Whether the lower courts have correctly interpreted Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 5 - DISTRICT COURTS in light of the Supreme Court's rulings in Balzac v. Porto Rico and Mookini v. United States

QUESTION PRESENTED United States Supreme Court in two cases: Balzac vy. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) made it clear that a “ district court of the United States” described a court created under Article III and a “United States district court” described a territorial court. The issue presented is: Should this court end the conflict in lower courts by applying Balzac, Id. and Mookini, Id. rules nationwide that the enacted law at Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C Chapter 5— DISTRICT COURTS, where in the rest of Chapter 5, Congress explains that only one district court in all of the 50 states, _ Hawaii, has been established as an Article III judicial court and explains why that court cannot function as a court exercising judicial power as an operation of law which is the pre-cursor to the secondary questions thus disapproving lower courts’ interpretation of Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C Chapter 5— DISTRICT COURTS as adopted in Balzac, Id. and Mookini, Id.? -2\