Vengeancia (updated January 2014) “All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power…..
The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.” Read more. Also, American Grand Jury
The Two United States and the Law
by Howard Freeman
“Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III’s government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void.
“Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver! The United States of America was made up of a union of what is now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law.
“Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens).
“Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States’ flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are, with or without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).
“Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at Law, (2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:
(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
“Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not compel performance. Today’s so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between “legal” and “lawful.” Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]
(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.
(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.
“By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.
“The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system….” Read the rest at this PDF.
Heritage “There are at least three categories of adjudication that occur under the federal Constitution. First, under Article III, life-tenured judges exercise the judicial power of the United States as defined in Article III. Supreme Court Justices are the only Article III judges established in the Constitution. All other Article III judgeships are created by statute. The second category is made up of Article I judges and courts. These judges are appointed and confirmed in the same manner as Article III judges and Article II Cabinet secretaries.
“The four national Article I courts derive their power from the powers given by Article I to the Congress: the payment of money owed by the United States, taxation, regulation of the armed forces, and the governance of the District of Columbia and the territories. Most Article I judges have a statutory equivalent of life tenure and salary protection. The third category of adjudicators is career employees of the executive branch. This is by far the largest group, consisting of around 4,000 individuals organized into hundreds of categories. Some have special career tenure protection. Others have no tenure protection other than civil service. And some are political appointees with no career protection. Most of these executive-branch adjudicators are subject to review by political appointees, either in departments or by independent regulatory commissions. In turn, the political appointees’ decisions can be reviewed in Article I or Article III courts.
“Judges in federal territories are created under Congress’s Article IV power to govern federal territory, and judges in the District of Columbia are created pursuant to Congress’s Article I power to govern the federal capital. These judges have never had life tenure or salary guarantees. William Marbury, for instance, held his commission as a Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia under a five-year term of office; and judges today in Guam and the Virgin Islands have ten-year terms of office and no constitutional salary guarantees. (Judges in American Samoa have indefinite terms of office.) Although a lower court in 1803 held unconstitutional the absence of salary guarantees for these judges, the Supreme Court, in American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton (1828), broadly approved the use of non-Article III tribunals in federally governed territory on the ground that their jurisdiction “is not a part of the judicial power” described in Article III. Accordingly, tribunals in federal territories may determine all kinds of cases, including criminal cases, without necessarily conforming to the requirements of Article III.
“Military courts-martial also exercise essentially criminal jurisdiction, though in a limited sphere. The members of courts-martial need not have Article III tenure and salary guarantees; their authority stems instead from the President’s Article II executive power as commander in chief and from Congress’s Article I powers to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” and to “provide for…disciplining, the Militia.” As the Supreme Court held in 1857 in Dynes v. Hoover,
[t]hese provisions show that Congress has the power to provide for the trial and punishment of military and naval offences in the manner then and now practiced by civilized nations; and that the power to do so is given without any connection between it and the 3d article of the Constitution defining the judicial power….
“Sovereign immunity provided the rationale for the first major creation of a non-Article III court under Congress’s Article I powers: the Court of Claims. For the first seventy-nine years of the Republic, there was no remedy against the federal government for takings of property, breaches of contract, or governmental torts. Relief against virtually any legal wrong, except imprisonment, was at the whim of the federal government. The only remedy was to implore Congress for a private bill of relief. By the 1850s, over 20,000 such bills were pending. Few were dealt with, and corruption in the passage of some resulted in scandal. In 1855, the Congress created the Court of Claims to deal with the claims that had led to private bills. In 1887, Congress enacted the Tucker Act, creating a life-tenured panel of five judges that heard any claim for money against the United States based on the Constitution, statute, regulation, or contract. Only tort claims were left to congressional discretion. This limitation ended in 1947, when the Congress waived sovereign immunity for torts and gave to Article III courts jurisdiction over tort claims subject to limitations, the most significant of which was the denial of a jury trial.
“Modern statutes permit tax-refund actions, tort actions, and some contract or takings claims involving small amounts to be brought in Article III courts, but many statutory waivers of sovereign immunity require suit to be brought in non-Article III tribunals. Because Congress does not have to permit suit at all, it can set conditions on those suits to which it has consented. United States v. Sherwood (1941). Today, the principal non-Article III tribunals that hear such cases include the Court of Federal Claims, which adjudicates claims against the United States founded in contracts, statutes, regulations, or takings; the Tax Court, which allows taxpayers to challenge their tax liability without first paying the tax and then filing for a refund; and the Court of Veterans Appeals, which determines claims by veterans under relevant benefits statutes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was established to provide a civilian court for the review of court-martial criminal sentences.
“All of the national Article I courts are subject to Article III appellate review. The Court of Federal Claims and the Court of Veterans Appeals are subject to appellate review by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Tax Court is subject to appellate review by the circuit in which the taxpayer resides. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is subject to Supreme Court review. All Article I judges are appointed by the President with Senate confirmation. They are thus officers of the United States, unlike administrative judges. Their salaries are statutorily tied to district or circuit judge salaries. They all have lengthy tenure by statute, as well as senior status systems, which in the case of the Tax Court and Court of Federal Claims are similar to those of Article III judges.
“The most sweeping rationale for non-Article III tribunals is the so-called public rights doctrine. This doctrine originated in 1856 in Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., in which the Supreme Court permitted the government to adjudicate deficiencies against its own tax collectors without full judicial process. “Public rights” in that context meant rights of the public against certain government officials. Modern cases, however, have permitted ordinary administrative agencies to adjudicate even purely private common-law rights on the theory that such rights are “public” whenever they are ancillary to a regulatory scheme. Thus, for example, the Commodity Futures Exchange Commission has been allowed to adjudicate common-law counterclaims resulting from transactions within its enforcement jurisdiction. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor (1986). This rationale obviously validates as well ordinary agency adjudication in the administration of regulatory programs. The limits, if any, of Congress’s power to entrust adjudication to non-Article III decision-makers is uncertain. Nor is it clear to what extent decisions of non-Article III tribunals must be subject to appellate review in Article III courts, although Congress by statute has generally made such review available.
“As a matter of original understanding, executive adjudication may seem problematic, but not all adjudication (understood as the application of legal standards to particular facts) requires an exercise of the judicial power. Many exercises of Article II “executive Power” are functionally indistinguishable from exercises of the “judicial Power,” which is not surprising given the close historical and conceptual connections between executive and judicial power. So long as a particular exercise of power, such as a court-martial or a benefit determination, meets the constitutional definition of “executive Power,” it need not be performed by an Article III judge, even if could be performed by such a judge. There can be areas of overlap between the executive and judicial powers, which gives Congress a measure of freedom as to which department to charge with particular adjudicative tasks. The task of figuring out which adjudicative functions, if any, must be performed only by Article III courts has perplexed originalists and nonoriginalists alike for more than two centuries.” Read more at Heritage.
In US v Woodly 726 F 2d 1328 and 751 F 2d 1008, it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another Department or others, is not an Article III de jure judge. Check out USA vs US.
“In order to get a fair trial, you must understand how the court system works and how to use it to your advantage. We already explained, for instance, that if you decide to enter a federal court as a last resort, then you want to do so in an Article III court with Article III judges. The courts do not directly tell you whether they are Article III courts nor do the judges tell you if they are Article III judges. You must have enough knowledge to understand that you will have to go to a third party to get this information.” Read more at FamGuardian.
“Every person who for Lawyers. fee or reward shall prosecute or defend causes in court of record or other judicial tribunal of the United States or of any of the States, or whose business it is to give legal advice in relation to any cause or matter whatever, shall be deemed to be a lawyer.” THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. C11. 184. 1866. 121
Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) “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.”
The Judiciary Act of 1789, officially titled “An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,” was signed into law by President George Washington on September 24, 1789. Article III of the Constitution established a Supreme Court, but left to Congress the authority to create lower federal courts as needed. Principally authored by Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general. Although amended throughout the years by Congress, the basic outline of the federal court system established by the First Congress remains largely intact today. More.
“…Since the inception there has only been one Constitutionally instituted court in this country and that is the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not create any of what it (and I) call the “inferior courts”, but rather authorizes Congress to create those courts and to define their respective jurisdictions (see I-8-9 and III-1-1). All federal courts have always been creatures of legislation, creatures of Congress, not the ‘judiciary.’ “ Tom Cryer
“The view under discussion – that Congress having consented that the United States may be sued, the judicial power defined in Art. 3 at once attaches to the court authorized to hear and determine the suits – must, then, be rejected, for the further reason, or, perhaps, what comes to the same reason differently stated, that it cannot be reconciled with the limitation fundamentally implicit in the constitutional separation of the powers, namely, that a power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vest by statute in another department or agency. Compare Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201, 202, 72 L.ed. 845, 849, 48 S.Ct. 480. And since Congress, whenever it thinks proper, undoubtedly may, without infringing the Constitution, confer upon an executive officer or administrative board, or an existing or specially constituted court, or retain for itself, the power to hear and determine controversies respecting claims against the United States, it follows indubitably that such power, in whatever guise or by whatever agency exercised, is no part of the judicial power vested in the constitutional court by the third article. That is to say, a power which may be devolved, at the will of Congress, upon any of the three departments plainly is not within the doctrine of the separation and independent exercise of governmental powers contemplated by the tripartite distribution of such powers. Compare Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190, 191, 26 L.ed. 377, 386, 387.” Read more about Thomas S. Williams v United States.
“…the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” Alexander Hamilton, in the “Federalist”, No. LXXVIII.
There’s a difference between We, the real “people,” who stand naked before our Creator, all men equal, as recognized and declared by Thomas Jefferson, et al., and legal fictional “persons” who play some type of role in the fictional matrix that we have created for ourselves.
In today’s matrix, if you want to be free, it’s not a bad idea to state your claim. Claim yourself, your body, your DNA, your family, your dog, etc., and put others on notice. Because, unfortunately, if you don’t, pirates acting out of the presumption that you have consented, will attempt to board your sovereign ship and steal you, your family, and all of your possessions! Have you investigated the concept of Corpus Delicti?
“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” KJV, 2 Corinthians 13:1 Regardless of individual belief systems, in the Constitutional Republic known as, The United States of America, the Bible is Foundational Law. Public Law 97-280 (1982), states, “The Bible is the word of God”, and admonishes all Americans to learn and apply it. Read more.
There are lots of different types of “courts.”
“Adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 merged law and equity into a single civil jurisdiction and established uniform rules of procedure…”read more.
“The Court of Federal Claims is authorized to hear primarily money claims founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied-in-fact, with the United States.” Check out the more.
Read more about Article III Courts at Barefoot’s World. Be sure to check out this info from Bill Thornton re: a court of record. Also, check this and this.
Who are you? Are you a “people” or are you a legal fiction aka a “citizen?” In fact, you ARE a people, i.e., a flesh and blood man or woman, on the land in the Republic, but you probably HAVE a citizenship in the foreign, de facto bankster-owned “democracy” that is masquerading as our de jure government, just like you might have a token on a Monopoly board, or a membership at a Fitness Club. Read about stating your claim.
Your “citizen” or “person” is YOUR token, created on YOUR behalf, ostensibly, as a result of YOUR birth on American soil. Anything & everything that happens to this token happens for your benefit, supposedly, and with YOUR presumed consent.
Please read about Copyrighting Your Name. The American founders intended we, the common people, to have complete control over any and all interactions with any man or woman acting under color of law or even probable cause:
“As the Constitution requires that the popular branch of the legislature should have an absolute check, so as to put a peremptory negative upon every act of the government, it requires that the common people, should have as complete a control, as decisive a negative, in every judgment of a court of judicature” John Adams
This is why the founders came up with the 7th Amendment, “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
In common law systems, a superior court is a court of record and a court of general competence, meaning the parties are sovereign REAL PEOPLE, which typically has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal cases. A superior court such as a district court, lower-case d & c, is “superior” relative to a court with limited jurisdiction such as a District Court, capital D & C, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts.
The term “superior court” has its origins in the English court system. The royal courts were the highest courts in the country, with what would now be termed supervisory jurisdiction over baronial and local courts. Decisions of those courts could be reviewed by the royal courts, as part of the Crown’s role as the ultimate fountain of justice. The royal courts became known as the “superior courts”, while lower courts whose decisions could be reviewed by the royal courts became known as “inferior courts”. The decisions of the superior courts were not reviewable or appealable, unless an appeal was created by statute.
In order to control men and women for THEIR benefit, the corporation dba the govt. must RE-present you, the living and breathing man or woman, in their legal game, as a corporation that THEY ALLEGE TO OWN, called the strawman, using an ALL CAPS name on documents like a driver’s license or voter registration form.
From what I can figure, this is where the notion of inferior courts comes in. An inferior court is where the people have been presumed to be inferior, relative to the administrators, i.e., incompetent, and therefore must be RE-presented by a more competent attorney, barrister, or lawyer. Govt. forms that ask you questions like, “Are you a U.S. Citizen?” or “Are you a resident?” are misleading. It’s like asking, “are you a sewing machine/race car on the Elite’s Monopoly board?” Of course you aren’t! Check out this article on IRS Fraud for more about how this works.
Remember, as Patrick Henry reminds us, the purpose of the constitution is to control the government, not to control the people. We, the people, are the clients of government services! However, to exercise our unalienable Rights pursuant to the Bill of Rights, we have to stop BEING the token, the name in all caps!
Esquire (abbreviated Esq.) is a term of West European origin. In Britain and Northern Ireland, it is a title of respect previously accorded to men of higher social rank. Read more about the original 13th Amendment.
If an esquire claims to hold a HIGHER rank than we, the people, then perhaps we are not in the right VENUE! The esquires/attorneys will have to justify why they maintain a HIGHER right than the people. Aren’t the people acting as OUR government supposed to be our servants? Or at the very least, our equals?!!
Two words that are redefined in almost every private copyrighted Statute are the words “person” and “individual”. There are at least two types of person:
- A natural-person is a legal fiction that is re-presenting the real man or woman.
- An artificial-person is a legal fiction that is re-presenting an entity that is not a real man or woman, like a company or a store.
Just as there is a difference between a people (a sovereign/sovran) and a citizen (a subject), there’s also a difference between a republic and a democracy; there’s a difference between courts of record and courts not of record; there’s a difference between superior courts and inferior courts; there’s a difference between common law and statutory law; and so much more….in America, we have a hybrid system. On and off the board all over the place. It’s confusing.
The Constitution provides the federal courts with the authority to referee cases involving the Constitution as law, the so-called “social contract.” Real men and women acting in their capacity as public officers in the govt./democracy, are accountable to the real men and women who ordained that govt. A bill/statute only becomes “law” when real men and women consent to it! What happens if you don’t consent? When you don’t consent to an interaction with a police officer, for example, you have the Right to file a suit at common law for redress and remedy.
Unfortunately, bankster-backed, BAR-certified attorneys, judges, etc., working for the corporation dba the Govt. of the United States, are squatting on the peoples’ court system as a permanent plaintiff, serving the people notices on a continuous basis. Like a winning chess player, they are occupying all the positions in the game and making it difficult for real people to bring our suits at common law. They refuse to acknowledge us as real people and only see us as tokens.
They force us to “appear,” and to be Re-presented by attorneys in their legal game, whether we like it or not. If we fail to “appear,” they take out commercial warrants on us as “salvagable property.” Sometimes, they hold a trial anyway in spite of our objections and convict our token, our strawman! It’s outrageous! Why do they do this? So they can charge our bond.
The challenge for patriots is, to hold these corporate judges, attorneys, etc. accountable to the people as real flesh and blood men and women with Rights and not legal fictions/franchises with privileges THEY GRANT US.
Let’s say you want to file a Suit at Common Law at a federal district court venue. In the picture, below, imagine the clerk asking the question, “How may I help you?” She’s wondering who you are and why you are “standing” at her counter. She wants to know “do you work for the fitness club? Are you a janitor or fitness instructor? Do you have a membership here? Do you want to know the rules so you can follow them? Are you here to express a complaint about another club member? Are you here to express a grievance about the club, itself, or the men and women who work for it and/or own it?”
Article III “courts” are supposed to be neutral venues. The action that takes place in these “courts” is dependent upon the “standing” of the man or woman who approaches the venue. The clerks, etc., respond to you according to how you describe yourself and your situation. There are at least four options:
1. You work for the fitness club (public officer).
2. You have a membership at the club and want to know the rules so you can follow them (citizen).
3. You have a grievance with another member of the club who is harassing you (citizen).
4. You have a grievance with the club, itself, and wish to modify and/or quit your membership (people).
If the man or woman approaches the venue as a “citizen,” with privileges, then the venue assumes a superior role relative to that man or woman. It becomes an “inferior court,” because you have consented to be INFERIOR TO IT. They will explain the club’s rules to you and expect you and others to follow them. Your case will be assigned a judge or judge/magistrate.
However, when the man or woman approaches the venue as a “people,” pursuant to the 7th Amendment, demanding redress, with unalienable Rights, the venue must respond accordingly. The neutral venue must become THAT man or woman’s court, and the clerks, magistrates, judges, etc. have obligated themselves in accordance with the Constitution, the FRCP, and their own US Code to help you accomplish your objectives in that venue. It becomes a Court of Record, or a “superior court,” because you have demanded to be SUPERIOR TO IT. When you demand a grand jury to hear evidence, they have to help you put one together.
LectLaw These are federal courts established by, or under Article III of the U.S. Constitution which states: ‘The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’
These courts include:
- Supreme Court – One court with national jurisdiction;
- Courts of Appeals – 12 Geographic-based and one for the Federal Circuit;
- District Courts -94 in 50 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico along with their subordinate bankruptcy courts, and;
- Court of International Trade.
The federal courts have power to decide only those cases over which the Constitution gives them authority. These courts are located principally in the larger cities. Only carefully selected types of cases may be heard in the federal courts.
The controversies that may be decided in the federal courts are identified in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. They include cases in which the United States government or one of its officers is either suing someone or being sued.
The federal courts also may decide cases for which state courts are inappropriate or might be suspected of partiality. Thus, federal courts may decide, in the language of the Constitution, ‘Controversies between two or more states; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; [or] between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.’ For example, one state might be sued by another state for the pollution of its air. Since the impartiality of the courts in either state could be questioned, such a suit might be decided in a federal court.
Similarly, the Constitution extends the authority of the federal courts to cases affecting ambassadors, consuls, and other public ministers. The U.S. government also has constitutional responsibility for U.S. relations with other nations. Because cases involving other nations’ representatives or citizens may affect U.S. foreign relations, such cases are decided in the federal courts.
The Constitution provides the federal courts the power to hear cases involving the Constitution as a law, laws enacted by Congress, treaties, and laws relating to navigable waters (the sea, the Great Lakes, and most rivers) and commerce on them. The federal courts’ jurisdiction also encompasses the many cases that involve or affect commerce among states.
The Constitution describes what cases may be decided in the federal courts. Congress may and has determined that some of these cases also may be tried in state courts, giving federal and state courts concurrent jurisdiction. Congress has provided that suits between citizens of different states may be heard in the federal courts or the state courts, but they may be heard in the federal courts only if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Congress also has provided that maritime cases and suits against consuls may be tried only in the federal courts. When a state court decides a case involving federal law, it in a sense acts as a federal court, and its decisions on federal law may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
1215 A court of record is a “superior court.” A court not of record is an “inferior court.”
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579
The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appellate court.
Decision of a court of record may not be appealed. It is binding on ALL other courts.
However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record.
“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
Also see Counterclaim Notes
Source for the following here.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.