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 ? 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 co

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