From: Dave Champion Subject: Composition of the US courts. Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:14:37 -0800 There has always been a lot of talk about the "nature" of certain US = courts. Prior to understanding this matter myself, I got my lunch = handed to me when I brought an action against the IRS in a "territorial" = court (see below for the names of each type of court). Like most = Americans, I thought that the any court that had the words "United = States" associated with it was the proper court to have my grievances = addressed. WRONG! There is a lot more to this issue than what appears = below, but Dan's remarks provide a blueprint that is relatively easy to = follow. If any of you have any questions about this matter, shoot me an = e-mail. In closing, after you read Dan's remarks, you will know more = about this matter than 98% of the attorneys out there. I have deleted the questions and comments that led Dan to reply, as they = lent nothing to the learning process. There are actually two of Dan's = pieces contained below. Each one is preceded by the words "MEADOR = RESPONSE". Dave _________________________________________________________ >> MEADOR RESPONSE >> In December, several of us "attacked" the office of clerk for = disclosure >> >of appointment authority (28 U.S.C. 751), and the clerk at Lexington = in >> >particular wouldn't even admit the statutory authority for = appointment. He >> sent >> >the query to the general counsel for the Administrative = Office of United >> States >> >Courts. He didn't answer. In the = meantime, another clerk from another Federal >> >district confirmed to = another prisoner that 28 U.S.C. 751 is the authority. >> >Authority for appointing clerks is to "district courts", not United States >> >District Courts, as such. Definitions wrap back around to = sections 451 & >> 610, so >> >we knew what the law specifies. >> ************************************ > >MEADOR RESPONSE > It appears that we're simply going to disagree on this matter. = However, as one >last submission, let's at least cite authorities = properly. The relative >definitions at 28 U.S.C. 451 are "court of the = United States" and "district >court". > > "The term 'court of the United States' includes the Supreme Court = of the >United States, courts of appeals, district courts constituted by = chapter 5 of this >title, including the Court of International Trade and = any court created by Act of >Congress the judges of which are entitled = to hold office during good behavior." > > "The terms 'district court' and 'district court of the United = States' mean the >courts constituted by chapter 5 of this title."> > There = is no mention of "United States District Court" in either of those = >definitions save in the first, which refers to "any court created by = Act of >Congress". See application of "Act of Congress" in Rule 54(c), = F.R.Crim.P., for >limitation to the District of Columbia and insular = possessions, i.e., any court >created by "Act of Congress" is a = territorial court. >> If we go to Historical and Statutory Notes for 28 U.S.C. 132, = which is the >"United States District Court", we find the following: = "1948 Acts. Based on Title >28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., section 1, and section = 641 of Title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., >Territories and Insular = Possessions..." The "chapter 5" districts, even if >application in Sec. = 451 is to Title 28, is Sections 81 through 131. Follow the >notes for = Sec. 132 to find that the amalgamated" section referred to territorial = >courts in Hawaii at the time Hawaii was still a territory of the United = States. > > One of the better sections in Title 28 which distinguishes between = the >"district court of the United States" and the "United States District Court" is >Sec. 1291, which applies to circuit appeals: > > "The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of = Appeals for the >Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all = final decisions of >the district courts of the United States, the United = States District Court for the >District of the Canal Zone, the District = Court of Guam, and the District Court of >the Virgin Islands..." > > It's obvious that the "district court of the United States" and the former >"United States District Court for the District of the Canal = Zone," which was >construed as a "territory of the United States" while = we still had a lease in that >part of the world, are two distinct and = separate critters. The only other >remaining "United States District = Court", per se, is the one for the District of >the District of = Columbia, and that one is unique as the Supreme Court decided it >is an = Article III court rather than a territorial court. The Constitution = extended >to Virginia and Maryland before they ceded what is now the = District of Columbia to >the United States, and the Supreme Court ruled = that once the Constitution is >extended to territory, it cannot be = retracted, so the United States District Court >for the District of the = District of Columbia is an Article III court. > > Regardless of the cases cited, Chief Justice Marshall ruled on the Canter >case, Am. Ins. Co. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton (1828), when it came = from the >territorial court in Florida on a maritime salvage action, the = four insular tax >cases came from territorial courts in insular = possessions (1900-1904), the Supreme >Court has always heard cases from = both State and Federal courts in Puerto Rico, >etc., etc., and the three = remaining United States District Courts, as defined in >Balzac vs. Porto = Rico (1922), are now defined as "courts of the United States" at >18 = U.S.C. 23, in editions published in 1996 and after (Dec. 1994 = legislation). And >Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of = Civil Procedure, Rules of >Evidence, appeal rules in the circuit courts, = and Supreme Court Rules in the Title >28 appendix, all published under = authority of 28 U.S.C. 2072, are applicable only >in territorial United = States District Courts. Prior to December 1948, these rules >applied to = "District Courts of the United States". Congress didn't change names of = >the courts, Congress changed statutory application, and the Supreme = Court complied >by shifting the rules from Article III to territorial = --WebTV-Mail-978506230-160--