"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by the law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
Under Article VI, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.
Whenever any judge or government attorney violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, then that judge or government attorney is acting without lawful authority, has defrauded not only the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved, but has also defrauded the government.
The judge or the government attorney is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, the judge or the government attorney is collecting monies for work not performed. It is not a judicial function to attack the U.S. Constitution.
It is not a judicial function to issue a void order, an order issued without jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a judge who acts without jurisdiction, is engaged in treason.
It is not a judicial function to engage in a crime, especially a crime against the U.S. Government.
A judge may not engage in any act in violating a person's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. When such an act occurs, the judge is deprived of total jurisdiction and his actions are not that of a judge, but are those taken in his personal capacity.
The law clearly and unequivocally states that all Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The law clearly and unequivocally further states that no presumption of jurisdiction attaches automatically to any court of limited jurisdiction, but that the determination of jurisdiction of a court of limited jurisdiction must be affirmatively found within the record of the case that is before the court.
In a Federal court hearing an appeal, it is the duty of the judges to be certain of their jurisdiction. They have a legal duty to inspect the record of the District trial court, sua sponte, to determine whether the District trial court held jurisdiction at all times, if a Constitutional Right was violated, and/or if any officer of the court, whether judge or attorney, engaged in a "fraud upon the court".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a judge violates the U.S. Constitution whenever the judge issues an order without jurisdiction. The judge has committed a fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution.
"It is clear and well established law that a judge must first determine whether the judge has both subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction before hearing and ruling in any case, and further must continue to monitor the case to be certain that jurisdiction was not lost, due to any violation of a Constitutional Right, fraud upon the court, appearance of partiality of any judge, or any act which deprives the court of jurisdiction, by any officer of the court, whether attorney or judge, during the proceedings. "
