Supreme Court opinion now requires a separate Law docket to exist in all courts instead of a commingled docket

[Rodger Dowdell]

Here is a recent email I received calling attention not a Supreme Court opinion issued 14 April 2023 which imho is profound. Going forward, all courts will need to go back to separate dockets for cases in law ( read common law or equity law) and Administrative Law ( statutory ). Why do i think this is profound ? Simply because one of the major steps to hijacking our justice system was by co-mingling these separate jurisdictions and then allowing the “ judge”, who is simply an administrator, to chose which jurisdiction he is hearing any given case in .

As i try to read the tea leaves, this will take some time to get implemented, but it will lead to the restoration of our Common Law Courts of Record, which will tend to reduce and eliminate most if not all the abuse We the People are now enduring from our public servants.

Rd
————————————————————————-



They are finally acting in favor of our claim that there is no remedy available to us in administrative law. We won! Our case is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back, for the people.



West Virginia v EPA, and now more case precedent again, see below.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-86


Accordingly, with no KNOWN judicial courts anywhere in sight, removal to an Article III judicial court is a matter of right, as discussed at length in the VERY recent, unanimous decision, Argued November 7, 2022—Decided April 14, 2023 in Axon v. FTC, most particularly the “concurring opinions” of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.

Duly noted here is that Article III federal circuit courts, exercising the judicial power of the united States MUST exist, a fortiori in territories, as set forth in Ex Parte Crow Dog 209 and Snow v. US 85 US 317:

“This recital shows that the business of these courts, when acting as circuit and district courts of the United States, is to be kept distinct from their business as ordinary courts of the Territory; and gives countenance to the idea upon which the Territorial legislature seems to have acted in appointing separate executive officers for attending the courts when sitting as Territorial courts.”



Justice Gorsuch, concurring in judgment.

 ”I agree with the Court that Michelle Cochran and Axon Enterprise are entitled to their day in court. But to my mind the reason why has nothing to do with the “Thunder Basin factors.” Ante, at 8. Instead, it follows directly from 28 U. S. C. §1331.

But what gives courts authority to engage in this business of jurisdiction-stripping-by- implication?

 The answer, of course, is nothing. Under our Constitution, “Congress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal jurisdiction.” New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 359 (1989). Federal courts “have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). That is why we have called it the “true rule” that “statutes clearly defining the jurisdiction of the courts . . . must control . . . in the absence of subsequent legislation equally express.” Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U. S. 257, 262 (1897). And why we have said that “jurisdiction conferred by 28 U. S. C. §1331,” in particular, “should hold firm against mere implication[s]” from other laws. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U. S. 368, 383 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).”

[JULIE*K*POLK*NC*USA]

Thank you....

[pulldapin]

aloha Rodger...good to hear from you...if this is as how you interpret it, this is good news