🚀 go-pugleaf

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free."
Goethe

Ignorance, i.e., lack of knowledge, is a curable ailment. Sadly,
stupidity, i.e., the inability or the absolute refusal to learn, is
not.  Do some reading:

http://idt.net/~tmccrory/OPALA.HTM

After reading the Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice letter you might ask
yourself, "Why does Oklahoma have non-constitutional courts?" You will
note that Opala states that statutory courts are legislatively created
courts. These legislative courts effect bills of attainder against the
people when they deprive the people of life, liberty, or property as
they are not judicial courts, i.e., courts of common law. 

Do you know the difference between United States District Courts and
District Courts of the United States? One is a judicial court created
pursuant to Article III of the Constitution and the other is a
legislatively created court pursuant to Article I powers of Congress.
Our Article III courts (District Courts of the United States) have all
disappeared and now all we are left with are legislatively created
federal courts created by Congress so the government can rule over its
property pursuant to Article IV � 3.2. 

http://idt.net/~tmccrory/TWO_US.HTM
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/THSNTTHT.HTM

I would suggest you obtain and read the Supreme Court case below. In it
the court points out that the district court in the District of Columbia
may exercise both Article III and Article IV � 3.2 functions, but in the
states where courts are created pursuant to Article III they may not be
invested with any part of Congress' Article IV � 3.2 authority. In order
to get around this prohibition the government has rid itself of Article
III courts, District Courts of the United States. Then, in order to give
their Article IV courts the appearance of legitimacy, they put judges
appointed pursuant to Article III in them.

These courts were our Article III judicial courts which were to operate
pursuant to the English common law.
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/28_116.HTM

These are legislatively created courts. Note the historical notes, title
48, Territories and Insular Possessions. Congress' right to rule over
the propety owned by the United States, Article IV � 3.2. These courts
operate as admiralty/maritime courts. These are the same kinds of courts
which caused our Founding Fathers to go to war.
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/28_132.HTM

53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, O'Donoghue v. U.S., (U.S. 1933)
	Two cases are cited in support of the dictum in the Bakelite
opinion--Keller v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., supra, and Postum Cereal Co.
v. Calif.  Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693, 700, 47 S.Ct. 284, 71 L.Ed. 478. 
The Keller Case we have already discussed.  It simply holds that, in
virtue of its dual power over the [289 U.S. 551] District [of Columbia],
Congress may vest non-judicial functions in the courts of the District. 
We find nothing in that decision which cannot be reconciled with what we
have here said.  In the case of Postum Cereal Co., the court follows the
Keller Case in holding that administrative or legislative functions may
be vested in the courts of the District, but adds that this may not be
done with any federal court established under article 3 of the
Constitution.  Taken literally, this seems to negative the view that the
superior courts of the District are established under article 3. But the
observation, read in the light of what was said in the Keller Case in
respect of the dual power of Congress in dealing with the courts of the
District, should be confined to federal courts in the states as to which
no such dual power exists; and, thus confined, it is not in conflict
with the view that Congress derives from the District clause distinct
powers in respect of the constitutional courts of the District which
Congress does not possess in respect of such courts outside the
District.

snip

	'But it by no means follows that because Congress has seen fit, by
virtue of its authority over the District of Columbia, to confer upon
the courts of the District administrative functions, which outside the
District it may not confer upon courts created solely under article 3,
these courts are any the less created under that article of the
Constitution, nor do we know of anything in the history of these courts
or in the legislation with relation to them which would indicate the
contrary.  We think a reasonable and correct view of the subject would
indicate that, in the creation and organization of the superior courts
of the District of Columbia, Congress has availed of its dual
constitutional right in the first place to establish courts of law and
invest them, as it has, with power and jurisdiction over all cases and
controversies which, under the authority of article 3, it has invested
the district courts of the United States, and, in the second place, in
the exercise of the power of a sovereign state, under the provisions of
section 8 of article 1, has further imposed upon them jurisdiction and
power which it cannot impose upon other like courts functioning outside
the District.  There is no inhibition in the Constitution against the
exercise by Congress of this dual power, arising as it does out of an
express grant in the one case (article 3) and an implied grant in the
other (article 1, s 8), nor does its exercise in the one case exhaust
its power and prevent its exercise in the other, and therefore we
assume, when Congress created the two courts--the District Courts of the
United States and the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia--and
gave to each, within its own sphere, identical jurisdiction, that it
drew its power from the same source, even though it was necessary it
should have recourse to another provision of the Constitution in order
to clothe the courts at the seat of government with other and additional
authority not permissible under article 3.'

snip

	[4] This court has repeatedly held that the territorial courts are
'legislative' courts, created in virtue of the national sovereignty or
under article 4, s 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution, vesting in Congress
the power 'to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States'; and that they are not invested with any part of the judicial
power defined in the third article of the Constitution.  And this rule,
as it affects the territories, is no longer open to question.  Do the
courts of the District of Columbia occupy a like situation in virtue of
the plenary power of Congress, under article 1, s 8, cl. 17, 'To
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States? * * *' This inquiry requires a
consideration, first, of the reasons upon which rest the decisions in
respect of the territorial courts.

	The authority upon which all the later cases rest is The American
Insurance Company et al. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546, 7 L.Ed. 242, where
the opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall.  The pertinent
question there was whether the judicial power of the United States
described in article 3 of the Constitution vested in the superior courts
of the territory of [289 U.S. 536] Florida; and it was answered in the
negative. 'The Judges of the Superior Courts of Florida,' the Court
said, 'hold their offices for four years.  These Courts, then, are not
constitutional Courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the
Constitution on the general government, can be deposited.  They are
incapable of receiving it.  They are legislative Courts, created in
virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the
government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make
all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to
the United States.  The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is
not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of
the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of
those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of
the United States.'	

	
-- 
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
Web Site - Kay County Patriots
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose 
its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or 
money that it values more, it will lose that too." 
Somerset Maugham

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely 
believe they are free."
Goethe