Apr
22
United States of America v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, defendant
Filed Under Adoption, Articles of Confederation, CONSTITUTION, GRAND JURY, LAW OF THE LAND, LEARNING THE LAW, Martial Law, ORGANIC LAWS, PROPRIETARY POWER | Leave a Comment
A complaint, not a presentment or indictment brought by a federal grand jury, alleges upon information and belief the commission of two criminal acts by this defendant. The complaint alleges that these acts took place “on or about the date(s) of April 15. 2013 in the county of Suffolk in the District of Massachusetts.”
Readers familiar with Chapter 5 of Title 28 of the United States Code know that the District of Massachusetts is not the entirety of Massachusetts. The District of Massachusetts is comprised of only the federal territory within the exterior borders of Massachusetts and the county of Suffolk is only the federal territory within the exterior borders of Suffolk County, according to Section 2 of Title 1 of the United States Code.
Neither the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,
nor the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence,
apply, because only the States are bound by the Constitution of September 17, 1787. The United States of America, the Confederacy established by the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is the interested government party not the people of Massachusetts or the people of the United States of America.
The suspected Boston Marathon Bomber is doomed, but you can learn the written law by following his federal case in these Posts on this website. You must have the Organic Laws of the United States of America, the basis of the written law in your computer in a searchable format. To get the Organic Laws and free information about a $50 trial legal education contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Oct
31
WHAT IS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY?
Filed Under GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LEARNING THE LAW, Supreme Court, Territorial Jurisdiction, TRIAL BY JURY, U.S. District Court | Leave a Comment
You may know the District Attorney, or the DA, as the county’s elected chief criminal prosecuting attorney. If you do, you only know how the story of the District Attorney ends and not how it begins.
The first office of District Attorney was created by Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which according to Article I Section 8 Clause 9, initiated the constitution of the “Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” All the significant federal courts, which we know do the great majority of federal judicial work, were created by legislative act and not by the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
Not only were the District Courts created by Judiciary Act of 1789 inferior to the supreme Court, so was the Supreme Court, whose members were finally determined in Section 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The yearly compensation for the Chief Justice and Justices had been established the day before in federal legislation enacted on September 23, 1789. The Chief Justice, associate justices and the District Attorney were all conceived in different ways as government employees, so the federal judiciary would be a system of government men not laws.
As an employee, the federal DA would represent the Confederacy, the United States of America in all cases in the United States district courts, where the United States of America was the plaintiff. The federal DA plied this employment under the Judiciary Act of 1789 in all original States, which had ratified the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and in the United States Districts of Maine and Kentucky until those Districts were admitted as States equal to the original thirteen.
Federal District Attorneys co-existed with State criminal prosecutors until there was significant growth of written law in general and federal law in particular. As written federal criminal laws grew, so did State laws and fine distinctions had to be made by federal and State courts and legislators between what were State and what were federal crimes. Ultimately, that issue was resolved by designating local State criminal prosecutors “District Attorneys,” and making the State’s counties “Districts.”
Today federal district attorneys are called United States Attorneys and elected county prosecutors, who once took common law crimes to the grand jury, now bring informations on their own authority, as District Attorneys.
The untold history and evolution of the United States District Attorney helps explain the meaning of the “District” as the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America. To get the rest of the story, contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com and I will tell you how you can become one of my Students for trial tuition of $50 plus you will get the four Organic Laws in a searchable format, so you can begin your study of written law.
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Apr
11
Criminal law lesson: George Zimmerman charged by an information with the Second degree murder of Trayvon Martin
Filed Under COMMON LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LAW OF THE LAND, Martial Law, Oath of Office, PROPRIETARY POWER, TRIAL BY JURY | Leave a Comment
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed. defines an Information like this: “An accusation exhibited against a person for some criminal offense, without an indictment. 4 Bl. Comm.308. An accusation in the nature of an indictment, from which it differs only in being presented by a competent public officer on his oath of office, instead of a grand jury on their oath.”
Trayvon Martin was killed in a part of Florida where the English common law is the law, so how can George Zimmerman be charged by an information?
The truth is only my Students know how Americans lost their freedoms by losing their grip on the English common law. To learn how George Washington elevated government created written law above the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Apr
13
WHY YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE LAW AND THE TRUTH ABOUT GOVERNMENT: FEDERAL JURORS CONVICT BARRY BONDS OF ONE COUNT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Filed Under GRAND JURY, ORGANIC LAWS, Territorial Jurisdiction | 1 Comment
The United States district court judge presiding in this case declared a mistrial on the three remaining counts of perjury after jurors said they could not reach an agreement on a verdict.
If you were Major League Baseball’s home run king and you were accused of lying to a federal grand jury in 2003, and you knew the truth about the Organic Laws of the United States of America, wouldn’t you be able to give the public and the federal grand jurors an earful? Who is lying to who?
The time to learn the law and government is years before you need to know it. Contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com to enroll in my Basic Course in Law and Government.
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Feb
9
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VERSUS LINDSAY LOHAN
Filed Under COMMON LAW, CONSTITUTION, CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LEARNING THE LAW, State of California, Territorial Jurisdiction, TRIAL BY JURY | Leave a Comment
Today’s Los Angeles Times reports, “Los Angeles County prosecutors” are planning to file charges against actress Lindsay Lohan for the alleged theft of a $2,500 necklace.
The filing of charges will be a complaint upon information and belief and not upon a presentment or indictment required by the California Constitution of 1849, which required that all criminal cases be brought in the name of the People of the State of California.
My Students know from my research that the State of New Hampshire in Article I Section 2 Clause 3 was federal speak that meant all the territory in New Hampshire subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America, even though at the time of the establishment of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 there was no such territory in New Hampshire. So the State of California is the federal territory in the Golden State, but not the entire state.
The Constitution of 1849 was not repealed by the Constitution of 1879. Provisions in the prior Constitution unaffected by the new Constitution remained the law in the State of California. The 1879 Constitution made it possible for county district attorneys to charge felonies without a grand jury presentment or indictment. Why? Because the district was the federal territory in the county.
The alleged theft of the necklace was no injury to the people of the State of California, however, the full might and power of the government of the State of California will be brought against not an accused, but a defendant Lindsay Lohan.
The right to trial by jury still exists. However, the chances are nil that Lohan will ever meet a qualified State of California juror. The Code of Civil Procedure requires all jurors to b citizens of the United States and domiciliaries of the State of California, which, of course, means any prospective juror must live on federal territory.
Will our little Lindsay get justice in a State of California courtroom? Not with an attorney and counselor at law.
Do you want justice? Then bring back the English common law by proving to anyone and everyone that you don’t qualify to be a juror. Don’t know how? Become a Student of the law and government by contacting me at edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Dec
17
JANUARY1, 1945 AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
Filed Under GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LAW OF THE LAND, LEARNING THE LAW, Martial Law, ORGANIC LAWS, Territorial Jurisdiction, U.S. District Court | Leave a Comment
On January1, 1945, the United States of America was still at war. The Sixth Amendment, set out below, requires a date certain and one marking the beginning of a new year at war is particularly appropriate for a nation’s military courts:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
“An impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” means the jurors have to be local to the criminal act. Federal jurors are required to be residents of the judicial district for one year.
The “district shall have been previously ascertained by law” means the territorial composition of the district is set by written law on a specific date.
The right to an impartial jury gives rise to the right to challenge the qualifications of the grand and petit jurors.
The United States Supreme Court is of the opinion that the right of the accused to such an impartial grand jury is absolute, so the right to show the partiality of the grand jury is absolute, see Test v. United States, 420 U.S.28 (1975).
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Dec
16
AREN’T ALL FEDERAL JURORS REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND THIS SENTENCE IF THEY ARE TO QUALIFY: “SECTIONS 81 – 131 OF THIS CHAPTER SHOW THE TERRITORIAL COMPOSITION OF DISTRICTS AND DIVISIONS BY COUNTIES AS OF JANUARY 1, 1945.”
Filed Under GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LEARNING THE LAW, Martial Law, Territorial Jurisdiction, TRIAL BY JURY, U.S. District Court | Leave a Comment
The judicial districts and divisions are comprised of the federal territory located within the counties, which comprise those districts and divisions. Sections 81-131 represent four classes of territory: 48 States, 2 territories, one possession, Puerto Rico, and a District, the District of Columbia. The three smallest territorial classes conclusively establish that the territorial composition of the districts and divisions located within the States will be territory subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Title 28 Section 1865 of the United States Code sets out the qualifications for federal jurors:
“(a) The chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, on his initiative or upon recommendation of the clerk or jury commission, or the clerk under supervision of the court if the court’s jury selection plan so authorizes, shall determine solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form and other competent evidence whether a person is unqualified for, or exempt, or to be excused from jury service. The clerk shall enter such determination in the space provided on the juror qualification form and in any alphabetical list of names drawn from the master jury wheel. If a person did not appear in response to a summons, such fact shall be noted on said list.
(b) In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, or the clerk if the court’s jury selection plan so provides, shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand and petit juries in the district court unless he –
is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district;
is unable to read, write, and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the juror qualification form;
is unable to speak the English language;
is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service; or
has a charge pending against him for the commission of, or has been convicted in a State or Federal court of record of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and his civil rights have not been restored.”
A prospective federal juror must know and understand the territorial composition of the judicial district. The first sentence in Chapter 5 District Courts expressly defines the territorial composition of “districts and divisions,” as shown by Sections 81-131. Section 88 is the District of Columbia much of which is owned by the United States of America and the jurisdiction of which is entirely in the United States of America.
If a prospective federal juror is unable to read and understand this sentence: “Sections 81 – 131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,” then that juror “is unable to read, write, and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the juror qualification form,” and is disqualified.
Every person involved in any matter involving federal grand and petit jurors must at a minimum be able to read and understand this sentence: “Sections 81 – 131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.”
Those wishing to learn more about this and other subjects should contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Jun
22
The Judiciary Act of 1789
Filed Under CONSTITUTION, Declaration of Independence, Fourteenth Amendment, GRAND JURY, IMMIGRATION, LAW OF THE LAND, LEARNING THE LAW, Martial Law | Leave a Comment
September 24, 1789.
1 Stat. 73.
CHAP. XX.–An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
SEC . 2. And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: one to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Maine District; one to consist of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called New Hampshire District; one to consist of the remaining part of the State of Massachusetts, and to be called Massachusetts district; one to consist of the State of Connecticut, and to be called Connecticut District; one to consist of the State of New York, and to be called New York District; one to consist of the State of New Jersey, and to be called New Jersey District; one to consist of the State of Pennsylvania, and to be called Pennsylvania District; one to consist of the State of Delaware, and to be called Delaware District; one to consist of the State of Maryland, and to be called Maryland District; one to consist of the State of Virginia, except that part called the District of Kentucky, and to be called Virginia District; one to consist of the remaining part of the State of Virginia, and to be called Kentucky District; one to consist of the State of South Carolina, and to be called South Carolina District; and one to consist of the State of Georgia, and to be called Georgia District.
Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is one of the early products of the Constitution of the United States, which proves the United States is the land in the United States of America owned by the Confederacy known as the United States of America. Long before the Fourteenth Amendment claimed a person could be born in the United States and not just in one of the States of the United States, the Judiciary Act of 1789 had established two judicial districts in places that were not yet States of the United States of America.
The judicial districts of Maine and Kentucky were on September 24, 1789 comprised of the same territory such districts are comprised of today—territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. By ratifying the Constitution of September 17, 1787, the States of Massachusetts and Virginia had decided to make Maine and Kentucky part of the United States.
Section 2 speaks with absolute clarity: “That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows.” The “United States” as territory has always been limited to territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.
If you have had it with being a citizen of the United States, try something better. The Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 offers all the privileges and immunities of citizenship without the hardship. To learn how you can be a free inhabitant under the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Jun
3
ROD BEGOJEVICH GOES TO TRIAL
Filed Under GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LAW OF THE LAND, Martial Law, Territorial Jurisdiction | Leave a Comment
Eighteen months ago Rod Begojevich was arrested on political corruption charges and today his trial started by beginning the process that will pick a trial jury.
On December 20, 2008 my Post was: BEGOJEVICH CAN BEAT ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES. For a year and a half, I have explained without contradiction how all federal law is territorial. Immigration law is territorial it only applies to entering the United States. The law of eminent domain is territorial it only applies to property located within the United States. The Democrat Health Care Reform Bill is territorial it only applies within the United States.
All Rod Begojevich had to do to secure his freedom was file a motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment on the grounds that none of the grand jurors who brought the indictment were residents within the district.
Maybe Rod Begojevich just wants to use the United States district court to prove his innocence. What do you want? If you want to learn the law, all the law, you won’t find it anywhere else. Contact me to enroll in my Basic Course in Law and Government edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Nov
14
KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED WILL EVENTUALLY GO FREE IF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTEMPTS TO PROSECUTE THE 9-11 TERRORIST IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Filed Under CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, JURY DUTY, LEARNING THE LAW, Supreme Court, Territorial Jurisdiction | Leave a Comment
Former federal judge and Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a November 14, 2009 interview on the Fox News Network claimed there was little the families of the 9-11 victims could do to stop the planned prosecutions in the Southern District of New York.
Mukasey is wrong. The United States Department of Justice must obtain a true bill of indictment from a federal grand jury, before any case can be brought against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. To get a true bill of indictment, the federal grand jurors must be qualified.
New Yorkers do not qualify to be federal grand jurors because none of them reside within the district, which is the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America in the counties of Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Suffolk. Federal grand jurors must reside on federal territory and there are none that qualify in New York. The United States Supreme Court case Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28 (1975) establishes the absolute right of a federal criminal defendant to make a motion to dismiss the indictment because the grand jurors are not qualified.
The families of 9-11 victims must inform the United States Department of Justice that the military commissions are the only safe method of prosecuting Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his co- conspirators.
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera