The Informer
Hello again people. I decided to do something a little different. Work on theory mixed with a little case law. I am going to try to show you that Congress is the ultimate ADMINISTRATOR of the Federal Courts. But first let me tell you a factual story to put this into perspective. IRS took my wife's money. I filed in small claims court against the bank. I lost. I appealed it to a superior court which people told me can't be done. Well I ran into a problem. The superior court took the case but would not proceed without the transcript. Oh yea, they issued an Order. The small claims court would not issue the transcripts because we were going forma paupers. Well I figured after two months I had enough so where to go? After searching the statutes of the State I found a little known section that stated the Administrator actually ran the courts.. So after finding the man I called for an appointment which my wife and I attended. Just the three of us. I explained the situation. He said how many transcripts do you need? I said six will be fine. He then wrote an Order for me to take to the transcriber compelling her to give me the amount of transcripts and another to the clerk of the court to send the record up to the superior court. All in 20 min. I had just set a precedent in that State. Now this proves that judges do not rule the administration and procedures, it is the administrator. Ok basing this fact on the theory I am about to lay on you, see if the logic still applies to the federal district courts. You all know the rote in court when you complain to Congress. They say , Oh you are in the courts and we have no say. The courts say taxes are a political issue and you have to go to Congress to change the law. Well how about if I told you Congress is the ultimate administrator of the district courts, the same as my case in the State? Why not? The courts are legislative courts and not pure judicial article III unbiased courts having judges with undiminished pay. The district courts are mere administrative courts. The courts of the original jurisdiction are the agencies themselves. That's right it's theory, but bear me out. Take IRS. The court consists of three people, and you can check this out in any law dictionary under the definition of Courts or Court. District Director is the Plaintiff, he made a claim. You are the defendant, objecting to the claim. Commissioner is the judge. He has the final say. Yea, look up commissioner and what he stands for. SO, after all is said and done in the administrative court, IRS agency, they assess and whatever. You know the story. Now they try to collect and you file suit in Federal district Court. They 12 (b) (6) you and you can't shake it. Why? You have brought a res judicata case before an administrative court of Congress, whereby the case was already decided in the lower court, IRS. So you appeal and get the same dismissal. Same reason res judicata in the court of original jurisdiction. In criminal cases it is much the same. So when the attorney lies and perjures himself by stating things that are not fact but presumptions, which the burden is on you to prove a negative, it cannot be done. You lose. So who to complain to but the administrators of the courts like I did. Congress my friends are the creators of the courts and have hired sub administrators to take the flack when it is Congress directly that we should be approaching. They are the upper crust of criminality. Why do I say they are the administrators to complain. Remember this is just my "theory" but read below and see if my theory holds water or not. This is to make you think and mull it over. This is an excerpt from my book Which One Are You, I published back in 1990. Yeah, that far back and people read but do not comprehend the significance of what is said. Just don't look at a case and pick what you want that fits your position. Look at what is being said and understand it. From the book, to wit: I quote federal judge Leavy in Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., 73 F.Supp. 288. "When we go to the other side of this question we begin first with the statement that is not subject to dispute or contradiction; which is that a United States District Court is purely a creature of the legislative branch of the government, generally provided for by the Constitution, but not, in a stricter sense, a constitutional court. Congress undoubtedly has the power to abolish these courts entirely, give them another name, or dispense with the services that they render. Certainly in the lifetime of some of us we know we have changed what was once the Circuit Courts and gave them a new name, outlined their duties, and made them the `District Courts'; provided for an appellate court, designated the Circuit Court of Appeals. Now there is some legislation pending to change the name again somewhat, if not, the powers. This Court is a creature of the Congress, and its jurisdiction, in reference to conferring and depriving it of jurisdiction comes from the Congress. . . . The District Courts and even the Circuit Courts were deprived of jurisdiction that theretofore had been conferred upon them. It was placed in a new court, called the Emergency Court of Appeals, and the act even went so far as to deny the District Courts the right to pass upon any feature of constitutionality in either civil or criminal litigation involved in O.P.A law and regulations." emphasis mine. Judge Leavy then went on to quote Assessors v. Osborne, 9 Wall. 76 U.S. 567 at 574, `District Courts are courts of special jurisdiction, and therefore, they cannot take jurisdiction of any case, either civil or criminal, where they are not authorized to do so by an Act of Congress',--he said it is-- "a leading case, and has not been distinguished, modified or over-ruled." emphasis his. In 1988 Congress eliminated the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review decisions on appeal from State Courts and decisions of the United States court of appeals. Does this sound like a Republican Government under the separation of Powers doctrine, or a commissioner form of corporate government (democracy), operating through corporate administrative agencies and commercial tribunals (corporation Court, Blk's Law), dealing as a "Court of Bankruptcy?" They are authorized under UCC, "Federal Common Law", are they not? Also refer back to UCC 1-101:6. Would it be correct to say we are all ignorant of the colorable law? This now makes all courts, Article 1, corporation administrative, tribunals for the legislative statutes of state or federal legislatures to determine only the facts. THEY ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS WITH WHICH TO BRING IN A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT! Since 1938, public policy rules (federal common law), rather than the National Constitution (general common law) and the Federal constitution rules through the Uniform Commercial Code. Remember this, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was formed in 1938. Coincidence? This explains why those, indicted and went to trial, could not use the National Constitution or State Constitution for protection. Frost Trucking Co. v. R.R. Com. 271 US 583 at 597-598, illustrates the difference between National and Federal constitutions, which was before the Erie Doctrine. Now think about what you read real hard and see if it makes sense. Here is a quote from a case that might point out why Senator Roth is afraid of the IRS. He so stated in his new book that is just out or to be published soon, as I saw on the Internet today. "More than once the judges of a court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth, the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective." Lord v. Kelly, 240 F. Supp 167, 169 (1965) Now, why would Congress, Senator Roth and all judges be afraid of what Congress created? Simple Congress did not create the IRS. They only created the Office of the Commissioner. This has been proven over and over again, not by just me but others. Who is the IRS and who controls it? That is for another time but hint, hint, who is the Secretary of the Treasury, of what treasury, and what other office does he hold? Sincerely, The Informer |