federal District Court, Western Kentucky Division
Maurice Edward, Brahier v. Robert Taft, et al. Case 5:03-CV-258-R
NOTICE OF and QUESTIONS OF LAW presented to the clerk(s), judge(s)/magistrate, and Court or Tribunal under full disclosure; and True Nature and Cause; and Civil Rule; and due process requirements:
The recorder and clerk will make due notice upon the face of the record of the numbered questions and corresponding answers to these questions of law, without further request. Moreover, you will supply a verbatim copy of these specifics to me, as you are required to do.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
1. The court will first define for the record whether it is continuing in its status as a District Court of The United States of America [DCUS] or as United States District Court [USDC], so that proper jurisdiction might be firmly established.
There is a distinct and definite division between a "United States District Court" and a "District Court of the United States". The words "District Court of the United States" commonly illuminate constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution, not the legislative courts, which have long been the courts of the Territories. See: Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 at 241 (1952), 72 S.Ct. 235, 96 L.Ed. 275, 13 Alaska 536.
The term "District Court of the United States" commonly describes Article III courts or "courts of the United States", and not legislative courts of the territories. See: American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed. 242; Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir., 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 919, 93 L.Ed. 1082, 69 S.Ct. 641, reh. den. 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed. 1121, 69 S.Ct. 936.
Though the judicial system set up in a territory of the United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase "court of the United States" when used in a federal statute is generally construed as not referring to "territorial courts."
"These [territorial] 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 rights 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. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories.
In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government." Justice Marshall in [American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton], [1 Pet. 511 (1828)] (format somewhat changed)
"The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III 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 IV, Section 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." Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627.
A supposed Order, properly addressed by prior Notice, contained the heading UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT which apparently has no jurisdiction in this matter or the issues thereof.
Wherefore, the court must first state affirmatively upon the face of the record which status and jurisdiction it is using.
Answer
Once this matter is attended to, the court will answer these further questions of law.
2. Is this a tribunal/Court of record?
Answer
3. Is this the Constitutional Court allowed in Article 1; or Article III;or Article V; or elsewhere in the contract, or is it some statutory authority (state what specific statutory authority or authorities if that is the courts claim)?
Answer
4. What specific type and style of Court is this:
Answer with specifics, the below questions as applicable.
A. is it tort or Equity? If so:
(I). What contract(s) or statute(s) does this court presume to proceed under or by?
Answer
(II). How does this apply to the parties?
Plaintiff
Defendants
B. is it Military? If so:
(I). What section of military code or law specifically applies to:(a)me, (b)the defendants, and (c)the case purported to be at bar?
Answer
(II). How, and, where, and, why can Military Law and Code be applied to non-military personnel?
Answer
C. is it Admiralty or Maritime? If so:
(I). What Law(s) or contract(s) does the tribunal/Court and judge or magistrate rely upon to continue?
Answer
(II). How or why does the Court presume this applies to: a. me, b. the defendants, and c. the case at bar?
Answer
(III). Where does the Constitution indicate Admiralty applies, and upon whom?
Answer
D. is it common law? If so:
(I). What or which purported set of common law does the Court continue under:
a. Is this International Common Law?
Answer
b. Is this Constitutional common Law?
Answer
(II). (a). Is this the common Law that existed prior to Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins case, 304 US 64 and is required under the Constitution?
Answer
(b). Or, is this the unconstituted common law instituted after Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins case, 304 US 64.
Answer
E. .is it Statute Law? If so:
(I). Does the Tribunal claim that the Statutes replace or remove Constitutional common Law?
Answer
(II). How exactly does Statute law take precedent over Constitutional Law?
Answer
(III). Where do Statute Laws get their authority?
Answer
(IV). Does the court/tribunal contend that Statutes are created by the Legislature at request of the people?
Answer
5. A. Does the court intend to apply any combination of the above pursuant the case at bar? B. If so, which ones?
Answer
6. Is this court proceeding under supposed authority of 12 USC Sec. 95a and or b or some other authority such as the Buck Act pursuant to a military court or any of the other jurisdictions questioned or reasonable inferred hereon?
ANSWER
7. I have demanded my Rights as stated in my declarations and Notices, as found in the Constitutions; and the records, state and federal; does the Court or Tribunal and judge or magistrate, intend to provide them and proceed pursuant to them as is required by oath, duties, and responsibilities, and the law?
Answer
8. A. Is it this court or tribunals contention that statute law, or rules, or anything else which might be created ex-poste facto of the constitutions may replace; and or remove; and or destroy; and or interfere, with constitutional rights and protections of the state and or United States. B. If so, how, and under what authority?
Answer
The Court and or judge(s) will attach additional pages as necessary, with headings, numbered, and lettered indications as might be required, for complete and concise answer to these questions of law.
So it be, by public post, as demanded by the signatory below.
____________________________-
Maurice Edward, Brahier nemo me impune lacessit
C/o xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx, Ohio
Postal Area xxxx
The clerk will supply such notice to the other parties, of this Notice and questions of law, and corresponding answers to the questions, as is required.