• 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

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         

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

Roman Polanski was charged with a written law crime decades ago in California to which he pleaded guilty then he fled before he could be sentenced.  Now he is in custody in Switzerland awaiting extradition paperwork from the Los Angeles County District Attorney.

California like 48 of the other common law states substitutes California Codes for the common law.  The Los Angeles County District Attorney pretends that all so-called crimes that occur within the Los Angeles County lines fall within his federal district that include the Veteran’s Administration Hospital and Los Padres National forest.  The VA has its own Zip Code 90073, which is the most heavily populated federal enclave in an area of millions.  This is where federal jurors would have to come from and this is where the State of California juror, the “domiciliary” lives.  

If Roman Polanski had taken my Basic Course in Law and Government, he would be telling his high priced attorneys to drop the legal bomb on the State of California’s written law system. 

Polanski is a punk and a pervert.  You are probably a patriot and all around good guy.  Are you waiting for the gendarmes to knock on your door before you start preparing a legal defense.  The Congress of the United States is preparing legislation that will make it a federal offense not to have health insurance.  Prepare for the worse by enrolling as a Student.  Contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera       

I have been too busy saving California from the government of the State of California and the government of the United States to write new posts.  I am sharing with regular readers a portion of what I have written to help Californians out of the hole government has dug for them.

The “Dear State of California Superior Court Judge Letter” is both a lesson for the students in my advanced class and a notice to the so-called judicial branch of State government.  Only the first and last paragraphs of this six-page letter appear here.  Only former law clients and students who have enrolled and paid for the basic course in law and government will be able to participate in the advanced course and receive this and other advanced lessons.  For information on the basic and advanced course, contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Dear State of California Superior Court Judge:

It is the intention of this notice to make you aware that your evident lack of basic knowledge of the structure of government and the difference between written and unwritten law have caused me and other Californians great financial harm in that you and judges like you are extending the written law of the State of California outside the territorial limitations of that law.   There are no real judges in the State of California, as sovereignty is based on the authority of a written constitution that has not been adopted by government.  The government of the United States is based on the popular election of a President of the United States, who has taken only an oral oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

***

Dr. Rivera’s research confirms that none of the presidential libraries contain any evidence of a subscription to a written oath.  The complete absence of a written oath by any of the 44 Presidents of the United States provides such overwhelming evidence that a United States Constitution or Constitution of the United States, whether, by now, written or unwritten must be confined to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  In any event, the evidence I have provided is so compelling it requires a response from you.  I will assume that your refusal or failure to respond as an acknowledgement that your territorial jurisdiction does not extend beyond the federal territory in California.   

Very truly yours,

Your name

All the wonderful rights God gave you are called “unalienable Rights” in the Declaration of Independence, so whose idea was it to put them to a vote?  The assembly of lawyers and other scoundrels otherwise known as the Constitutional Convention knew the “unalienable Rights” of the Declaration of Independence stood in the way of a strong central government.  The so-called Founding Fathers dispensed with them by making them subject to the mob democracy.

The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 were created within a span of a few weeks, so Article I of the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance should considered as one document.  Representation in the House of Representatives and the payment of taxes to pay down the federal debt are both found first in the Northwest Ordinance.  That document creates a new Union of the States of the Northwest Territory and that Union is referred to as “this Union.”  The settlers and inhabitants of the States of the Northwest Territory, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota are the People of the United States, the new Union, and they are identical to the inhabitants of the states of the United States of America except they are without “unalienable Rights.”

Americans who do not inhabit territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America and who have not become citizens of the United States are not entitled to vote in federal elections.  In addition, they are not subject to direct taxation to pay the federal debt.   Americans of the first Union, the United States of America, are expressly entitled to “all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States,” according to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation. 

Representation of Article II and direct taxes of Article IV of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 are joined in Article I Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The above sentence made permanent the temporary government created for the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.

As soon as the first nine States had ratified “this Constitution,” the race was on to complete the destruction of our “unalienable Rights” by making them the subject of litigation in federal courts.  On September 24, 1789, section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the United States into 13 judicial districts, when on that date only eleven States had ratified “this Constitution.”

More than two centuries of federalist propaganda have convinced Americans that they are free because they can fill the Congress with the crooks of their choice.  Americans also feel they are in control of government and the law because they can sit as grand and petit jurors in federal trial courts.  That ability now called a duty is only accorded those who are registered to vote, which brings us back to voting away our “unalienable Rights.”

You can start reclaiming your “unalienable Rights” only if you know how they were lost.  Get the knowledge of the law and government you need by enrolling immediately as one of my students.  Contact 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      

 

My friend and student Doug Herich was the inspiration for the following letter, which should be directed to the student’s nearest county registrar, clerk or recorder:

I am a student of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, America’s and the world’s greatest legal mind.  I am learning how to read and understand the written law, so that I can free myself from that system of law and the government it creates.  Once totally freed from temporal civil law, I plan to live a spiritual life using unwritten law.  

An important step in freeing myself from written law requires that I renounce and reject any status of a registered voter and grand or petit juror.  I would like confirmation from your office that any voter registration in my name has be cancelled and revoked and that I have been stricken from any civil or criminal jury rolls.

If there is any question of my right or authority to cancel any voter registration or inclusion on any juror roll, please continue reading the explanation provided by Dr. Rivera or visit his website: www.EDRIVERA.com 

Dr. Rivera teaches that the Constitution is written, so that every English speaking person can form a basic understanding of the government such a Constitution creates and the kind and extent of the laws that government can make. 

Dr. Rivera teaches that all the fundamental law of the United States of America called the Organic Law must be known in order to better understand the fourth Organic Law, the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence, the first Organic Law, freed Americans from all despotic government by making all governments subject to our individual consent.  The right to vote and the exercise of that right does not confer on government the power to govern all the people.  Unalienable rights are not subject to the legislative power of any government.

The second Organic Law, the Articles of Confederation, created the Confederacy of the United States of America, in which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right.”  The retention of state’s rights precluded the government of the United States of America from making laws for the states or the taxation of the people or their property.

The strength of the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation should have been obvious, as that Union was sufficient to defeat the British, the greatest military power of that time.   Unscrupulous historians have perpetuated the myth that the Constitution replaced or repealed the Articles of Confederation. 

With independence, America had become the land of opportunity and the politicians quickly realized their opportunity by creating the now popular belief that federal elections of members of Congress can subject unalienable Rights to legislative change or subject them to taxation.   The federal elections scam was begun in the Northwest Territory, which would later become the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.  

The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, the third Organic Law of the United States of America, conferred upon the first five thousand free male inhabitants of that district of the age of majority the authority to elect representatives to a general assembly.   This authority was conferred by the United States, in Congress assembled, making voting and representational democracy a legislative grant or concession and not an attribute of individual freedom.

Federal voting rights are limited to matters involving federal territory and other issues pertaining to the government and property belonging to the United States of America. I have no issue or matter that can be resolved by the government of the United States, so please cancel my federal voter registration and remove me from the juror rolls.

A man who claims to be Van Nuys Superior Court Judge Michael O’ Gara had my student, Doug Herich, arrested a week ago, when he appeared to discuss O’Gara’s delusions that he has “judicial power” over Mr. Herich.  O’Gara asserts that Section 27 of the California Penal Code is the basis of his territorial jurisdiction. 

Before we can discuss Section 27, we must review the all-important Organic Law of the United States of America and the local laws that settled the first American colonies.  All the laws enacted by Congress and the State legislatures must conform to limits established by the Organic Law.  The Organic Law of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.  The local laws made by the thirteen States, while they were British colonies were the written laws for local government.  Citizens were the persons who believed themselves bound by such laws.  The unwritten English common law remained the law for the people who were not part of the local citizenry.  

The Declaration of Independence freed Americans from the monarchical and dictatorial rule of King George III.  The Articles of Confederation established a perpetual Union of the original thirteen states primarily for the purpose of defending those states and that Union from foreign attack.  The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 prepared the Northwest Territory for settlement and made the States of the Northwest Territory, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota inseparable parts of the Confederacy, the United States of America.  The Constitution of September 17, 1787 recognized the Northwest Territory States as a new Union of territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America, to be called the United States.

Since the Civil War, the States of the Union of the United States have been able to officially claim legislative power beyond the exterior boundaries of the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America, provided the people of the State adopted constitutional amendments of the State Constitution after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The State of California did this by adopting yet another State Constitution, the Constitution of 1879 on top of the Constitution of 1849.     

The Constitutions of the State of California do not refer directly or indirectly to the Declaration of Independence or the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.  The State Constitution of 1879 refers indirectly to Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence in Article 3 Section 1: “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 State of California is an inseparable part of the Confederacy, the United States of America just as the States of the Northwest Territory were made a permanent part of the United States of America for the purpose of the governmental deception of the separation-of-powers.  The form of State government in America is shaped by the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and severely limited by the Declaration of Independence.    

The legislative power of the Congress of the United States is limited to territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America, because the Declaration of Independence only freed from tyranny those who were bound by existing political bands.  The people of the Northwest Territory did not lawfully possess any part of the Northwest Territory and even when they did they would still be subject to the legislative power of the United States, in Congress assembled.  The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 provided the laws to liberate them from the external government represented by the United States, in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation.  The United States of America only has legislative power over what it owns because this legislative power is really only the proprietary power all property owners have. 

This legislative/proprietary power is further limited to the enactment of revenue laws to carry out the so-called enumerated powers found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.  Penal laws are also limited to territory owned and ceded to the United States of America. 

There are two laws in the geographical place called California: written law and the English common law.  American written law is, of course, written in English for a place that excludes the common law, the State of California.  There is no English common law in the State of California, because the territory of the State of California is owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  California penal laws are limited to the territory owned and ceded to the United States of America.

In England, written law was law for government and the church, so English common law became the law in America, when the English colonists settled here, as there was no government or church when the first colonists arrived.  Land in America not settled by the colonists was ruled prior to the Declaration of Independence, by British government and after Britain’s defeat continued to be ruled by government.  The Northwest Territory was formally continued to be subjected to government rule by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, which created the first United States, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.  The State of California is part of the Union that was first created when territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America was made an inseparable part of the Confederacy, the United States of America.

Michael J. O’Gara, a former prosecutor in the office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney, came up with the following Penal Code section, when his territorial jurisdiction over Doug Herich was challenged: 

Penal Code Section 27.  (a) The following persons are liable to punishment under the laws of this state:

   (1) All persons who commit, in whole or in part, any crime within this state.

   (2) All who commit any offense without this state which, if committed within this state, would be larceny, carjacking, robbery, or embezzlement under the laws of this state, and bring the property stolen or embezzled, or any part of it, or are found with it, or any part of it, within this state.

   (3) All who, being without this state, cause or aid, advise or encourage, another person to commit a crime within this state, and are afterwards found therein.

        (b) Perjury, in violation of Section 118, is punishable also when committed   outside   of California to the extent provided in Section 118.

Michael J. O’Gara is clearly confused about what Section 27 is all about.  The State Constitution, Article 4 Section 9, requires that statutes have but one subject.  Code Section 27 is about who can be punished for committing a crime in the State of California.  Penal Code Section 27 comes from a statute that is about crime or punishment for crime, but not both and certainly not about the territorial jurisdiction of superior courts.   No attorney knows a thing about territorial jurisdiction.  There would be very few cases if courts were limited to cases where there was provable territorial jurisdiction.

The Declaration of Independence forces government to recognize that we are all equal, but government has managed to undo that great document by the institution of voting.  The State of California staged an election on November 4, 2008, where only citizens of the United States were allowed to vote.  In that election Michael J. O’Gara was elected to Office 94.  O’Gara’s only experience for that so-called judicial office is 17 years as a prosecutor in the Office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney.  That District is not all of the territory contained within the county lines that surround Los Angeles County.  The District is the federal territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

Territorial jurisdiction must appear in the written law and it certainly does appear as an almost impenetrable jumble in the various California codes.  Fortunately, there is a very simple way to ascertain the territorial jurisdiction of California judge pretenders.  A public jury trial requires impartial local jurors.  Trial jurors in California must be of the place where the crime is alleged to have occurred.  Section 203 of the California Code of Civil Procedure sets out the qualifications for criminal trial jurors.  That Section is the subject of my February 24^th post.  California criminal trial jurors must be domiciliaries of the State of California, which means they must live in territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  As Michael J. O’Gara stated in an election interview he gave to the League of Women Voters, “Nobody wants to be a juror.”  Of course they don’t, who would want to judge a case they are not qualified to judge.     

Doug Herich has been accused of crime that is only a crime where the law is not the English common law.  The only place where the English common law is not the law is the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  The individual who accused Doug of committing a non-common law crime is employed specifically to make such accusations.  These employees have no idea where the written law applies and where the law is the English common law.  Doug has only been accused of committing a crime “within this state.”   He has not committed any crime, because the presumption of innocence requires, in the absence of a confession, evidence of guilt and a jury trial.  If a jury trial is impossible, because there are no such jurors he must be freed.  Domiciliaries of the State of California are impossible to find except when juror qualifications are criminally ignored in order to secure convictions.

In the California Revenue and Taxation Code, where tax liabilities must be strictly construed, the “state” is defined as the territory “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,” for all taxes collected by the State of California.  There simply is no law in the State of California that makes the entire state the territory where the written law applies and the English common law is excluded.   

Doug is a hero for doing what he has done.  I know of no case where anyone has challenged a black robe on his territorial credentials.  Doug is to appear in government employee O’Gara’s offices at 8:30 am on March 12, 2009.  Those offices are located on the 7^th floor of the Van Nuys Superior Court West located at 14400 Erwin Street Mall, Van Nuys, California.  Anyone who is present to witness history being made will be entitled to an 80% discount on my one-year law course.  Just show up and check in with me and you will be enrolled as a student for $100 payable when you decide to start.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera  

 

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 

 

 

 

 

 Dear State of California Legislator:

I am a law student of Internet law professor, Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera.  He teaches that the State of California, like all political states, is comprised of three basic elements: law, human population and territory.  He teaches that the territory of the State of California is the land in California subject to the exclusive legislative power of the Congress of the United States.  If I can get your agreement that what he teaches is correct or proof from you that he is wrong, I will earn one year paid tuition worth $500.

Dr. Rivera teaches that State of California law is created by the legislature from authority in the State of California Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

The California voters who vote in general state and federal elections form the jury pools for all federal trials in the District of California.  Voters in the State of California must be U.S. citizens who can reside anywhere in California, while State trial jurors must be domiciliaries in the State of California, according to Section 203 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 

Dr. Rivera teaches that law in California is English common law, while the law in the State of California is constitutional. 

Mr. Legislator, doesn’t this mean, as Dr. Rivera teaches, that the territory of the State of California is the same place as the federal district where California federal jurors have to reside?  Isn’t it true that jurors in California qualify for both State and federal trials?

Will you please respond, so I can learn more about the law.

Very truly yours,

 Law Student

Next Page →