Application for Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit

Questions Presented

(1) Is the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., unconstitutional for exhibiting vagueness, for violating the ex post facto prohibition at Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, for violating the Separation of Powers at Article I, Section 1, and for violating the well established principle that federal statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed?

(2) Does the ex post facto Clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibit Congress from enacting or otherwise authorizing legislation which retroactively re‑defines the term “district courts” in federal statutes that pre‑date the Act of June 25, 1948, without expressly amending, or repealing and re‑enacting, those statutes?

(3) Are there two (2) separate and distinct classes of federal district courts currently established and currently available to federal litigants within the 50 States: one constitutional and the other legislative?

(4) Strictly construed, does the Rules Enabling Act at 28 U.S.C. 2072(a) limit this Court’s authority to promulgate rules of evidence and procedure only for United States District Courts, and not for the District Courts of the United States?

(5) Is the Abrogation Clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) in the Rules Enabling Act unconstitutional for violating the Separation of Powers Doctrine as founded upon Article I, Section 1?

(6) Likewise, are the Local Rules for the federal district courts in Sacramento, California, expressly limited in scope to cases that proceed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (“USDC”)?

(7) Specifically, is a Local Rule “coercive” when it refers all Pro Per cases ‑‑ automatically and without the consent of all parties ‑‑ to U.S. magistrates appointed to that USDC and, as such, does that Local Rule also violate the Federal Magistrates Act, recent decisions of this Court, pertinent decisions of the Ninth Circuit, and Article III in the U.S. Constitution?

(8) Strictly construed, did the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440 confer original jurisdiction on the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) but not on the United States District Courts (“USDC”) inside California State, and has that grant of original jurisdiction ever been amended by Congress?

(9) Did Congress expressly extend the U.S. Constitution into D.C. in 1871 A.D. and into all federal Territories in 1873 A.D.?

(10) Are UNPUBLISHED Circuit Court opinions unconstitutional?

List of Parties

Plaintiff:

Paul Andrew Mitchell

Defendants:

AOL Time Warner, Inc.,

Steve Case,

Lennert Leader,

Randall J. Boe,

Adit Seth,

George R. Boyce,

James R. Bramson,

Daniel Levy,

Jonathan Steuer,

Brian Oblivion,

Donald D. Hoffman,

Karl Kleinpaste,

California Institute of Technology,

Carnegie-Mellon University,

Cornell University,

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,

Florida Institute of Technology,

Indiana University,

Miami University of Ohio,

Northeastern University,

Pennsylvania State University,

Princeton University,

Stanford University,

Stetson University,

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,

University of Arkansas,

University of California,

University of Georgia,

University of Kansas,

University of Michigan,

University of Oregon,

University of Texas,

Barrett Owens,

A2Z Computers & Software,

James H. Daugherty,

James Daugherty-AA Research,

Internet Domain ALGONET.SE,

Mark Creamer,

Internet Domain BAYON.NET,

Christopher Kankel,

C I Host,

Desert Video Production,

Cyborganic Media,

Alias “Dimitri”,

Carrie Malcolm,

Internet Domain DEOXY.ORG,

David W. Starr,

ALH,

Mitchell A. Goodkin,

Image’FX Productions, Inc.,

EZ2 Network, Inc.,

Cybergate, Inc.,

Josh Bempechat,

Earthlink Network, Inc.,

Hacked Archives,

Internet Domain INCORPTEK.COM,

Telecode,

InfoMagic, Inc.,

Joe Szemiot,

Intac Access Corporation,

Internet Online Services,

Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center,

Leander Pearson,

Burntfork Rural Systems,

X Mission,

L0pht Heavy Industries,

Levity,

Club Madness,

Maui Global Communications,

David Feustel,

Midwest Internet Exchange, Inc., [sic]

Jeff Head,

Internet Domain NEBONET.COM,

Kearney, Castillo & Blake,

Phreak Network Solutions,

J. Wyatt,

Primenet,

Mike McArthur,

Provide Net,

Simple Network Communications, Inc.,

Snow Hill Enterprises, Inc.,

Dave Alexander,

John L. Dortch,

Telalink Corporation,

Thomson Financial Services,

Transworld Mail Express,

Jahred Held,

Westworld Communications,

Luke Stevens,

Msen, Inc.,

COWZ Technologies,

The Works BBS,

AOL Prime Host,

Justsystem Corporation,

Paul Southworth,

The ETEXT Archives,

Ram Samudrala,

Twisted Helices,

Ruffin Prevost,

Parascope, Inc.,

Avalon Tech,

Dan Turkette,

Todd R. Eigenschink,

TEK Interactive Group, Inc.,

Mail.com, Inc.,

Sector 13,

Thirteen Technologies, LLC,

Jason Scott,

Frank Ch. Eigler,

Elastic BBS,

Sean Strasburg,

Michael McFarland,

David Thorburn-Gundlach,

Bob Isaacson,

Tore Nestenius,

C. J. Sollien,

Chris Hansen,

Floyd W. Shackelford,

Network Solutions, Inc.,

The Thomson Corporation,

Cosmic Awareness Communications,

Sprawlnet.com, Inc.,

Four Peaks Technology Groups,

Tzolkin Corporation,

ParabolaX Research Group,

William Harrity,

THF Pictures,

Synchron Data,

Lyle Myhr, and

Doe’s 98 thru 2,500

Dedications

Petitioner dedicates this document to Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., eye surgeon practicing in Oakland, California, and Trustee of the charitable trust we call The EyeCare Fund ‑‑ Vision for Everyone. Part of the proceeds of this lawsuit will be used to provide routine and emergency eye care to patients who cannot afford health insurance.

Petitioner also dedicates this document to Professor Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, at the UCLA Law School in Los Angeles, California. As quoted below, Prof. Karst had the courage and foresight to question the wisdom of transferring wholesale American jurisprudence into the hands of federal legislative courts. Let Article III prevail. Amen.

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Authorities ......................................... vi

Opinions Below ............................................. xiii

Jurisdiction ................................................ xiv

Constitutional / Statutory Provisions Involved ............... xv

Statement of the Case ......................................... 1

Reasons for Granting the Writ ................................. 4

A Drama Unfolding ............................................. 5

Navigating this Petition and its Appendices ................... 9

Final Summation .............................................. 27

Conclusions .................................................. 28

Index to Appendices .......................................... 29

Proof of Service ............................................. 30

For Appendix numbers, please refer in sequence to entries in the Table of Contents at Internet URL:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm

This PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI is entry number 151 in that Table of Contents.

The Hyper‑Text Markup Language (“HTML”) version of this PETITION will contain additional underlines, due to the addition of numerous working hyperlinks.

The hard copy version was written and printed using registered copies of Microsoft WORD 2002 and Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition.

And, many thanks to SuperMicro for manufacturing such a reliable PC motherboard. Mine has crossed the continent and the Pacific Ocean twice, surviving bumpy pickup trucks and airline baggage handlers.

Table of Authorities

Cases: Page

U.S. Supreme Court

American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton,

26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) ...................... 23

American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister,

207 U.S. 284, hn. 2 & 6 (1907) ................................ 19

Ex parte Bakelite Corporation,

279 U.S. 438 (1929) ........................................... 23

Balzac v. Porto Rico,

258 U.S. 298 (1922) ....................................... 22, 24

Benner v. Porter,

50 U.S. 235, 242‑243 (1850) ................................... 23

Carmell v. Texas,

529 U.S. 513, 531 (2000) ....................................... 6

The City of Panama,

101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879) ...................................... 23

Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States,

285 U.S. 382 (1932) ........................................... 23

Clinton v. Englebrecht,

80 U.S. 434, 447 (1871) ....................................... 23

Darr v. Burford,

339 U.S. 200 (1950) ........................................... 25

Evans v. Gore,

253 U.S. 245 (1920) ....................................... 16, 21

Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co.,

281 U.S. 464 (1930) ........................................... 23

Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner,

274 U.S. 145 (1927) ........................................... 23

Glidden Co. v. Zdanok,

370 U.S. 530 (1962) ........................................... 23

Good v. Martin,

95 U.S. 90, 98 (1877) ......................................... 23

Hornbuckle v. Toombs,

85 U.S. 648, 655 (1873) ....................................... 23

Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.,

261 U.S. 428 (1923) ........................................... 23

Mookini v. U.S.,

303 U.S. 201 (1938) ........................................... 22

Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.,

458 U.S. 50 (1982) ............................................ 23

O’Donoghue v. United States,

289 U.S. 516 (1933) ........................................... 23

Reynolds v. U.S.,

98 U.S. 145, 154 (1878) ....................................... 23

Roell et al. v. Withrow,

2003 DJDAR 4593 (April 29, 2003) .......................... 11, 16

Swift & Co. v. United States,

276 U.S. 311 (1928) ........................................... 23

U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles,

350 U.S. 11 (1955) ............................................ 12

Williams v. United States,

289 U.S. 553 (1933) ............................................ 8

U.S. Courts of Appeal

A&M Records et al. v. Napster, Inc.,

239 F.3d 1004 (9^th Cir. 2001) .................................. 22

Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp.,

85 F.3d 407 (9^th Cir. 1996) .................................... 22

Agnew v. Compton,

239 F.2d 226 (9^th Cir. 1956) ................................... 22

Alpha Industries, Inc. v. Alpha Steel,

616 F.2d 440 (9^th Cir. 1980) ................................... 22

Anastasoff v. USA,

223 F.3d 898 (8^th Cir. 2000) ................................ 4, 20

Brennan v. Silvergate,

503 F.2d 800 (9^th Cir. 1974) ................................... 22

Brookfield v. West Coast Entertainment,

174 F.3d 1036 (9^th Cir. 1999) .................................. 22

Crescent Wharf v. Pillsbury,

259 F.2d 850 (9^th Cir. 1958) ................................... 22

Drop Dead Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,

326 F.2d 87 (9^th Cir. 1963) .................................... 22

Gillespie v. Civiletti,

629 F.2d 637 (9^th Cir. 1980) ................................... 22

Griffith Co. v. NLRB,

545 F.2d 1194 (9^th Cir. 1976) .................................. 22

Hajek v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co.,

186 F.3d 1105, hn. 9 (9^th Cir. 1999) ........................... 11

Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.,

255 F.3d 1180 (9^th Cir. 2001) .................................. 22

Hoffman v. U.S.,

244 F.2d 378, 379 (9^th Cir. 1957) .............................. 25

In re Simon,

297 F. 942 (2^nd Cir. 1924) ..................................... 15

Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc.,

152 F.3d 1209 (9^th Cir. 1998) .................................. 22

Leas & McVitty v. Merriman,

132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904) .......................... 15

Levi Strauss v. Blue Bell, Inc.,

778 F.2d 1352 (9^th Cir. 1985) .................................. 22

Mai Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.,

991 F.2d 511, hn. 2 (9^th Cir. 1993) ............................ 20

Martinez v. Stanford et al.,

2003 DJDAR 3371 (9^th Cir. March 26, 2003) ...................... 11

Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co.,

19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884) .......................... 15

Midler v. Ford Motor Company,

849 F.2d 460 (9^th Cir. 1988) ................................... 22

Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd,

695 F.2d 1179 (9^th Cir. 1983) .................................. 22

Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd.,

19 F.3d 479 (9^th Cir. 1994) .................................... 22

Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.,

429 F.2d 1106 (9^th Cir. 1970) .................................. 22

Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon,

400 F.2d 598 (9^th Cir. 1968) ................................... 15

Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd.,

808 F.2d 1316 (9^th Cir. 1986) .................................. 22

Taylor v. U.S.,

45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891) .......................... 15

Traguth v. Zuck,

710 F.2d 90, 95 (2^nd Cir. 1983) ................................ 25

Tsang v. Kan,

173 F.2d 204 (9^th Cir. 1949) ................................... 22

U-Haul Int’l v. Jartran, Inc.,

793 F.2d 1034 (9^th Cir. 1986) .................................. 22

U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co.,

3 F.3d 1244 (9^th Cir. 1993) ................................ 17, 22

U.S. v. Saunders,

641 F.2d 659, hn. 2 (9^th Cir. 1980) ............................ 11

U.S. v. Woodley,

726 F.2d 1328 (9^th Cir. 1983) .................................. 22

Wells v. U.S.,

214 F.2d 380, 382, hn. 2-4 (5^th Cir. 1954) ..................... 27

Wendt v. Host International, Inc.,

125 F.3d 806 (9^th Cir. 1997) ................................... 22

U.S. District Courts

Advance Coating Technology, Inc. v. LEP Chemical, Ltd.,

142 FRD 91 (USDC/New York 1992) ............................... 14

Austin v. Cuyler,

499 F.Supp. 1116 (USDC/Pennsylvania 1980) ..................... 13

Intellectual Reserve Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.,

75 F.Supp.2d 1290 (USDC/Utah 1999) ............................ 20

Lord v. Kelley,

240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (USDC/Massachusetts 1965) ............ 16, 21

Marobie-FL, Inc. v. National Ass’n of Fire Equip. Distrib.,

983 F.Supp. 1167, 1179 (USDC/Illinois 1997) ................... 20

Mullins v. Hinkle,

953 F.Supp. 744 (USDC/West Virginia 1997) ..................... 14

Nalty v. Nalty Tree Farm,

654 F.Supp. 1315 (USDC/Alabama 1987) .......................... 14

Thompson v. Rose,

505 F.Supp. 183 (USDC/Tennessee 1981) ......................... 14

U.S. v. Hough,

157 F.Supp. 771, 774 (USDC/California 1957) ................... 25

U.S. v. King,

119 F.Supp. 398 (DC/Alaska 1954) ............................... 6

U.S. v. Marrone,

172 F.Supp. 368, 370, hn. 1-2 (D.C. Alaska 1959) .............. 27

U.S. v. Murphy,

82 F. 893 (DCUS/Delaware 1897) ................................ 15

U.S. v. Sharrock,

276 F. 30 (DCUS/Montana 1921) ................................. 15

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts

Miles v. Gussin,

104 B.R. 553 (District of Columbia 1989) ...................... 15

California Court of Appeals

Legerton v. Chambers,

163 P. 678, 32 Cal.App. 601 (1917) ........................ 12, 15

Constitutional Provisions:

Article I, Section 1 (“All legislative Powers ...”)........ i, 8

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, ex post facto Clause ... i, 6, 7

Article II ..................................................... 8

Article III ................. i, xii, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24

Article III, Section 1, Compensation Clause ................... 21

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, Arising Under Clause ......... 8

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, Territory Clause ............. 6

Article IV, Section 4, Guarantee Clause .................. 10, 18

Article VI, Section 3, Oath of Office Clause .............. 3, 11

Ninth Amendment ................................................ 8

Tenth Amendment ................................................ 8

Statutes:

14 Stat. 27, 1866 Civil Rights Act ........................... 24

16 Stat. 419, 426, § 34 (1871) ................... i, 10, 18, 24

18 Stat. 325, 333, § 1891 (1873) ................... i, 10, 18, 24

62 Stat. 869 et seq. .................................... i, 5, 13

5 U.S.C. 552 ............................................ 11, 12

5 U.S.C. 2104 ............................................ 12, 15

5 U.S.C. 2902 ............................................ 12, 15

15 U.S.C. 1121, 60 Stat. 440 ................ i, xiv, 1, 5, 16, 18

15 U.S.C. 1125, 60 Stat. 441 .................. i, 1, 5, 6, 16, 25

15 U.S.C. 1127, 60 Stat. 443 .................................. 25

17 U.S.C. 101 ................................................ 20

17 U.S.C. 106 ................................................ 25

17 U.S.C. 506, COUNT ONE .................................. 1, 19

17 U.S.C. 512(h) ............................................. 18

18 U.S.C. 3-4 .............................................. 15

18 U.S.C. 241-242, COUNT FOUR ............................. 1, 25

18 U.S.C. 371, COUNT FOUR ................................. 1, 25

18 U.S.C. 1503 ................................................ 15

18 U.S.C. 1512-1513, COUNTS THREE, FOUR ............... xiv, 1, 25

18 U.S.C. 2319, COUNT ONE .................................. 1, 19

18 U.S.C. 3231 ............................................... xiv

26 U.S.C. 3402(n) (IRC 3402(n)) ............................... 21

28 U.S.C. ................................................... i, 5

28 U.S.C. 132 ................................................ 24

28 U.S.C. 251 ................................................ 24

28 U.S.C. 372(c) ...................................... 2, 12, 14

28 U.S.C. 453 ................................................. 3

28 U.S.C. 454 ............................................. 2, 14

28 U.S.C. 455 ............................................ 16, 21

28 U.S.C. 631 ................................................ 17

28 U.S.C. 636 ................................................ 14

28 U.S.C. 955 ............................................ 12, 15

28 U.S.C. 1254 ............................................... xiv

28 U.S.C. 1291 ........................................... xiv, 17

28 U.S.C. 1292 ................................................ 18

28 U.S.C. 1331 ............................................... xiv

28 U.S.C. 1338 ............................................... xiv

28 U.S.C. 1654 ................................................ 25

28 U.S.C. 1691 ............................................ 10, 15

28 U.S.C. 2072 ...................................... i, 7, 13, 16

28 U.S.C. 2403(a) ............................................. 12

California Business and Professions Code (“CBPC”):

§ 6067 ............................................. 11, 16, 17

§ 6126-6127 ................................................ 17

§ 17200 et seq., COUNT FIVE .................................. 1

Rules:

Rule 44, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) ........ 13

Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) .......... 14

Local Rule (“L.R.”) 73‑302(c)(21), USDC/EDCA ........... i, 11, 16

Other:

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) ................................ 8

“Party” defined (see Article III)

Quoting:

“When applied to practice, by party is understood either the plaintiff or defendant.”

[bold and underlined emphasis added]

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition ......................... 24

“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” defined

Quoting:

“This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”

[bold and underlined emphasis added]

Academic Treatises:

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, has summarized the overall problem quite nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name. While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2002 A.D.

Petitioner respectfully requests

that a Writ of Certiorari issue

to review the judgments below:

Opinions Below

The “ORDER” denying rehearing by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as filed on April 8, 2003 A.D., appears at Appendix 147.

The “MEMORANDUM NOT FOR PUBLICATION” by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as filed on December 13, 2002 A.D., appears at Appendix 125.

The “MEMORANDUM AND ORDER” captioned “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA” denying reconsideration on February 22, 2002 A.D., appears at Appendix 75. See also Appendix 70.

The “ORDER” captioned “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA” adopting the findings and recommendations, as filed on January 25, 2002 A.D., appears at Appendix 57.

The “ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS” [sic] by Mr. Drozd, as filed on December 31, 2001 A.D., appear at Appendix 45.

Other alleged “ORDER’s” issued by Mr. Drozd are al