Dan Meador's letter to Paul Mitchell, 10/1/98 16:21:38


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on October 01, 1998 at 18:30:12:

In Reply to: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, from "Encyclopedia of the American Constitution" posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 29, 1998 at 15:39:19:

SUBJECT: Independent office of U.S. Marshal abolished
DATE: Thurs., 1 Oct. 1998
FROM: Dan Meador
TO: Paul Andrew Mitchell

Dear Paul & Interested Readers,

Thank you for the bibliography sent yesterday P.M. The following
examination of the United States Marshals Service will be added to my
longer work, but I decided to send it independently, as it will be a
while before everything can be integrated.

Tomorrow I cease being a Federal free-loader; release from Turley
Correctional Center (halfway house) is scheduled for 8 a.m. I’ll be going
home [redacted].

There is need to put finances together, and to see if Gail and I
can put our home and lives in order, so it will be a while before I can
directly resume the Internet dialogue. Gail has a yearning to visit a
mountain -- time I’ve served has been far more difficult for her than
me. Probably we’ll find somewhere to escape to for a few days once
necessary business is tended to, but I will be back in the flow soon. In
the meantime, Tim McCrory and/or Dale will distribute research and relay
messages. The absence should be relatively short, as I think we’re going
to hit the ground running.

I don’t feel much like “an American hero” and model political prisoner,
as you suggested. My calling is that of a Minister of the Gospel and
writer. I wound up being a political prisoner -- there was never an
affidavit of complaint against me, and the alleged indictment was never
returned by the grand jury in open court -- because I set out to know
and represent truth, nothing more. But even at that, others have been
and are being more grieviously treated and have sacrificed more. I spent
a year as an orderly on the Health Care Unit at the Federal Medical
Center-Lexington, at Lexington, Kentucky, and it’s my opinion that
B.O.P. regularly kills people through negligent homocide. One day I’ll
share my perspective on the sad state of affairs. By the Grace of God, I
enjoyed reasonable comfort, and where my research was concerned, almost
unbelievable assistance and accommodation from other prisoners and a few
B.O.P. staff people.

A hero? Not me. My time in prison simply manifested what the Apostle
Paul wrote: The foolishness of God makes foolish the wisdom of man. Now
it is time to expose the reprobate. Read II Timothy 3: 8 & 9. It was
given to me as revelation in summer 1995.

Your suggestion of a “moot court” is enticing. Prior to incarceration,
I was attempting to organize a national research conference. It was
premature, as research you and I and others have done in the last
sixteen months demonstrates. Today we’re at the point where it’s time to
lay a solid foundation as the common point of demarcation. We’ve
isolated the “nonconstitutional” scheme -- Cooperative Federalism -- and
documented essentials of how it works.

God bless, strengthen, and keep you

Dan.

Underlying Compromise of the U.S. Marshal

One of the cruelest hoaxes ever has been perpetrated against what are
generally capable, loyal Americans now employed in capacities that used
to exercise legitimate law enforcement authority of United States
government, United States marshals and their deputies. The position of
United States marshal was created in 1789; the U.S. Marshal and his
deputies had the same powers in the several States as the State or
county sheriff, as applicable, when and if there was legitimate United
States jurisdiction. However, the United States Marshal, as an
independent office, was abolished, with the successor merged into the
Department of Justice under direction of the Attorney General, by Public
Law 89-554, § 4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 619. This 1966 act was
amended by Pub.L. 95-530, § 2, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 2028, which
related to appointment, term, and residence of United States Marshals,
the 1978 act repealed by Pub.L. 100-690, Title VII, § 7608(a)(1), Nov.
18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4512. Pub. L. 100-690 governs most activity of what
is now the United States Marshals Service in the Department of Justice.

The United States Marshals Service, except within the narrow range of
authority vested in the Department of Justice and/or the Attorney
General, no longer has authority under laws of the United States as they
might apply to the Union of several States in the framework of Congress’
general legislative authority delegated primarily in Article I § 8 of
the Constitution. Sections of the United States Code which reflect
authority of the U.S. Marshals Service are at 28 U.S.C. §§ 561-569.

Space will be dedicated to analysis of these sections, as applicable in
the framework of this effort, because the office of United States
Marshal was the original civil enforcement authority of the United
States, where today the United States Marshals Service has considerably
different character and jurisdiction.

Basic authority, and chain of command, for the United States Marshals
Service is at 28 U.S.C. § 561, reproduced in relative part below:

§ 561. United States Marshals Service

(a) There is hereby established a United States Marshals Service as a
bureau within the Department of Justice under the authority and
direction of the Attorney General. There shall be at the head of the
United States Marshals Service (hereafter in this chapter referred to as
the “Service”) a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(b) The Director of the United States Marshals Service (hereafter in
this chapter referred to as the “Director”) shall, in addition to the
powers and duties set forth in this chapter, exercise such other
functions as may be delegated by the Attorney General.

(c) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, a United States marshal for each judicial district of the
United States and for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
except that any marshal appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands may
at the same time serve as marshal of another judicial district. Each
United States marshal shall be an official of the Service and shall
serve under the direction of the Director.

[(d) & (f) not reproduced]

(g) The director shall supervise and direct the United States Marshals
Service in the performance of its duties.

[(h) & (i) not reproduced]

The old authority of the United States marshal appears to be conveyed to
the United States marshals at 28 U.S.C. § 564, but this is an illusion
that is dispelled by examination of underlying authorities:

§ 564. Powers as sheriff

United States marshals, deputy marshals and such other officials of the
Service as may be designated by the Director, in executing the laws of
the United States within a State, may exercise the same powers which a
sheriff of the State may exercise in executing the laws thereof.

The term “State” in § 564 is all-important as the reference is to
insular possessions of the United States, not to the Union of several
States. This conclusion will be demonstrated in due course.
The first check on authority is to consult the Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules, which begins on page 721 of the Index volume of
the Code of Federal Regulations, 1996 edition. If there were
implementing regulations for 28 U.S.C. §§ 561-569, they would be on page
768. However, these sections of the United States Code are not listed,
so there are no applicable delegations of authority or implementing
regulations for any of the sections. However, there are regulations
applicable under two of the three Public Laws listed above, the first
being Pub. L. 89-544 (1966): On page 818 of the 1996 CFR Index volume,
it is found that sections of the 1966 law not repealed by subsequent
acts are under the implementing regulation at 32 CFR § 716.
By referencing the List of CFR Titles, Chapters, Subchapters, and Parts,
beginning on page 831 of the 1996 Index, it is found that Title 32 of
the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to National Defense, and § 716
is in Chapter VI -- Department of the Navy (Parts 700-799); § 716 is in
Subchapter C -- Personnel, and § 716 specifies a “Death gratuity.”

Here we can demonstrate how the Code is convoluted as authority of the
Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is also under
Pub. L. 89-544, found at 28 U.S.C. § 535, part of which is reproduced
elsewhere in this discourse. It is reproduced in its entirety below:

§ 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers and
employees; limitations.

(a) The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may
investigate any violation of title 18 involving Government officers and
employees --

(1) notwithstanding any other provision of law; and
(2) without limiting the authority to investigate any matter which is
conferred on them or on a department or agency of the Government.

(b) Any information, allegation, or complaint received in a department
or agency of the executive branch of the Government relating to
violations of title 18 involving Government officers and employees shall
be expeditiously reported to the Attorney General by the head of the
department or agency, unless

(1) the responsibility to perform an investigation with respect thereto
is specifically assigned otherwise by another provision of law; or

(2) as to any department or agency of the Government, the Attorney
General directs otherwise with respect to a specified class of
information, allegation, or complaint.

(c) This section does not limit --

(1) the authority of the military departments to investigate persons or
offenses over which the armed forces have jurisdiction under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10); or

(2) the primary authority of the Postmaster General to investigate
postal offenses.

Obviously, Pub. L. 89-554 has intragovernmental application, it does not
apply to the Union of several States and the population at large. This
is verified by consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules,
at page 767 of the 1996 CFR Index volume: 28 U.S.C. § 535 is not listed.

Therefore, the only general application for Pub.L. 89-554, whether at 28
U.S.C. §§ 535, 561, or any other section of the United States Code, is
limited to 32 CFR § 716. The exception is that heads of departments of
United States government may promulgate intradepartmental regulations as
pertains to their respective departments under authority of 5 U.S.C. §
301.

Using this authority verification, we will consider authority of the
United States Marshals Service for 28 U.S.C. §§ 561-569 under the 1988
act, Pub.L. 100-690, found in the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules in the 1996 CFR Index volume at page 822. In order to simplify
matters, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules-cited regulations
are listed to the left, then the regulation is described from the List
of CFR Titles, Chapters, Subchapters, and Parts to the right.

The authority to the right will be in that order: CFR title; subtitle, where
applicable; chapter; subchapter, where applicable; and part.

7 CFR § 3017 Agriculture; Chapter XXX-- Office of Finance and
Management, Department of Agriculture (Parts 3000 -- 3099);
Governmentwide Department and suspension (non-procurement) and
governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

10 CFR § 1036 Energy; Chapter X -- Department of Energy (General
Provisions) (Parts 1000-1099); Governmentwide debarment and suspension
(nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace
(grants).

12 CFR § 516 Banks and Banking; Chapter V -- Office of Thrift
Supervision, Department of the Treasury (Parts 500-599); Application
processing guidelines and procedures.

13 CFR § 145 Business Credit and Assistance; Chapter I -- Small Business
Administration (Parts 1-199); Government debarment and suspension
(nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace
(grants).

14 CFR § 1265 Aeronautics and Space; Chapter V -- National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (Parts 1200-1299); Government wide debarment
and suspension (nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for
drug-free workplace (grants).

21 CFR § 1316 Food and Drugs; Chapter II -- Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice (Parts 1300-1399); Administrative
functions, practices, and procedures.

22 CFR § 51 Foreign Relations; Chapter I -- Department of State (Parts
1-199); Subchapter F -- Nationality and Passports; Passports.

22 CFR § 137 Foreign Relations; Chapter I -- Department of State (Parts
1-199); Subchapter N -- Miscellaneous; Governmentwide debarment and
suspension (nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for
drug-free workplace (grants).

22 CFR § 310 Foreign Relations; Chapter III -- Peace Corps (300-399);
Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement) and
governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

22 CFR § 1006 Foreign Relations; Chapter X -- Inter-American Foundation
(Parts 1000-1099); Governmentwide debarment and suspension
(nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace
(grants).

28 CFR § 32 Judicial Administration; Chapter I -- Department of Justice
(Parts 0-199); Public Safety Officers’ death and disability benefits.

28 CFR § 67 Judicial Administration; Chapter I -- Department of Justice
(Parts 0-199); Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement)
and governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

29 CFR § 98 Labor; Subtitle A -- Office of the Secretary of Labor (Parts
0-99); Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement) and
governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

29 CFR § 1471 Labor; Subtitle B -- Regulations Relating to Labor;
Chapter XII -- Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (Parts
1400-1499); Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement) and
governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

31 CFR § 19 Money and Finance: Treasury; Subtitle A -- Office of the
Secretary of the Treasury (Parts 0-50); Governmentwide debarment and
suspension (nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for
drug-free workplace (grants).

33 CFR § 1 Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter 1 -- Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation (Parts 1-199); General provisions.
36 CFR § 1209 Parks, Forests, and Public Property; Chapter XII --
National Archives and Records Administration (Parts 1200-1299);
Subchapter A -- General Rules; Governmentwide debarment and suspension
(nonprocurement) and governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace
(grants).

44 CFR § 17 Emergency Management and Assistance; Chapter I -- Federal
Emergency Management Agency (Parts 0-399); Subchapter A -- General;
Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement) and
governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

Primary concern of the U.S. Marshals Service is governmentwide debarment
and suspension, and government-wide requirements for a drug-free
workplace, as applicable. There is very little more of significance that
can be applicable to the Union of several States party to the
Constitution, and the general population. However, the U.S. Marshals
Service has essentially the same authority as a state civil enforcement
agency in the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United
States. This is generally the case for Federal civil enforcement
agencies, including the FBI, DEA, IRS, BATF, U.S. Customs Service, and
in peacetime, the Coast Guard.

The question as to why the office of the U.S. Marshal was convoluted is
reasonably easy to demonstrate, as the U.S. Marshals Service deals in
“public money”, per 28 U.S.C. § 567:

§ 567. Collection of fees; accounting
(a) Each United States marshal shall collect, as far as possible, his
lawful fees and account for the same as public moneys.

As used in § 567, the term “public money” is a word of art. It doesn’t
mean what it would appear to mean to the unschooled reader. Public money
is predicated on obligations of the United States, not lawful coin of
the United States. In other words, under provisions of § 567, the U.S.
Marshals Service is one of the key agencies through which private assets
outside lawful jurisdiction of the United States, as United States
government now operates, are converted as though they belonged to the
United States to begin with, which is hardly the case. The convoluted
money system is beyond the scope of the present effort, but those who
would like to pursue the matter further should read 31 CFR §§ 202-215 as
these regulations, the first of which apply to National Banking
Associations and other Federal Reserve-member financial institutions
qualifying as Federal Tax and Loan Depositaries, have an excellent
definitive statement concerning “public money” -- only officers and
employees of the United States and United States political subdivisions
are entitled to receive “public money”. Public money is exclusive of the
Federal Reserve Note -- the only law found to date which makes the
Federal Reserve Note a lawful “currency” is the Uniform Commercial Code,
“adopted” by legislatures of each of the several States by the time Pub.
L. 89-554 was promulgated in 1966. By the early 1970s, the Federal
Reserve Note was not acceptable for payment of taxes legitimately due
the United States.The 31 CFR regulations cited above also provide
reasonably complete listings of people subject to State and Federal
“income” taxes, a/k/a “normal” tax.

The Constitution has never been amended, it still prescribes gold and
silver coin as the lawful national currency. The key provisions are as
follows: [Art. I § 8.5] “[The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money,
regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin [and, at § 8.6] To
provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current
Coin of the United States..,” then at § 10.1, the door is closed by the
following: “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a
Tender in Payment of Debts...”

Therein is the crux of the matter: Congress may do as Congress pleases,
within the framework of international law, with respect to admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, territories and insular possessions of the United
States deemed as territory or otherwise subject to sovereignty of the
United States under Article IV § 3.2, and with rules and regulations
pertaining to government of the United States. (see 5 U.S.C. § 301
pertaining to regulations for government departments; authority for
presidential executive orders at 3 U.S.C. § 301; and the Federal
Register Act, at 44 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., for publishing requirements
and exemptions; 44 U.S.C. § 1510 as authority for the Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules, the CFR listing, etc.)

For a reality check, we’ll examine powers and duties of U.S. Marshals
who are now part of the U.S. Marshals Service rather than serving in
their respective independent offices:

§ 566. Powers and duties

(a) It is the primary rule and mission of the United States Marshals
Service to provide for the security and to obey, execute, and enforce
all orders of the United States District Courts, the United States
Courts of Appeals and the Court of International Trade...
Compare authority of the U.S. Marshals Service to authority for
appointing probation officers, at 18 U.S.C. § 3602:

3602. Appointment of probation officers

(a) Appointment. -- A district court of the United States shall appoint
qualified persons to serve, with or without compensation, as probation
officers within the jurisdiction and under the direction of the court
making the appointment. The court may, for cause, remove a probation
officer appointed to serve with compensation, and may, in its
discretion, remove a probation officer appointed to serve without
compensation.

The chief responsibility of the United States Marshals Service is to
attend orders of United States District Courts; the probation officer is
appointed by [the judge or judges of] a district court of the United
States. One does not have the same “venue” (territorial jurisdiction) as
the other save as might be applicable to elected and appointed officers
and employees of the United States. The United States Marshals Service,
as opposed to the independent office of the United States Marshal prior
to 1966, is basically territorial so far as jurisdiction is concerned.

Where what amount to regulations determining conduct and powers of the
U.S. Marshal are now promulgated by the Director of the United States
Marshals Service, regulations governing conduct of the probation officer
are promulgated by the Director of the Administrative office of the
United States Courts. Regulations governing conduct of both have
effectively been hidden, but the fact that the United States Marshals
Service carries out orders of United States District Courts rather than
district courts of the United States is a determining factor.

Thanks to another researcher and friend, Paul Mitchell, who recently
moved from Arizona to Texas, we have a revealing opinion by a United
States District Court judge in Eastern Metals Corporation v. Martin, 191
F. Supp. 245 (1960):

A United States District Court is an “inferior” court, i.e., inferior to
the United States Supreme Court. The District Court is a tribunal
created by Congress under the power given to Congress by Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 9, of the United States Constitution, which provides
that Congress shall have power “to constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court”. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S.
354, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed. 368 [1959]. The creation and composition of
the United States District Courts is presently set forth in Title 28
U.S.C. Sec. 132. A United States District Court has only such
jurisdiction as the Congress confers upon the court.
The general jurisdiction of United States District Courts is set forth
in Title 28 U.S.C. Chap. 85 (Secs. 1331 to 1360). Other statutes, not
pertinent, confer jurisdiction on the District Courts in certain types
of actions. On this motion we are concerned with Section 1332 of Title
28 U.S.C. -- the Diversity of Citizenship section, in particular
subdivision (a)(1) of that section, relating to actions between citizens
of different states.

To test the ruling, and establish the point at issue, we’ll examine §
1332 in relative part:

§ 1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between --
(1) citizens of different States;

[(a)(2) through (c) not reproduced]

(d) The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the
Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.

The good judge in Eastern Metals Corporation v. Martin disclosed that
the United States District Court is a legislative court, not an Article
III judicial court; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) confirms that this section of
Title 28 is applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia and
insular possessions subject to sovereignty of the United States by
virtue of the territorial clause. The United States District Court is
not only a legislative court, it must of necessity be a territorial
court. Therefore, while the ruling in Eastern Metals is accurate, it is
incomplete by omission. By supplying what is missing from the decision,
we are able to demonstrate that the United States Marshals Service now
functions primarily in the District of Columbia and insular possessions
of the United States. So far as the several States party to the
Constitution are concerned, the U.S. Marshals Service operates on the
Attorney General’s coattails, per 28 U.S.C. § 535, and has authority
relating only to officers and employees of United States government.

Per The United States Government Manual, 1996/97 edition, the Director
of the United States Marshals Service is or was Eduardo Gonzalez;
headquarters of the Service is at 600 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA
22202-4210, Phone (202) 307-9065. Intragovernmental regulations
governing conduct of the Service have not yet been secured, but are
presumed to be those listed above. Anyone wishing to independently
secure rules and regulations promulgated by the Director should contact
Mr. Gonzalez or his successor.


Dan Meador




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]