Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Attorney and Counselor at Law
California Bar No. 52737
Admitted June 2, 1972
www.edrivera.com
email:edrivera@edrivera.com
P.O. Box 13295
Torrance, CALIFORNIA 90503
310-370-3361

DUTY
PART ONE
LIST OF MATERIALS

Duty of a Citizen. Because government at the state and federal level is divided into three parts, the primary obligation of a citizen is to question the authority of that three- part government. If citizens do not check the authority of government, one of the branches may intrude on the power of another branch.

When government is properly operating, persons, officers and employees of one of the three branches are prohibited from performing the duties of the other two branches. It then falls to the citizen to challenge all claims made by or on behalf of government. The members of the three branches of government cannot question the authority or integrity of another branch.

The doctrine of the separation-of-powers prohibits a government person, officer or employee from acting outside the legislative, executive or judicial branch, but it takes the constant vigilance of citizens to make certain that persons, officers and employees of branches do not exercise the power of another branch.

The most important principle applicable to all three branches is the lack of power to create new legal duties for citizens.

Part One will show why the three branches of government are governed by a Constitution and why that Constitution can only authorize the legislative branch to create more laws for government.

VHS Tapes. These tapes explain the limited territorial jurisdiction of the United States district courts by direct reference to the most widely know federal government activity. They were made by a client, who is making DVD versions that will be available soon.

Transcript of VHS Tapes. Another client transcribed the 4 ½ hours of VHS tapes for his own use. His transcription will assist your understanding of the material covered.

Constitution of the United States and Declaration of Independence with comments by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land for all governments. It is, however, not law that applies to the People in the states of the Union.

The English common law is the law of the People in 49 states. This course teaches that the events that caused the separation of the People of the United States from the monarchy of England shaped the common law of America. In England equity was administered by the Lord Chancellor of England, who was an officer of the English monarch. In an America without a king there is no place for equity.

The grand and petit jurors determine the facts and the law in all serious civil and criminal cases. The Declaration of Independence begins the elimination of the English monarchy in the thirteen states of the new Union that is to be the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation.

Judiciary Act of 1789 This act of Congress established the first thirteen districts for the United States district courts at a time when only eleven states had ratified the Constitution. That document is famous for the first three articles that create the three branches of government. The fourth article provides the government for a substantial amount of territory that has not been incorporated into the original thirteen states. It is this territory and the federal territory within the states of the Union that is the U.S. or United States. The district judges, according to the Act, are required to reside within the district. There is no provision in the Act for a lifetime appointment during good behavior. Provision is not made for continuation in office during good behavior until the Judiciary Act of 1948.

Revenue Act of 1894 (Wilson- Gorman Act) The Federal Income Tax law was declared unconstitutional by the Income Tax Cases: Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The entire Act can be found in the first footnote to Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895). The Supreme Court held the entire act to be unconstitutional, but I have identified Section 29 as the legislation that caused the creation of an unconstitutional direct tax on the property of the People of the States by the imposition of a duty to make a return. Even after the 16th Amendment, language similar to that found in Section 29 will never be found in any future federal internal revenue act.

Revenue Act of 1913 This act imposes a net income tax upon those citizens of the United States over which Congress has legislative power. The three branches of government are named as individuals who are to pay the tax, although only the inferior federal judges not of the Article III judiciary are actually liable. Section G. (page 172) imposes the individual income tax on corporations. Section S. (page 201) of Section III repeals the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909. This then, is the scenario: the federal income tax as a direct tax is declared unconstitutional in 1895; President William Howard Taft, a legal genius, resolves the issue by proposing an amendment affirming the power of Congress to tax itself and the non-Article III judges; the 1913 federal income tax is a tax on the citizens of the United States (members of Congress) and residents (district court judges); the domestic Corporation Tax is repealed and the tax on the national government is imposed on corporations.

Written Address to Congress by President William Howard Taft, June 16, 1909 [Congressional Record—Senate]. This is the first public statement that the federal income tax will be a tax on the national government when the federal income tax amendment is ratified. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land for government, so the Sixteenth Amendment is just more law for government.

Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) This Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice William Howard Taft identifies United States district courts as territorial courts. Any federal court calling itself a “United States District Court” will be a court that is limited to federal territory and federal property.

Article IV of the Constitution specifically provides Congress with the power to dispose of the territory not part of the original states and any other property belonging to the United States. This is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) This Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes states that a District Court of the United States is a constitutional court and that vesting a United States district 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.”

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.”

O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) This case, when read in its entirety practically explains all modern federal income tax issues and the lack of judicial power in the United States district court judges and court of appeals judges.

All the law discussed in this case arises from acts of Congress and all those acts can be traced directly to a legislative power in the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land for government. Where in the Constitution is it written that Congress has power to make laws for the People in the states? That’s true it is nowhere there. All the laws Congress makes must be constitutional and therefore must only apply to the federal government, State governments and the territory and other property of the United States.

Article III of the Constitution has no application in O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). Judge Joseph W. Woodrough had never been an Article III.

The reader should also note carefully that Judge Woodrough became a tax protester when he objected to the Collector of Internal Revenue’s notice and demand that an income tax was due. All collectors and deputy collectors were abolished in the IRS Reorganization of 1952. After that date all federal internal revenue was collected without notice and demand. From then till now all federal taxes must be voluntarily paid because no constitutional officer has the duty to give a notice and make a demand for payment.

Go East, Young, Man The Early Years, The Autobiography of William O. Douglas, pages 465-467. Beginning at the last paragraph on page 465 Douglas explains the influence the case, O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939), had on his life. Douglas assumed, as Felix Frankfurter wanted, that Judge Woodrough was an Article III judge. It never occurred to Douglas to question Frankfurter’s honesty or legal ability. He should have, of course.

Cheek v. United States 498 U.S. 192 (1991) The U.S. Supreme Court as the name indicates a territorial court. Cheek was tried by a jury in a territorial federal trial court and was found guilty. Find in the Head Note the sentence: Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, and highlight it.

The legal duty to make a return and pay a tax cannot be found in Title 26 U.S.C. because Congress is without authority to create legal duties for the people of the states. There is simply no place in the Constitution where Congress is given the power to create new legal duties. Congress has authority to create requirements which are administrative obligations but the neglect or refusal to perform those requirements will not result in any prison time.

The decision in Cheek is an attempt to cover-up the complete absence of a legal duty to make a federal income tax return or to pay the federal income tax. Justice Blackmun’s dissent speaks volumes on the judiciary’s general incompetence in tax matters.

Cheek should have learned why the federal income tax is a constitutional, lawful and an appropriate tax on the individuals over whom Congress has legislative power.

The best defense to any criminal federal indictment is the motion to inspect the grand jury list. If inspection does not establish that each grand juror is a resident of federal territory within one of the counties that comprise the district or division where the indictment was brought, a motion to dismiss the indictment should be immediately brought.

Justice Frankfurter very carefully presented the issue before the Court as follows:

“Is the provision of Section 22 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 178, reenacted by Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648, 1657, 26 U.S.C.A. 22(a), constitutional insofar as it included in the “gross income”, on the basis of which taxes were to be paid, the compensation of “judges of courts of the United States taking office after June 6, 1932”.

Frankfurter knew that the federal income tax applied only to Article IV federal judges, because the duty to make a return in Section of the 1894 federal income tax law had not been placed in the 1913 federal income tax law and subsequent federal income tax laws. Non-Article III federal district judges could be obligated by Article VI of the Constitution to make returns:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Both United States district court judges and the judges of the courts of appeals are judges of one of the States and Article III judges could volunteer to subject their compensation for services to federal income taxation. The tax on federal judge’s salaries was constitutional because those judges were not Article III judges.

Despite his varied life experience and class standing in Columbia Law School, Douglas never learned the truth about the federal trial courts. He went to his grave in 1975 with no more knowledge about the federal judicial system than what he had when O'Malley was decided. I wonder what the world would be like today if Supreme Court Justices like Douglas had not believed so many lies about the government.

We know that Joseph W. Woodrough had never been an Article III judge. A judge like any other officer of the United States fills an office and is never the recipient of anything like a title of nobility. All the legislative evidence proves that the first Article III district in any of the States of the Union is not created until 1959, when Congress created an Article III court in the district of Hawaii.

William O. Douglas’s life would have been very different if he had known and applied the citizen’s first duty: “Question all authority.”

U.S. Government Manual 2004-05 Pages 67 to 83—Lower Courts catch the federal government in a lie. The claim that the United States district court for Puerto Rico is established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States is a shameful lie. The United States district courts found in Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C., according to Balzac and Mookini must be Article IV legislative/territorial courts, so the U.S. Government must publish a lie and claim that the United States district court in Puerto Rico is an Article III court.

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE The first eighteen chapters are presented here to give the student a view of the government printed version of territorial law for the United States. The first sentence in Chapter 5 explains the territorial composition of the districts and divisions of all the federal courts in all the 50 states is the federal territory in the counties on January 1, 1945.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
Attorney and Counselor at Law
California Bar No. 52737
Admitted June 2, 1972
www.edrivera.com
email:edrivera@edrivera.com
P.O. Box 13295
Torrance, CALIFORNIA 90503
310-370-3361

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera is not affiliated with Freedom School.


Page presentation Copyright© 2006, 2015
All Rights Reserved

H O M E