We know that government uses subtle and deceptive terms to conceal the distinctions between what appear to be two “forms” of government. For example,
“District Courts of the United States” are the Article III, judicial courts where virtually all federal litigants assume their cases are heard. However, virtually all “federal” cases are heard in “United States District Courts” which are administrative (rather than judicial) and operate under the 1st (legislative) or 4th (territorial) Articles of the Constitution – but not under the 3rd (judicial) Article. Note the subtle difference in terms: Not one man in 100 would dream that those two terms identified different courts, with different jurisdictions and different duties to recognize (or ignore) a litigant’s unalienable Rights. A similar distinction exists between the “Supreme Court of the United States” and “United States Supreme Court”. The two terms are not synonymous. Each term identifies an entirely different court.
=================
"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 (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'.
"Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."
The highest form of complaint-even higher than a grand jury indictment-is a sworn affidavit placed into the public record by one of the sovereign People. Actions commence in the county court (common law) by affidavit of the sovereign. There is no need for a grand jury to be convened and no cause for the police to go out and investigate-all that's required is for a sovereign to write an affidavit and declare "This crime occurred to me" and put it into the county recorder's office.
We know that government uses subtle and deceptive terms to conceal the distinctions between what appear to be two “forms” of government. For example, “District Courts of the United States” are the Article III, judicial courts where virtually all federal litigants assume their cases are heard. However, virtually all “federal” cases are heard in “United States District Courts” which are administrative (rather than judicial) and operate under the 1st (legislative) or 4th (territorial) Articles of the Constitution – but not under the 3rd (judicial) Article. Note the subtle difference in terms: Not one man in 100 would dream that those two terms identified different courts, with different jurisdictions and different duties to recognize (or ignore) a litigant’s unalienable Rights. A similar distinction exists between the “Supreme Court of the United States” and “United States Supreme Court”. The two terms are not synonymous. Each term identifies an entirely different court.
=================
"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 (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'. "Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
The highest form of complaint-even higher than a grand jury indictment-is a sworn affidavit placed into the public record by one of the sovereign People. Actions commence in the county court (common law) by affidavit of the sovereign. There is no need for a grand jury to be convened and no cause for the police to go out and investigate-all that's required is for a sovereign to write an affidavit and declare "This crime occurred to me" and put it into the county recorder's office.