Now he’s dead and not even two months later, the Supreme Court has approved new rules that would allow the FBI to not only hack any computer in the U.S., but around the globe. Legally.

This is not done by the U.S. Supreme Court but by the Judicial Conference of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 331. Scalia, J. would have had nothing to do with it had he been alive.

Roberts, CJ letter of April 28, 2016:

Accompanying these rules are the following materials submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code: a transmittal letter to the Court dated October 9, 2015; a redline version of the rules with Committee Notes; an excerpt from the September 2015 Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States; and an excerpt from the May 6, 2015 Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules.

28 U.S.C. § 331

Judicial Conference of the United States - 28 U.S.C. § 331 (2013)

§331. Judicial Conference of the United States

The Chief Justice of the United States shall summon annually the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each judicial circuit to a conference at such time and place in the United States as he may designate. He shall preside at such conference which shall be known as the Judicial Conference of the United States. Special sessions of the Conference may be called by the Chief Justice at such times and places as he may designate.

The district judge to be summoned from each judicial circuit shall be chosen by the circuit and district judges of the circuit and shall serve as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States for a term of not less than 3 successive years nor more than 5 successive years, as established by majority vote of all circuit and district judges of the circuit. A district judge serving as a member of the Judicial Conference may be either a judge in regular active service or a judge retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of this title.

If the chief judge of any circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, or the district judge chosen by the judges of the circuit is unable to attend, the Chief Justice may summon any other circuit or district judge from such circuit or any other judge of the Court of International Trade, as the case may be. Every judge summoned shall attend and, unless excused by the Chief Justice, shall remain throughout the sessions of the conference and advise as to the needs of his circuit or court and as to any matters in respect of which the administration of justice in the courts of the United States may be improved.

The Conference shall make a comprehensive survey of the condition of business in the courts of the United States and prepare plans for assignment of judges to or from circuits or districts where necessary. It shall also submit suggestions and recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business. The Conference is authorized to exercise the authority provided in chapter 16 of this title as the Conference, or through a standing committee. If the Conference elects to establish a standing committee, it shall be appointed by the Chief Justice and all petitions for review shall be reviewed by that committee. The Conference or the standing committee may hold hearings, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and make necessary and appropriate orders in the exercise of its authority. Subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued by the clerk of the Supreme Court or by the clerk of any court of appeals, at the direction of the Chief Justice or his designee and under the seal of the court, and shall be served in the manner provided in rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or any agency thereof. The Conference may also prescribe and modify rules for the exercise of the authority provided in chapter 16 of this title. All judicial officers and employees of the United States shall promptly carry into effect all orders of the Judicial Conference or the standing committee established pursuant to this section.

The Conference shall also carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure now or hereafter in use as prescribed by the Supreme Court for the other courts of the United States pursuant to law. Such changes in and additions to those rules as the Conference may deem desirable to promote simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, the just determination of litigation, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay shall be recommended by the Conference from time to time to the Supreme Court for its consideration and adoption, modification or rejection, in accordance with law.

The Judicial Conference shall review rules prescribed under section 2071 of this title by the courts, other than the Supreme Court and the district courts, for consistency with Federal law. The Judicial Conference may modify or abrogate any such rule so reviewed found inconsistent in the course of such a review.

The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, report to such Conference on matters relating to the business of the several courts of the United States, with particular reference to cases to which the United States is a party.

The Chief Justice shall submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation.

The Judicial Conference shall consult with the Director of 1 United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the United States Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken into account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities for programs regarding judicial security, and allocating judicial security resources. In this paragraph, the term "judicial security" includes the security of buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. The United States Marshals Service retains final authority regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal Government.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 902; July 9, 1956, ch. 517, §1(d), 70 Stat. 497; Pub. L. 85–202, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 476; Pub. L. 85–513, July 11, 1958, 72 Stat. 356; Pub. L. 87–253, §§1, 2, Sept. 19, 1961, 75 Stat. 521; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §208, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2660; Pub. L. 96–458, §4, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2040; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §111, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 29; Pub. L. 99–466, §1, Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1190; Pub. L. 100–702, title IV, §402(b), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4650; Pub. L. 104–317, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3857; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11043(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1855; Pub. L. 110–177, title I, §101(b), Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2534.)

How can it do it globally? Countries would be pissed, no?

First of all, a US Magistrate Judge has no plenary power in final decision making. The only duties they actually have is to that of reports and recommendations in pre-trial proceedings. It is the U.S. District Judge who has plenary power decision making in de novo judgments.

Also, see here concerning The Judicial Conference of the United States unders section "Duty Station" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge

Also, you have a right to remain silent and to invoke the fruit of poisoned tree doctrine.

I'd be curious to know what Article (Article I, III or IV) this Judicial Conference actually falls under and who created it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States

Could not the case of Expo Facto law be addressed as question of original intent or brought into Federal Judicial Review?

“A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”

The rule change says nothing of worldwide hacking. It refers to warrant application outside the judicial district. The last underlined portion indicates that refers to judicial districts outside the district of the court.

You are, of course, referring to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636

Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge

I'd be curious to know what Article (Article I, III or IV) this Judicial Conference actually falls under and who created it.

It was created by Congress and falls under the Judicial Branch, Article III.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-28/part-i/chapter-15/section-331/

2013 US Code
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Part I - ORGANIZATION OF COURTS (§§ 1 - 482)
Chapter 15 - CONFERENCES AND COUNCILS OF JUDGES (§§ 331 - 335)

Section 331 - Judicial Conference of the United States

Judicial Conference of the United States - 28 U.S.C. § 331 (2013)

§331. Judicial Conference of the United States

The Chief Justice of the United States shall summon annually the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each judicial circuit to a conference at such time and place in the United States as he may designate. He shall preside at such conference which shall be known as the Judicial Conference of the United States. Special sessions of the Conference may be called by the Chief Justice at such times and places as he may designate.

The district judge to be summoned from each judicial circuit shall be chosen by the circuit and district judges of the circuit and shall serve as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States for a term of not less than 3 successive years nor more than 5 successive years, as established by majority vote of all circuit and district judges of the circuit. A district judge serving as a member of the Judicial Conference may be either a judge in regular active service or a judge retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of this title.

If the chief judge of any circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, or the district judge chosen by the judges of the circuit is unable to attend, the Chief Justice may summon any other circuit or district judge from such circuit or any other judge of the Court of International Trade, as the case may be. Every judge summoned shall attend and, unless excused by the Chief Justice, shall remain throughout the sessions of the conference and advise as to the needs of his circuit or court and as to any matters in respect of which the administration of justice in the courts of the United States may be improved.

The Conference shall make a comprehensive survey of the condition of business in the courts of the United States and prepare plans for assignment of judges to or from circuits or districts where necessary. It shall also submit suggestions and recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business. The Conference is authorized to exercise the authority provided in chapter 16 of this title as the Conference, or through a standing committee. If the Conference elects to establish a standing committee, it shall be appointed by the Chief Justice and all petitions for review shall be reviewed by that committee. The Conference or the standing committee may hold hearings, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and make necessary and appropriate orders in the exercise of its authority. Subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued by the clerk of the Supreme Court or by the clerk of any court of appeals, at the direction of the Chief Justice or his designee and under the seal of the court, and shall be served in the manner provided in rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or any agency thereof. The Conference may also prescribe and modify rules for the exercise of the authority provided in chapter 16 of this title. All judicial officers and employees of the United States shall promptly carry into effect all orders of the Judicial Conference or the standing committee established pursuant to this section.

The Conference shall also carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure now or hereafter in use as prescribed by the Supreme Court for the other courts of the United States pursuant to law. Such changes in and additions to those rules as the Conference may deem desirable to promote simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, the just determination of litigation, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay shall be recommended by the Conference from time to time to the Supreme Court for its consideration and adoption, modification or rejection, in accordance with law.

The Judicial Conference shall review rules prescribed under section 2071 of this title by the courts, other than the Supreme Court and the district courts, for consistency with Federal law. The Judicial Conference may modify or abrogate any such rule so reviewed found inconsistent in the course of such a review.

The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, report to such Conference on matters relating to the business of the several courts of the United States, with particular reference to cases to which the United States is a party.

The Chief Justice shall submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation.

The Judicial Conference shall consult with the Director of United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the United States Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken into account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities for programs regarding judicial security, and allocating judicial security resources. In this paragraph, the term "judicial security" includes the security of buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. The United States Marshals Service retains final authority regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of the Federal Government.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 902; July 9, 1956, ch. 517, §1(d), 70 Stat. 497; Pub. L. 85–202, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 476; Pub. L. 85–513, July 11, 1958, 72 Stat. 356; Pub. L. 87–253, §§1, 2, Sept. 19, 1961, 75 Stat. 521; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §208, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2660; Pub. L. 96–458, §4, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2040; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §111, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 29; Pub. L. 99–466, §1, Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1190; Pub. L. 100–702, title IV, §402(b), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4650; Pub. L. 104–317, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3857; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11043(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1855; Pub. L. 110–177, title I, §101(b), Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2534.)

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-28/part-v/chapter-131/section-2071/

2013 US Code
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Part V - PROCEDURE (§§ 1651 - 2113)
Chapter 131 - RULES OF COURTS (§§ 2071 - 2077)
Section 2071 - Rule-making power generally

Rule-making power generally - 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (2013)

§2071. Rule-making power generally

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.

(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.

(c)(1) A rule of a district court prescribed under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the judicial council of the relevant circuit.

(2) Any other rule prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the Judicial Conference.

(d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public.

(e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment.

(f) No rule may be prescribed by a district court other than under this section.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 961; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §102, 63 Stat. 104; Pub. L. 100–702, title IV, §403(a)(1), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4650.)

You are, of course, referring to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636

No, I made no reference to that at all. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of the draft materials submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code.

Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge

I don't know what point you are trying to make.

The sole topic of the article is a revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and discussion has largely focused on revision of Rule 41(b), which pertains to search and seizure, authority to issue a warrant, and what the warrant may cover.

Rule 41, in relevant part, previously read:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

Rule 41. Search and Seizure

(a) Scope and Definitions.

(1) Scope. This rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seizure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances.

[...]

(b) Authority to Issue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:

(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district—or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district—has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;

(2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed;

(3) a magistrate judge—in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism—with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district;

(4) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a tracking device; the warrant may authorize use of the device to track the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or both; and

(5) a magistrate judge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the jurisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the following:

(A) a United States territory, possession, or commonwealth;

(B) the premises—no matter who owns them—of a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission's purposes; or

(C) a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the United States and used by United States personnel assigned to a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state.

I am amazed at how much more we know about a two bit singer than we know about the assassination, probably by the fbi, of Supreme Court justice A. Scalia.

First of all, a US Magistrate Judge has no plenary power in final decision making. The only duties they actually have is to that of reports and recommendations in pre-trial proceedings. It is the U.S. District Judge who has plenary power decision making in de novo judgments.

Also, see here concerning The Judicial Conference of the United States unders section "Duty Station" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge

Also, you have a right to remain silent and to invoke the fruit of poisoned tree doctrine.

I'd be curious to know what Article (Article I, III or IV) this Judicial Conference actually falls under and who created it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States

Could not the case of Expo Facto law be addressed as question of original intent or brought into Federal Judicial Review?

---

All good points, but right now I think it is more important to first know how to either protect or infect any computer hacking into ours.

Then we can fight the legal fight.

So my call to techies, is How do we protect ours and/or infect those hacking into ours?

The point I was making about about this "Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal" and this

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge"

is that the Magistrate Judge can be legally and lawfully challenged because they really do not have those plenary powers to decide your case. Jurisdiction is key in both the subject matter but mostly over you and it all simplifies down to what Article this Magistrate is conducting themselves under which most courts would agree that you can challenge.

I agree.

the Magistrate Judge can be legally and lawfully challenged

The opinion of every court short of the U.S. Supreme Court may be challenged. It is called an appeal. I still do not understand your point. The point on thread applies only to the granting of a search warrant. A warrant can be challenged. What has this to do with the revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?

No, it is more than just the appeal process that may be applied. There is a big difference between Article I, III, and IV court proceedings. And these U.S. Magistrate Judges know this because they wear many hats when entertaining cases. That is the point I was trying to address. Even Congress knows that Magistrate Judges are limited with regards to their duties and functions. But it really bottles down to what Article of the Court you are be being summoned into.

First, since the Judiciary Act of 1789,19 it has been evident that not all of the categories of judicial power enumerated in Article III, section 2 must be decided by Article III judges. (pg. 6 of 69) "Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship

1-1-1985 The Mythic Meaning of Article III Courts"

No, it is more than just the appeal process that may be applied. There is a big difference between Article I, III, and IV court proceedings.

The article is about a change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Those rules apply only to Article III courts within the Judicial branch.

Judicial courts are Article III courts. Magistrate judges are not Article III judges as they do not have a lifetime appointment.

Article I courts are uniquely creatures of the Executive Branch, for example courts-martial. The rules for Executive Branch proceedings are not made by the Judicial Branch. For courts-martial, see Manual for Courts-Martial. The Manual is issued by the President under an Executive Order. There are no magistrate judges in an Article I court.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12473.html

Executive Order 12473--Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12473 of Apr. 13, 1984, appear at 49 FR 17152, 3 CFR, 1984 Comp., p. 201, unless otherwise noted.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United States and by Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), I hereby prescribe the following Manual for Courts-Martial to be designated as "Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/13/executive-order-2014-amendments-manual-courts-martial-united-states

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 13, 2014

Executive Order -- 2014 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States

2014 AMENDMENTS TO THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 801-946), and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 1984, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

[...]

Military Tribunals are also creatures of the Executive Branch under Article I. They make up their own rules before the proceeding is held.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title28/pdf/USCODE-2011-title28-partV-chap131-sec2071.pdf

CHAPTER 131—RULES OF COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 2071

§ 2071. Rule-making power generally

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.

Congress established the Article III courts, but not the Article I courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Criminal_Procedure

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the procedural rules that govern how federal criminal prosecutions are conducted in United States district courts and the general trial courts of the U.S. government. As such, they are the companion to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

There is no such thing as Article IV court. The article does authorize the creation of any court.

Article IV

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Judicial courts are Article III courts. Magistrate judges are not Article III judges as they do not have a lifetime appointment.

Not all Judicial Courts are Article III. Mag Judges may not have a lifetime appointment but it sure appears they have been conducting court business under Article III.

And since you reference this "Executive Order -- 2014 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States ", it appears that when a private citizen is being summoned under this Executive Order that actually it is a military court venue.

And since you reference this "Executive Order -- 2014 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States ", it appears that when a private citizen is being summoned under this Executive Order that actually it is a military court venue.

Private citizens are not subject to courts-martial.

Then why did you reference that Executive Order that only applies to people serving in military?

Not all Judicial Courts are Article III.

What do you have in mind?

Article 1, Section 3:

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.

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_magistrate.html

Federal judicial Center

Magistrate Judgeships

Magistrate judges serve as judicial officers of the U.S. district courts and exercise the jurisdiction delegated to them by law and assigned by the district judges. Magistrate judges may be authorized to preside in almost every type of federal trial proceeding except for felony cases.

Magistrate judges serve in the U.S. District Courts which are, most definitely, Article III courts. Their jurisdiction is delegated by the District Judges.

Mag Judges may not have a lifetime appointment but it sure appears they have been conducting court business under Article III.

Of course they conduct court business in Article III courts, the Federal District Courts.

Then why did you reference that Executive Order that only applies to people serving in military?

Because you reference Article I courts which are not governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the subject of the article.

There is a big difference between Article I, III, and IV court proceedings.

The primary difference is that Article I courts have no relevance to the thread topic.

The rules for Article I courts are not issued by the Judicial Branch.

No, you referenced an Executive Order. And there is a huge difference between Article, I, III, and IV courts and when somebody is tried under one of those Articles the criminal rules of procedure should apply. In other words, the person being tried for the crime, the charge should apply to the crime and the court (which Article) should have lawful jurisdiction over the person and subject matter.

Perhaps, this will explain where I am getting at: www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-18-01 /mbs.cgi.680.html

Judges are actually bound to Article IV which conflicts with Article III. Furthermore, Article IV is a Commercial court. Whereas Article III are Constitutional Courts under a Republic. What actually has been happening is that court business has been conducted under Article I (such as filing of Complaints against Judges) which then go to the Judge Division Admin Office of U.S. Courts in Washington D.C. which is an Article IV branch.