belief that district judges were Article III officers serving during good behavior. District judges, however, were first entitled by statute to serve during good behavior by the Judiciary Act of 1948 and are subject to “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” only because of that statutory appointment during good behavior. There is incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy to commit a high misdemeanor and to “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States .” It is obvious that the December 18, 1812 residency requirement serves an important purpose evidenced by the still valid high misdemeanor penalty. The penalty has remained in all the judicial codes since that time until 1946, when the law revisers conspired with the federal judiciary to remove the penalty from the written law. The true state of congressional intent is its failure to repeal the penalty for not residing within the district. It is past time to apply the law that still exists. Impeachment of Judge Fair is necessary simply because there may be no other way to terminate the conspiracy to violate the federal residency laws.
The extension of federal law beyond federal territory by federal territorial officers is causing an unnecessary conflict with the implementation of California’s Compassionate Use Act. Concerned Californians are filing judicial misconduct complaints against federal district court judges in order to have them removed from their offices. While the federal judicial misconduct complaint process is being pursued, I ask that you, as an elected official, ask the California State Attorney General for his opinion of the impact of the federal law set out in this sample complaint.
BY THE WAY, iF you do a FOIA on the judges in that court, you will find that all of them have a Form 61 stating that they are in fact all "Employees of the United States ." You can't be an employee and also an "Officer of the United States " under Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2. You must have an Office created by law (Congress). Their purported Civil Commission is in the Dept. of Justice, it should be in the Secretary of State's office under the seal of the United States , but it is under the seal of the DoJ.
Richard Nixon, if he were alive today, might take bittersweet satisfaction to know that he was not the last smart president to prolong unjustifiably a senseless, unwinnable war, at great cost in human life. … He would probably also feel vindicated (and envious) that ALL the crimes he committed against me–which forced his resignation facing impeachment–are now legal," – Daniel Ellsberg.
"The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.''
CAHA v. U.S. , 152 U.S. 211 (1894)
See the whole decision:
When Injustice becomes law, Rebellion becomes duty
Just Click on this link to join or listen to the show, including the archives!!
Hosted by: Jack Bauer
Saturday's: 6pm to 8pm Pacific, 9pm to 11pm Eastern.
How can you participate????
Call ID: 74235#
On your phone keypad:
*6 to mute on *6 again to mute off, Press *8 to raise your hand to ask a question.