"What's In A Name?" or "This Is Not That!"
by The Watcher on the Wall

My last two years in high school, the heavyweight on our wrestling team, and center of the football team, was a strapping kid who checked in at about 260 pounds. His name was George Dennis.

I say his name was George Dennis, but it might have been Dennis George. I never could settle on which it was, and most of forty years after the fact, I'm less certain today - his name might be George Dennis, it might be Dennis George. When I run across one, I'll check it out in an old yearbook.

That has to be a problem for lots of people who have two first names, or two last names, rather than one name clearly being a first name and the other clearly being a last. I was never confused by Jimmy Jambrosic's name.

Somewhat the same problem plagues the nation when it comes to determining the character of courts of the United States. For example, sections in the United States Code, statutes in the Statutes at Large, commentaries, and court decisions might use the terms, "district court", "district court of the United States", "United States District Court", or "United States district courts" without explaining what is being talked about. The casual reader, including most attorneys, pass these various terms over without giving a second thought to the notion that they aren't the same - that they are actually two distinct court systems - one system is comprised of Article III courts of the United States, the district courts of the United States, and the other is Article IV territorial courts of the United States, the United States District Court (proper noun), which is in the United States district court system.

One of the keys to unraveling the mess is study of definitions in section 451, of Title 28 of the United States Code. There it is found that, "the terms 'district court' and 'district court of the United States' mean the courts constituted by chapter 5 of this title."

[See 28 USC §§ 81-131 for judicial districts and the various cities where the "district courts of the United States" were to be held. 28 USC § 116 provides the statutory authorization for Oklahoma's true judicial federal courts pursuant to Article III.]

Codification for the section, if typed in a straight line, would be longer than a well rope.

In section 132(a), we find an entirely different creature: "There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district."

By referencing notes for the section, it is found that current section 132 of Title 28 is an amalgamation of sections from Titles 28 (judicial proceedings, civil procedure, etc.), and 48 (Territories and Insular Possessions of the United States) of the 1940 edition of the United States Code.

District courts, or district courts of the United States, are Article III judicial courts; the United States District Court, or the United States district courts, are Article IV legislative-territorial courts of the United States. The latter have absolutely no Article III judicial capacity - they are admiralty courts that operate under bastardized rules, with a few cosmetic brushes, "in the course of the civil law". True Article III judicial courts, the district courts of the United States, were established primarily as common law courts, proceeding " in the course of the common law" (Judicial acts of 1789 & 1792).

The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of Amendment assure the sovereign people of due process "in the course of the common law", according to Chief Justice Marshall in a precedent 1825 Supreme Court decision.

I remember those distinctions better than the proper order of my wrestling buddy's name because I've labored for some time to straighten out the mess that speaks so clearly of judicial tyranny.

This same propensity for "familiarity" plagues us constantly. For example, when I was a kid, I had a terrible time with the words, "there", "their", "they're", etc.

Does everyone like a parade? Oddly, I don't much care for them, except in my home town, population 300, when dogs, kids, and goats usually steal the show. But I've always been reasonably patriotic, so early on developed respect for the flag of the United States. Then a batch of patriots brought up the matter of gold-fringed flags posted in courtrooms and indoors in other public buildings, including incorporated churches.

This is a case of "this isn't that."

The official flag of the United States, as evidenced at section 1, Title 4 of the United States Code, has thirteen alternating red and white stripes, and currently has fifty white stars in the blue union field. It does not have gold fringe. In fact, the gold-fringed flag is the Union Jack, constructed to presidential specifications under the President's authority as commander-in-chief of the military. Consequently, any time you enter a public building, whether a court or otherwise, you can presume that you've entered an area under quasi-military (Coast Guard) admiralty authority if the Union Jack is posted anywhere in the room.

Another word game most people overlook is identity and standing of the principal of interest, particularly on court documents. If the "United States of America" is the prosecuting or complaining party … Who the devil is the "United States of America"?

The Constitution of the United States - that's the proper title - vests authority in a governmental entity designated and known as the "United States".

Here again, some evil genius worked a spell: The "United States of America" is a coalition or compact of territories belonging to the United States, which by strange coincidence are defined as "States".

Actually, government officials of the "several States" party to the Constitution participate in this fraud through the Organization of States, which is completely de facto - in fact, but not in law. The Constitution of the United States prohibits establishing new states within jurisdiction of existing states, so the notion that Oklahoma, California, New York or any other state which belongs to the Union of the several States party to the Constitution can be an instrumentality or State of the United States is simply a bureaucratic scam. The scam developed and was put in place after people serving in local, state and federal government convened in Denver in 1935 to sign a compact of intergovernmental dependence.

At any rate, the "United States of America, ss, President of the United States," is authorized as principal only in the [United States] District Courts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (see sections 874 & 1406f, Title 48 (Territories and Insular Possessions) of the United States Code.

The way this riddle works out - if you're being sued or prosecuted in the United States District Court, the United States of America is the complaining or prosecuting party, and the Union Jack is posted in the courtroom, the court is assuming powers and maritime jurisdiction of the [United States] District Court of the Virgin Islands - see section 3241, Title 18 of the United States Code.

It should be easy enough to stand the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, and the Union Jack side-by-side, and see, "This is not that". But the distinction - the iron will of reprobate, de facto authority - doesn't usually penetrate to the point someone is confronted with bureaucratic plunder and tyranny. The Federal alphabet brothers - IRS, BATF, FBI, DEA, et al - shielded by admiralty magistrates (they aren't true judges), are bold enough decorum is about the same as headhunters in a feeding frenzy.

Now for an even better joke: The United States Code isn't law.

If you're reading this, Dennis George, you should get a belly laugh. Per the preface and forward of the 1926 edition, the Code is merely restatement and "prima facie" the law (evidence of the law). No law was repealed, and no law passed when the Code was created. In the preface to the 1994 edition, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, tells us that those titles enacted as "positive law," a quaint term, constitute "legal evidence" of the laws of the United States.

What is legal evidence? Evidence is in some way supportive of a fact. It can be documentary, oral, pictorial, or any number of things. But think of it this way: A bloody knife may be evidence relating to murder, but murder isn't established until there is a corpse. In this case, the corpse is the Statutes at Large. A volume of the Statutes at Large containing the various acts, resolutions and policy positions of Congress is published annually.

In order to track down the law, it is necessary to consult statutory authority listed for any given section in the United States Code, then track back through original acts and amendments in the Statutes at Large. Any given section in the United States Code may be an amalgamation of as many as half a dozen different laws published in Statutes at Large.

The United States Code does not vest a franchise of authority in any officer, department, agency or court of the United States, nor does it establish territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction.

One of the better jokes is the Internal Revenue Service. That particular fraud was a long time in the making. It began, more or less, in 1921, when Congress replaced Treasury officers and employees with the General Accounting Office, under direction of the Comptroller General. The Treasury of the United States is a Congressional department, evidently kept under supervision of the Senate. At any rate, GAO is responsible for settling all accounts owed by or to the United States - all means all. The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico. So is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. And these wonderful folks have authority only in special maritime and noncontiguous (off-shore) territorial, jurisdiction of the United States - jurisdiction which just coincidentally includes the Virgin Islands. As an independent agency, IRS contracts systems development and recordkeeping services for the Treasury of the United States - contracts may be with GAO or the Comptroller General, but as yet haven't been secured.

It so happens that no taxing statute in the Internal Revenue Code, which is not law, reaches the Union of several States save as it might apply to officers and employees of United States Government - and officers of corporations where United States Government has a proprietary interest.

That was taken care of by the Internal Revenue Act of November 23, 1921. "Income tax" allegedly authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment (1913) took such a beating from about 1915 to 1920, that Congress used the Act of November 23, 1921 to repeal virtually all taxes issued under Article I and Sixteenth Amendment authority, then when they were variously reenacted, they were under authority relating to territories of the United States, subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority. What is now known as income tax was then called "normal tax" - tax against wages of Federal government officers and employees. The tax was first enacted in 1862, repealed in the 1870s, then re-appeared sometime around 1918. Social Security, which also applies only to government employees, was first condemned by the Supreme Court, then came on line in 1935 via "treaty" agreements - treaty applicable only in territories of the United States.

It appears that Federal liquor taxes may have remained in place through prohibition - Eighteenth Amendment repealed in December 1933 - but the United States vs. Constantine decision (December 1935) put an end to Federal enforcement of state liquor laws. Administration of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was moved under Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, administration via Reorganization Plan No. III of 1940 (Virgin Islands maritime jurisdiction).

One of the more interesting "this is not that" investigations relates to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

A Commission of Internal Revenue office was created in the Treasury of the United States by act of Congress in July 1862, but was effectively abolished via the Revised Statutes of 1873. When the position materialized again, it was in the Department of the Treasury. But it isn't in the Department of the Treasury of the United States. So guess where it is - the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

Don't confuse the Department of the Treasury with the Treasury of the United States, also known as the Treasury Department. The Department of the Treasury of the United States is an executive department, where the Treasury of the United States is independent, evidently accountable to the Senate. The Department of the Treasury has virtually no authority relating to administration of United States tax laws - GAO, as agent for the Treasury of the United States, has that responsibility.

If your humor is stretching thin, try this: The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an administratively created agency in the Department of Justice. So far as investigative and enforcement powers are concerned, the only authority FBI has relates to investigation of Federal government officers and employees. FBI was not created via Congress' legislative authority, and has no powers beyond those vested in the Department of Justice.

Judicial officers in various courts of the United States are attempting to avoid making judicial determinations on these various matters, but the day of accounting is quite literally at hand.

The problem now is finding, and activating, Article III district courts of the United States, established by judiciary acts of 1789 and 1792 as courts of common law which must proceed "in the course of the common law".

Civil law process vests broad discretionary powers in judicial officers. Equity, admiralty, and maritime cases all proceed in the course of civil law. But due process in the course of the common law pretty well takes judges out of it until the adversarial parties, by alternative pleadings, have the controversy boiled down to particulars of law and fact, appropriately separated, which must be determined by trial.

The course of the civil law allows things to be jumbled, and the judge has broad discretion. He isn't necessarily bound by precedent.

When a civil matter is litigated in the course of the common law, a jury determines fact, and a judge determines law. But even there, he is bound by 800 years of precedent decisions - he cannot lumber off on his own to hammer out new law. And he has to stand up in an open hearing to give authority to support his ruling. Nothing can be done in sequestered chambers - he is constantly subject to public scrutiny. That's the reason judges in the last century were known to ride the fastest horses - corrupt judges frequently went into the rope-stretching business.

In criminal cases, the jury has the right to judge law and fact, and it goes without saying that the defendant, or his counsel, had the right to argue application and merits of the law to the jury. Thus, jury nullification power, also called jury lawlessness.

This survey might have you wondering "Is all this true? And if it is true, how corrupt is American government?"

I assure you, everything I've addressed is true. Sincere people across America have dedicated huge chunks of life and personal resources to document and expose the "Cooperative Federalism" scheme. So far as the second question - we have possibly most intriguing, corrupt government system ever devised. In many ways, encroachment and usurpation of power are subtle, but increasing conflict is bringing out more of the Gestapo character of entrenched powers.

The big problem, beyond those with jackboot mentality, is dependency. By 1990, Federal government employed more people than all American manufacturing combined; we had 24 million on Social Security, and fully 20% of the population relied on food stamps and other forms of government assistance. In interior natural resource states such as Oklahoma, government has been the only consistent growth industry since 1982.

In our system of constitutional government, where all governmental entities and public servants must accept limits of constitutionally enumerated powers, tyranny never stands on one leg - it takes perpetrators by intent, and perpetrators by consent. One way to enlist consent is by creating dependency. That's exactly what has happened. It's easy to be righteous, patriotic, et al, if it doesn't cost you anything out of your own pocket or if you don't risk direct personal reprisal. It's another story when the cost, and consequence, might be personal. It boils down to making moral choices and believing God rather than government as our provider.

The object of the tyranny? American solvency, sovereignty, and ultimately, liberty. Dependency was created by undermining the nation's natural resource industries, which produce all new wealth, the manufacturing, which accounts for about a 4-time trade turn on dollars. The notion that the nation can survive and thrive on service industries, that create no new wealth, is among the more vicious lies ever told.

As a consequence of this balderdash, the Federal on-budget debt, with annual interest now exceeding $250 billion, is rapidly approaching gross domestic product - America's total production return for a year. Cumulative local, state and national debt, including illusive state and municipal bonds, now exceeds $25 trillion, which is something in excess of four times GNP.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to see the compounding interest effect. In the private sector, it has consolidated over 40% of real, financial and production assets in the hands of approximately one percent of the population; under 15% of the population has profited from economic constriction than commercial in about 1972.

People are most apt to look at and accept the truth when they have been victimized by the silent forces of physical economy, the plunder and tyranny that is invariably perpetrated by de facto authority, and realization that the lie is unsustainable - institutionalized debauchery is certain to collapse the system around our ears.

It doesn't take a prophet to see why so many people have engaged the study of law, the structure of government and court systems, etc. As increasing numbers of middle and upper-middle income families have been victimized, growing numbers of competent, educated people have joined the ranks of those dedicated to unearthing and exposing the truth.

When finally the craft of reprobate wordsmiths has been untangled, the reality of what has happened, and what is happening, is reasonably easy to demonstrate. It boils down to, "This is not that" and "You aren't who you are representing yourself to be."

"That is not the flag of the United, it is the Union Jack - you are attempting to impose unconstitutional military authority."

The most powerful weapon against this tyranny is public exposure. Read the Apostle Paul's prophesy at II Timothy 3:8 & 9 for effect.

23 U.S. 1, Wayman v. Southard, (U.S.Ky. 1825)

2. The next question was, what had been done by Congress?

 The act of the 24th of September, 1789, c. 20. established the judicial tribunals.  The 34th section enacts, that 'the laws of the several States, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.'  But this merely gives the ground of decision; it does not give the means of attaining the decision, or of giving it effect.

 The powers of the Courts are conferred by the sections from 13 to 17 inclusive.  The Courts being thus established, their jurisdiction defined, or to be defined, and the nature of their proceedings distinguished, the power to issue the common law writs of mandamus and prohibition, is vested in the Supreme Court by the latter part of the 13th section.  The 14th section then gives them power to issue 'writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for  *7   the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'  This is to be taken ad referendum, according to the function they were to perform.  They were to be common law Courts, proceeding according to the course of the common law, with power to issue writs agreeably to the principles and usages of that law.  The common law remedies were, therefore, adopted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. and it has been judicially determined that these remedies are to be not according to the varying practice of the State Courts, but according to the principles of the common law, as settled in England. (FNb)  This, of course, is to be understood with the exception of such modifications as have been made by acts of Congress, the rules of Court made under those acts, and the State laws in force in 1789.

58 S.Ct. 543, 303 U.S. 201, Mookini v. U.S., (U.S.Hawai'i 1938)

[2] [3] [4] The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance.  It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution.  Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.  We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.'  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 154, 25 L.Ed. 244; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460, 25 L.Ed. 1061; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268, 10 S.Ct. 762, 34 L.Ed. 107; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183, 11 S.Ct. 949, 35 L.Ed. 693; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477, 19 S.Ct. 722, 43 L.Ed. 1041; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102, 34 S.Ct. 38, 58 L.Ed. 137; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574, 77 L.Ed. 1096.  Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.