• Pages

  • CONTACT ED RIVERA
  • IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE W. BUSH REQUIRED TO END HIS POLICIES
  • LETTER TO CAPTIVES
  • REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

• Recent Posts

  • MINI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LESSON: LEARNING CONSTITUTION LAW BY THE NUMBERS
  • MINI CONSTITUTIONAL LESSON: CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT THAT DOOM THE CREATION OF A REPUBLIC
  • MINI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LESSON: A CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND A CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ALL IN “THIS CONSTITUTION”
  • MINI CONSTITUTIONAL LESSON: THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS A LEGISLATIVE NOT A JUDICIAL COURT, BECAUSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS A LEGISLATIVE OFFICER WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE DUTIES
  • MINI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LESSON: THE ARTICLE 2 CLAUSE 5 OFFICE OF PRESIDENT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON FAILED THE FOURTEEN YEARS RESIDENT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT

• Categories

  • Adoption
  • Article II Section 1 Clause 5
  • Article II Section 1 Clause 8
  • Article III
  • Articles of Confederation
  • BAIL OUT
  • BANKRUPTCY
  • CENSUS
  • CIVIL CONTEMPT
  • COMMON LAW
  • CONGRESS
  • CONSTITUTION
  • CRIMINAL LAW
  • Declaration of Independence
  • Economic Stimulous
  • Electoral College
  • Foreclosure
  • Fourteenth Amendment
  • FREEDOM
  • GAY MARRIAGE
  • GRAND JURY
  • IMMIGRATION
  • IMPEACHMENT
  • JURY DUTY
  • LAW OF THE LAND
  • LEARNING THE LAW
  • LIBERTARIAN
  • Martial Law
  • MAYAN 2012
  • Northwest Ordinance
  • Oath of Office
  • OBAMA
  • ORGANIC LAWS
  • PARDON
  • Presidential Elector
  • PRESIDENTS
  • ProperTea Tax Tea Party
  • Property Taxes
  • Second Amendment
  • State of California
  • Supreme Court
  • Territorial Jurisdiction
  • TRIAL BY JURY
  • U.S. District Court
  • Uncategorized

• Archives

  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

An earlier mini lesson established the office of President of the United States as an employment of the United States of America.  The Constitution reads: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”  In Article I Section 3 Clause 7, both Article I and Article II Impeachment is made non-judicial.

The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 declared American independence from the English monarchy, which embodied all government authority in one person, the monarch.  By eliminating King George III, every American was declared equal to every other American, which, also, eliminated all judges.

The Constitution, in Article I, makes it clear that only those Americans who have been freed from a government may rule themselves.  The Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 did not bring Americans under governmental legislative power.

The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 expressly created a temporary government for those Americans inhabiting the Northwest Territory, land belonging to the United States of America.  Article I of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 made that temporary government permanent.

Legislation enacted by the Congress of the United States, the Judiciary Act of 1789, made the federal courts “judicial courts” for the thirteen districts created by that act.  On the date of enactment, September 24, 1789 two States had not ratified the Constitution of September 17, 1787, making the federal courts legislative and only for the land owned by the United States of America.     

The only duty imposed on the Chief Justice by the Constitution of September 17, 1787 is legislative and all other duties imposed on the Chief Justice and United States Supreme Court are legislative.

 This is not all the information you need to prove the Chief Justice, Associate Justices and federal court system is limited to government affairs and the lands owned by the United States of America, but it is a start.   To get the rest of this story, enroll in my Basic Course in Law and Government, by contacting me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

    

The territorial jurisdiction of Chief Judge Walker is the land owned by the United States of America within the counties that comprise the Northern District, so Judge Walker’s findings are limited to that territory.

The legal result of the ruling is that same sex couples may marry in a place under the exclusive legislative power of the United States Congress.  Using that authority Congress has enacted Title 1 United States Code Section 7, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which recognizes only a marriage between one man and one woman.

Judge Walker’s opinion is in direct conflict with an act of Congress, when one knows how to interpret the first sentence that appears in Chapter 5—District Courts Title 28 United States Code:  “Sections 81 - 131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.”         

Sections 81 through 131 of Chapter 5 of Title 28 describe the territorial composition of the 48 States, the two Territories, Alaska and Hawaii; the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  The only territory common to the 48 States, two territories, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico is land owned by the federal government, the United States of America, the Confederacy.

Knowing the proper legal territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is the only sensible way to understand the consequences of Judge Walker’s opinion.  My Students are the only law Students who are taught written law using all the Organic Laws and not just the Constitution of the United States.  If you are looking for a simple solution to a federal problem or a problem with one or more of the States of the United States, contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera        

The real purpose of the Miranda warning is to establish federal territorial jurisdiction where none exists.  

If you hear the following warning, a so-called law enforcement officer is trying to trick you into accepting the jurisdiction of the person arresting you and of the court where you will be tried if you submit:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

The law in 49 of the 50 states is the English common law not federal law, which includes all written laws of all 50 States.  The court of law referred to in the warning is a legislative court not a judicial court.  The appointed attorney will be one only licensed to practice in legislative courts and will be incompetent to show the lack of territorial jurisdiction over you and any alleged crime.  Accepting these rights submits you to their jurisdiction.

Should you remain silent?  The promise that “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” should be exploited by you.   Become a Student in the Basic Course in Law and Government, learn everything there is to know about territorial jurisdiction and sing like a constitutional canary, if you are ever nabbed by government agents.  Better yet, become a Legal Genius and change the world. Contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera  

The concept of jury nullification, which is simply the process of an English common law jury deciding all the facts and law of a single case, does not apply in a federal trial court.  State and federal government has strong armed the English common law out of existence by slowly replacing the unwritten English common law with written government law. 

There is, not surprisingly, no federal common law, because all federal law is written law and only the Congress and the President of the United States are permitted to write federal law.  This legislative power is, however, limited to, first, the Northwest Territory and then as the country expands westward, to all territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  Article I of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 does not establish a lawmaking authority over the existing and future states of the original and perpetual Union of the United States of America it only makes permanent the temporary government established in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.  

Article II of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 vests the executive power of the Articles of Confederation in a President of the United States of America.  The person, who is elected to that Office by the Electors appointed by each State, may fill another Office of President, the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Office of President, by taking and subscribing the Article VI oath “to support this Constitution.”  George Washington set the precedent of taking the oral oath of the Office of President of the United States, instead of the Article VI oath that would bind him “to support this Constitution.”  The oral Article II Section 1 Clause 8 oath of the Office of President of the United States does not bind the taker of the oath beyond to the oath itself.  In that oral oath the person who will be the President of the United States merely swears or affirms to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which cannot be a written document.  

Article III of  “this Constitution” along with the rest of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 is never adopted by any of the Officers described in Article VI.  We know that the Constitution of September 17, 1787 has never been adopted from the fact that no President has ever taken and subscribed an Article VI binding him “to support this Constitution,” which is necessary to the exercise of any power to appoint judges with judicial power.  Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States of America using the proprietary power over territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  Federal law is limited to federal territory and the federal grand and petit jurors likewise must reside in that territory for a year to qualify.    

Civil governments throughout the world have been established using a written law model based upon a constitution that has been popularly approved.  Modern governments are all built on a faulty constitutional foundation that sanctions lawmaking for all inhabitants.  The true history and correct reading of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and all preceding Organic Law limits laws and lawmaking to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  Those laws can extend outside the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America, when applicable to citizens of the United States and the Officers and employees of the government of the United States.

The Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the constitutional foundation for the federal law and the federal government.  Earlier Organic Law, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, created property law and a temporary government for the Northwest Territory, which included the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.  The original intent of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was to create two governments.  The government we all know as the federal government was to be a continuation of the temporary government created by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. 

The second government was aborted when George Washington took the oral oath of Office of President of the United States on April 30, 1789 and then repeated the same oral oath four years later.  The Constitution of September 17, 1787 is written so that the person who has been elected President of the United States of America by the Electors must take and subscribe the Article VI oath “to support this Constitution” to order to fill the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Office of President under that Constitution. 

George Washington took the oral oath of the Office of President of the United States twice and no President Elect since has ever been bound by a written oath “to support this Constitution.   Washington’s taking of the oral oath of Office of President of the United States at two inaugurals convinced everyone that the Article II Section 1 Clause 8 oath was the correct one for a President under the Constitution of September 17, 1787.  An oral oath is appropriate for an Office under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, which requires no oath not even an oral one.  In the English law, it has not been possible to support a writing, by an oral oath, since the Statute of Frauds became law in 1677.  No member of the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation has ever taken any oath of Office.

The law making Congress is not exactly the same one as the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation and the President of the United States was supposed to be appointed and not elected.  The House of Representatives is an addition to the old Congress made by the Constitutional Convention of May 25, 1787.  George Washington as Father of his country deserves the blame for all the current problems with federal government including the omission of jury nullification.  

Federal jury nullification would mean federal jurors could rewrite federal law. Federal law is written by the United States Congress pursuant to the proprietary authority any landowner has over his own property and not any authority in any written constitution.  George Washington could have easily made the legislative power limitation applicable to federal territory clear by his appointment of another person to the Office of President of the United States.  As President of the United States of America, under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, Washington had the executive power to appoint anyone he wanted to the Office of President of the United States.  He appointed himself to, among other things, control the outcome of all jury trials in federal trial courts.      

The ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 by all original thirteen States of the Confederacy under the Articles of Confederation bound the States to that Constitution, however, George Washington’s calculated failure to qualify for the Office of President and his subsequent taking of the oral oath of Office of President of the United States allowed him to prevent the adoption of the Constitution of September 17, 1787.  

When Washington first takes the only oath to be taken by any American President on April 30, 1789, he sets the precedent of limiting the Constitution of September 17, 1787 to the States and federal territory within the exterior boundaries of those States, the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  Instead of taking and subscribing the Article VI oath “to support this Constitution” every President Elect, after George Washington, becomes President of the United States of America upon election by the Electors and President of the United States upon taking the oral oath of the Office of President of the United States. 

What should have happened?  George Washington should have informed everyone that the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 eligibility requirement of 14 Years residence within the United States prevented the adoption of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 until after July 4, 1790, 14 years after the Independence of the United States of America, the only place where a future President obligated “to support this Constitution” could reside.  Of course, George Washington didn’t say a word about the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and that it provided for election and appointment of many Presidents, because not speaking up was part of the Constitutional Convention Conspiracy to imprison Americans within a “federal judicial system” meant only to apply to the federal government and the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

The absence of jury nullification in the federal trial courts helps explain why the United States Congress acts without regard to the demands of most Americans.  To learn all the secrets contained in all the Organic Laws of the United States of America, become one of my Students by contacting me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera 

 

 

United States Army officials intend to charge Major Nidal M. Hasan with premeditated murder in the November 5th killing of 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center, which also left 38 people wounded.

The court that will try Major Hasan for murder will without question have the trappings of the United States military.  The flag of the United States identified in Title 4 United States Code Section 1 will be a focal point of those trappings, however, that flag will be symbolic of the executive power of the United States Government, by the addition of gold braid or fringe.

All United States flags displayed in government courtrooms and offices will have the gold fringe emblematic of executive authority.

All government courts display the gold fringed United States flags as a visual notice that the proceedings that take place there are not based in law, but in military authority legislated by the Congress of the United States.

Written government law is supreme where that territory is owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  I teach how George Washington brilliantly overthrew the civilian government under the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the military model that is in place to this day.

You will not see the fringed flag displayed when the President is acting diplomatically as President of the United States of America.  It is not sufficient just to notice the appropriate display of the fringe on the flag that will only make you part of the lunatic fringe.

To fully understand law and government, you must enroll in my Basic Course in Law and Government.  The $500 tuition is a modest 1% of what a year at Harvard costs.  Famous Harvard Law School graduate Barack Hussein Obama was taught government can make you buy health insurance and make it a federal crime if you don’t.  Don’t waste your money at a traditional law school contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera       

The Constitution of September 17, 1787 creates a “one supreme Court” by vesting it with “[T]he judicial power of the United States:”

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Article III Section 1

The regular reader of these posts will remember the Constitution of September 17, 1787 is established between the first nine States that ratify this Constitution and then between the remaining States that ratify this Constitution, however, this Constitution must be adopted by the Congress and any President, which is never done.  Adoption is accomplished by the taking and subscription of a written oath to support this Constitution, which no American President has ever done.

Do the States that ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787 have any judicial power even without the adoption of this Constitution by a Congress and President?  Their judicial power extends over the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America in their respective States. 

Contained within the Constitution of September 17, 1787 are the possibilities of two governments.  The first government is one whose territory encompasses the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  The second one is to control and manage the first.  Regular readers know how George Washington aborted the second government and caused the first to replace the second.

The two governments of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 explain why there are two Congresses, two Senates, two supreme courts and more than two Presidents.  There is a Supreme Court with Justices instead of Judges and nothing to control them except the knowledge that the first government is limited to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.          

Article III federal courts do exist, but they are limited to federal territory.  To get the full story, you must become one of my Students, by contacting me at: edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera  

It doesn’t matter whether you call a federal court a United States district court, a District Court of the United States or any combination or capitalization of the four words that describe a district court in the United States.  The federal part of the court comes from the territorial composition of the districts and divisions of those district courts.  The United States of America is a Confederacy that came together on March 1, 1781.  When the British were defeated lands south of Canada eventually came under the ownership of the Confederacy of the United States of America. 

The Articles of Confederation did not involve the transfer of any state territory to the United States, in Congress assembled, but the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 did involve British territory now owned by the United States of America.  The Northwest Territory is federal because it was owned by the Confederacy of the United States of America.  While it would have been more accurate to refer to the Northwest Territory as “confederal,” it appears no one was interested in accuracy at that time.   

What’s in a name?  The Northwest Territory belonged to the United States of America and the United States in Congress assembled could call it whatever the delegates wanted and they could do with it everything that was set out in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.  Between July 13^th and September 17, 1787, the Northwest Territory became known as the United States.   When George Washington decided to be President of the United States, he knew that the United States was only federal territory. 

There is no justice in the United States, because the United States is not the place where one goes to get justice¾Justice isn’t US.  The United States is code for the district of land that constituted the Northwest Territory.  George Washington became a statutory Commander in Chief not a constitutional one.  

Federal districts are made up of the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 began with this paragraph: 

Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.

The States of the Northwest Territory, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota were the subjects of the “temporary government” referred to above, however, the lands in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota retained by the United States of America continued to be federal and within the vast district of scattered territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

Located within each state of the original Union formed by the Articles of Confederation is territory that is not subject to the English common law acquired by the authority of Article I Section 8 Clause 17, which territory constitutes the same kind of territory of the original federal district.

There is another district in Article I Section 8 Clause 17.  This district is called the “Seat of Government” and is distinguished from the Northwest Territory and similar territory by capitalization grammatical and geographic.  Washington, District of Columbia refers to what was proposed to be the capitol of a national government, but such a government never came to fruition for the failure of the “Adoption” of “this Constitution.”

 “This Constitution” was ratified by nine States on June 21, 1788, which meant that in nine State conventions the approval of “this Constitution” was confirmed by a ratification process.  Rhode Island, which sent no delegates to the Constitutional Convention, ratified “this Constitution” on May 29, 1790 months after George Washington was inaugurated President of the United States and the First Congress wrote a new oath to conform to the employee oath taken by Washington.

Today, the territorial composition of a federal district court is determined by a single sentence that no one recognizes as law: “Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.”     Title1of the United States Code is called General Provisions and although it is very short it is very important.  Section 2 of Title 1 defines the word “county” by statute to be territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. 

The so-called judicial districts of the United States, which can only be composed of territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America, are administered by the President of the United States using the proprietary power of the United States of America.  

No matter what you call a federal court its territorial jurisdiction is limited to federal territory, territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  Subject matter jurisdiction must arise within this territory.  The grand jurors that bring indictments must reside within the district for at least a year.  Trial jurors must also reside within the district for a year.  Federal district court judges with a few exceptions must reside within the district. 

Think the federal government is out of control?  Every county has a district attorney who prosecutes crimes in the county.  Can you guess what the territorial composition of a local county is?  Local District Attorneys simply do not know that the territorial composition of a local/State county is the same as a federal county¾federal territory.

I need students to help straighten out the mess George Washington created by naming himself President of the United States.  Contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera      

 

Unless Rod Blagojevich learns very quickly that State of Illinois jurors and federal jurors for the District of Illinois share the same State “domicile,” he will become another victim of the military-industrial justice system.

State and federal jurors may be required to serve as jurors on both courts, because both courts serve the same federal territory.

As noted on this site, the federal judicial districts are comprised only of the federal territory within the counties that may comprise the districts.

Rod Blagojevich and all men and women federally indicted should move to dismiss the indictment based on a juror selection process that extended beyond the federal territory to which is, by written law, restricted.  

TITLE 28–JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART V–PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 121–JURIES; TRIAL BY JURY

 Sec. 1867. Challenging compliance with selection procedures

    (a) In criminal cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier, the defendant may move to dismiss the indictment

or stay the proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit jury.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Dr. Rivera:

 

I was browsing through my documents and saw the attached testimonial that I wrote for Chris Hansen.  This relates to your book “What Happened to Justice”.

 I am suggesting you send this to your students on my behalf who may not have yet purchased your book.  A serious student of this subject should not be without this valuable resource.  It complements the insightful teachings on the Organic laws of the United States you are teaching us today.

 Sincerely,

 Jerry

 

WHAT A SHOCK!!!

Testimonial Confession of a CPA

 

I am a CPA, by profession, and have practiced for over 40 years; heavy in taxes in addition to traditional accounting services.  I sold a piece of real of real estate a couple of years ago and was facing a big capital gains tax.  I went to the web searching for ideas to minimize the tax bite.  I don’t remember the search terms I used, but, I stumbled into a web site pitching the idea that citizens of the 50 Union States, I’m paraphrasing, are not liable for Subtitle A income taxes.  I downloaded every treatise on the site and read everything I could.  I couldn’t believe what I was reading.  WHAT A SHOCK!!!

My feelings went from chagrin to enragement.  Chagrin at not knowing the truth for all those years and enraged at not having been told about it in tax courses in college, nor in tax seminars year after year.  To save time researching the code, seldom looking at the regulations (too wordy, I’m busy), we would refer to instructions on the IRS forms or read IRS Publications, occasionally reading Revenue Rulings (classic “the fox guarding the hen-house”).  All this time reading municipal law pertaining to the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, and not even questioning the applicability of these laws to our clients.

The transition from darkness to enlightenment was an exhilarating experience. I have learned more law:  constitutional, statutory, treasury regulations, case law, principles of legislation, and more, in the past year and a half, than I learned in the previous 40 years.  Sure, I had a reasonable and broad experience with the “code”, but, I never realized it didn’t apply to me or my clients.

The most satisfying part of the entire experience was meeting either in person or over the phone, many of the activist researchers in what is referred as the tax honesty movement. I have been overwhelmed at the quality of research conducted, reduced to writing and made available to others on their websites.  There are, necessarily, some disagreements among the leadership in doctrinal theories or interpretation of the law. But, there is also sufficient agreement among the serious and qualified researchers to guide the sovereign state citizens in doing their own corroborating research and reaching a proper conclusion as to any obligation each would have or not have under the federal income tax laws.

 

I am grateful to all the folks whose websites provided me with a wealth of information which together with my own independent research, was sufficient for me to reach my own conclusion as to whether or not I am a “taxpayer.”  Only the individual after doing his or her own corroborating research can make that decision. 

One final comment:  I became convinced that I am not a “taxpayer”.  There was one piece of the puzzle that was still missing for me.  I was concerned about how to act or react if summoned to appear before one of the United States District Courts.  Why were citizens who were not subject to the law in the first place, tried, convicted and sent to jail?  It was a question of jurisdiction and under what Article of the constitution the court was established.  I recently learned about the research of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, an attorney in California.  Dr. Rivera has done extensive research in Title 28 USC, which established the judicial court system of the United States. The voluminous documents of research material beginning with the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789, proved the district courts were territorial, having been established under Article IV, of the constitution and not under Article III, as represented.  This caused a dilemma for the uninformed citizen on how to challenge the system.  Dr. Rivera has teamed with Chris Hansen of SEDM.org to present and explain the conclusions of their research together with all the evidence gathered and make it available in electronic book form.  You can learn the basics of the issues involved by visiting Dr. Rivera’s website:  http://www.edrivera.com.  The complete works of the research project including the book, What Happened To Justice? together with the supporting evidence books are available now at: http://sedm.org.  These works are the crown jewel, concluding my research in this field.  The book with the evidence is the most prolific and thorough effort on a subject I have experienced to date.  My questions about the District Court have been answered.

Jerry____

CPA, Florida

 

A person, who is not homeless in California, may have many residences but only one domicile.  It is also very likely that a person in California may have only one domicile and no other residences.  Readers of these posts know that the territory of the State of California is that which belongs to the United States of America.  This fact is confirmed in the Constitution of the State of California, which is the source of all law for the State of California.   

The law in California is the English common law and in that law serving on a jury is not a duty it is a right upon which all other rights depend.  You haven’t heard or seen the common law?  That’s because it is unwritten law.  The written government law is found in the various titles of the State of California Codes. 

This post examines how the Legislature of the State of California has written such contradictory qualifications for civil and criminal trial jurors that it may be impossible to create a qualified jury anywhere in the State of California.  Of course, this also creates the likely possibility for the uninformed to be wrongly imprisoned in the political State called the State of California.  

The State of California Legislature has enacted the qualifications that every trial juror must meet and these have been codified and placed in the Code of Civil Procedure.

203.  (a) All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective

trial jurors, except the following:

   (1) Persons who are not citizens of the United States.

   (2) Persons who are less than 18 years of age.

   (3) Persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of California,

as determined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 2020) of

Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Elections Code.

   (4) Persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they

are summoned to serve.

   (5) Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a

felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored.

   (6) Persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of the

English language, provided that no person shall be deemed incompetent

solely because of the loss of sight or hearing in any degree or

other disability which impedes the person’s ability to communicate or

which impairs or interferes with the person’s mobility.

   (7) Persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in any court

of this state.

   (8) Persons who are the subject of conservatorship.

   (b) No person shall be excluded from eligibility for jury service

in the State of California, for any reason other than those reasons

provided by this section.

Section 203 is a list of exclusions.  “All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except” those who possess the exclusions.  We need only discuss the first four exclusions, because “[a]ll persons” refers to all persons in the State of California and only one exclusion is required to disqualify. 

(1)    Persons who are citizens of the United States are qualified to be prospective jurors.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines “citizens of the United States” as “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  In the Constitution of September 17, 1787, only Citizens spelled with a capital “C” are eligible to be Representatives, Senators and the Article II Section 1 Clause 5, Office of President.  These Citizens were citizens of the States of the United States of America.  At the time of the first Congress, citizens of another United States elected Representatives to Congress who could debate, but not vote.  Like 14^th Amendment citizens, these citizens were statutory citizens of the United States of the Northwest Territory, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.  These States were created by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and made a permanent part of the United States of America.  The Constitution of September 17, 1787 created a new Union of the States of the Northwest Territory.  The “more perfect Union” of the United States of the Northwest Territory created by the Constitution was immediately confused with the perpetual Union created by Articles of Confederation to such a degree it is commonly believed in the legal profession that the Constitution repealed the Articles.  The substitution of the Constitution for the Articles of Confederation was accomplished by Congress even before all thirteen States had ratified the Constitution.  A Congress of eleven States established the first United States  federal courts by going outside the Northwest Territory to Kentucky and Maine for thirteen districts.  There are still two Unions.  The preeminent Union is still the Confederacy, the United States of America.  The State of California is acknowledged to be an inseparable part of the perpetual Union United States of America, which would make it the equal of the States of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, Maine and Kentucky.  The territory and the citizens of the State of California are exactly the same as the territory and citizens of the States of the Northwest Territory.            

(2)    A person 18 years of age qualifies to be a juror, while a person would have to be 21 years of age to be a juror under English common law.  The State of California is not a common law State.  Common law is made by common law jurors, so the 18 years of majority qualification is a clear sign that the State of California is comprised only of territory subject to the legislative power of the United States Congress, which would exclude the English common law as primary law.

(3)    A domiciliary is a person with a domicile, which is similar to a residence, except that a domicile is unique and permanent.  Any dwelling can be a domicile as long as it is unique from other dwellings or abodes, another name for a domicile.  The State of California cannot be a domicile because it is neither unique nor permanent.  A domicile is a personal abode that can be shared with a spouse or family members.  The State of California cannot be both an abode or dwelling and an inseparable part of the United States of America.

(4)     Prospective jurors must be “residents of the jurisdiction wherein they are summoned to serve.”  Such a resident must also be a domiciliary of the State of California, because prospective jurors who are not are excluded.  This qualification refers to the only jurisdiction below that of the State of California¾the county.  Because the State of California is declared to be an inseparable part of the United States of America by Constitution of the State of California, the highest legal authority for the State, the jurisdiction known as the county is defined by the United States Code.   Title 1 of the United States Code is General Provisions. Section 2 of that title defines county: “The word ‘county’ includes a parish, or any other equivalent  subdivision of a State or Territory of the United States.”  State of California legislators are trying to avoid the inevitable connection of the word “county” to the State of California.  The State of California is conclusively an inseparable part of the United States of America as stated in the State of California Constitution and 58 counties of the State of California are subdivisions of a State of the United States.  The conclusion is inescapable “residents of the jurisdiction” must reside on territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress.

Article 3 Section 1 State of California Constitution:

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The purpose of Article 3 Section 1 of the State of California Constitution is clear, when legislation such as Section 203 is carefully examined.  That article of the Constitution describes the territorial limitations in such cryptic terms that its meaning has gone undiscovered until now. 

Code of Civil Procedure Part b. states:

           (b) No person shall be excluded from eligibility for jury service

in the State of California, for any reason other than those reasons

provided by this section.

The recognition by the State of California Constitution that the State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America makes it practically impossible to establish a domicile in the State of California, because the only territory to be found within the State must belong to the United States of America.   

Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed. defines a domicile as “that place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which when ever he is absent he has the intention of returning.”  This definition explains why no man can have a domicile in this county or in any county of the State of California.   Ordinary people cannot establish a permanent claim on what is owned by the United States of America, so it is impossible to have a domicile in the State of California.

This law is found many times throughout the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California:  “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.  The State of California is not California.  As the preceding definition for “in this State” and “in the State” explains, the State of California is “all territory within California owned or ceded to the United States of America”  The explanation of what the “State” means merely restates Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera 

 

 

 

 

Next Page →