Filing SUIT Against State in Article 3 Court--Need Advice

[KnowLaw]

No Article III courts in America

There are hundreds of Libels of Review already filed on that presumption. When the "judge" is assigned at filing the new suitor inquires, Is this an Article III judge? The clerk of court answers, Yes it is.

Either the clerk is lying or ignorant/incompetent.

I agree that the clerk IS either lying or ignorant. And that is the point. Article IV courts have no business involving themselves in matters of the people, where the supposed judicial power of the United States is competent to provide judgment. The problem is: despite denial from official sources (fictitious actors who are ENTITLED to lie) the fact remains that there are no judicial District Courts that have been ordained by Congress in 49 of the States. Except for the District Court in Hawaii, yet that court has never had Article III justices appointed to it by Congress, and therefore is incompetent to provide a judicial ruling. It remains a court run by Article IV justices (whether the justices realize it or not). These facts are not insignificant.

Article IV administrative courts were designed to address the offenses of government actors and not the people in their substantive form. They are therefore courts for the fictitious actors committing violations against the statutes and not for non-fictions who are without public office (supposedly; although virtually never is that presumption made) and therefore not accountable to statute law.

However the clerk is competent to keep an accurate record. So you now have the "exclusive original competence" of the United States government through your $350 evidence repository.

[Sometimes I wonder though, because of how often the clerk of court forgets to use the adhesive and only tapes up the flap on mailing envelopes. This is against postal regulations and renders the material worthless if you are competent and apply Rules of Evidence in your kitchen table court. How do you know what you are reading is what the clerk of court sent?]

I agree that keeping an accurate record of the facts is paramount. But there are more ways than one to skin this cat. At least that's what I'm learning.

The fact that clerks sometimes muck up this process for people is added evidence of the disingenuousness of the de facto system that we have to work with. All of which points to the fact that one must become a "belligerent combatant" in these arenas and give judges no room for equivocation by challenging jurisdiction at every opportunity. Whether in a county Superior Court or a city municipal court.

The problem with RIVERA and CLASS for that matter is they are busy describing how you do not have anything going for you in the federal court because of the incompetency there. Rather than how to become the court of competent jurisdiction by record-forming. When you become the only court of record you carry that authority.

I have no experience with Rod Class' material (if indeed he has any). But I have surveyed some of Ed's materials and allegations about the system and found them to be credible, accurate, and helpful knowledge to have. You have to know the arena of law that you are involved with first before you can reasonably expect to find remedy.

I have to disagree with the implication of your characterization of Rivera, that all he is doing is telling people they don't have a chance of remedy if they enter the federal court. He, like you, is making a living off people who are too lazy to figure things out for themselves. He does offer a course that people can take in order to become better informed. Whether or not he provides credible services for people seeking remedy I don't have any personal knowledge. However, I do think that the information he is providing is tremendously helpful for those of us who are endeavoring to learn how to successfully obtain justice from an inherently unjust system that uses people's ignorance of the law against them.

Once people have a clear understanding of how the law works, they will be able to handle their own affairs by themselves. At least, that's what I'm working toward.

[David Merrill]

I have to disagree with the implication of your characterization of Rivera, that all he is doing is telling people they don't have a chance of remedy if they enter the federal court. He, like you, is making a living off people who are too lazy to figure things out for themselves...

I had not thought of the brilliant people in the brain trust, suitors as too lazy to figure things out for themselves. Rather they seem to be very intelligent about endeavoring to find the truth and reproducible mental models together and launching off each other's experiences. I have sanitized something that may provoke your mind out of some of these patterns:

Default Judgment and MERS R4C.

Take a careful look at the details, some of which are that the clerk of court Received it and then Filed it two minutes later. That default judgement is certified by the clerk of court too. Significant though is that the suitor still lives there in his home.

I do not mean to disparage Ed RIVERA. My distrust for him is inherent in that he is an attorney.

Except for the District Court in Hawaii, yet that court has never had Article III justices appointed to it by Congress...

This catches my eye. I am the one who pointed this out to Ed years ago. He was spouting that Hawaii was Article III and I though that sounded worth checking out downtown at the federal repository. I found this (below):

I asked Ed if the Article I judges had been terminated and he withdrew his treatise from viewing. So I gathered he was pondering the question. I was a little put off that he did not answer me or thank me for the information.

So it would seem he is teaching it now though; or that you are he?



Regards,

David Merrill.