Time: Sun Oct 12 05:47:58 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA02440; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 05:39:23 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA11826; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 05:38:56 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 05:38:09 -0700 To: tim_mccrory@bigfoot.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: article III federal courts Cc: <phudz@shasta.edu> Gentlemen, See the case of USA v. Wallen, now loaded in the Supreme Law Library ("SLL") at the URL just below my name here, particularly the REMOVAL motions. The United States Court of International Trade is a court expressly established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. 251(a), to wit: "The court is a court established under article III of the Constitution of the United States." Title 28, U.S.C., has been enacted into positive law. Therefore, it IS conclusive evidence of the law. See also Supremacy Clause, in pari materia. 28 U.S.C. 251 is the supreme Law. Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF goes into even greater detail on this question. For more background, read "Karma and the Federal Courts" and "The Lawless Rehnquist," also in SLL. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com copy: Supreme Law School p.s. More cites are appended to the very end of this message. At 12:46 AM 10/12/97 -0700, you wrote: >Paul H. Hudz wrote: > >-- >/s/ Timothy I. McCrory >Web Site - Kay County Patriots >http://idt.net/~tmccrory/ > >"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. >In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains >seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all >must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - >lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." >Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas > <snip routing> > >Dear Tim, > >I would kindly bring to your attention misinformation on your web site >wherein you state there are Article III judges in United States of >America. The true fact is there is not one single Article III judge in >the United States of America. To substantiate to verify to confirm to >document this fact I give you the following 2 court cases. US vs. >Woodley 726F2d.1328 which is a ninth circuit ruleing thats holding, that >states "only an article 3 judge can make ruleings opinoins and >judgements and decisions and orders. > >And US claims Court in Washington D.C. #705-89, Nov. 9 1990 wherein 10 >United States District Court judges sued the United States of America in >joint venture with each other and the Claims Court ruled as follows >"there are no Article III judges in the United States Federal Judicial >System". > >If you don't have these 2 cites available give me a call and I'll send >you the hard copies. These are the 2 most devestating shocking and >overwhelming in implication that you have ever read. The ramifications >are self evident when applied. Phone 916-474-5333. > >Jim Benson > <snip> [Paul Mitchell's research notes now follow:] We begin with one of the great masters of Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in the year 1828. Here, Justice Marshall makes a very clear distinction between judicial courts, authorized by Article III, and legislative (territorial) courts, authorized by Article IV. Marshall even utilizes some of the exact wording of Article IV to differentiate those courts from Article III "judicial power" courts, as follows: These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government. [American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton] [1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added] Constitutional provision against diminution of compensation of federal judges was designed to secure independence of judiciary. [O'Donoghue v. U.S., 289 U.S. 516 (1933)] [headnote 2. Judges] The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, had its historic significance and described courts created under article 3 of Constitution, and did not include territorial courts. [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] [headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added] Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States including named territorial courts, omission in rules when drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts. [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] [headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added] The following paragraph from Mookini is extraordinary for several reasons: (1) it refers to the "historic and proper sense" of the term "District Courts of the United States", (2) it makes a key distinction between such courts and application of their rules to territorial courts; (3) the application of the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius is obvious here, namely, the omission of territorial courts clearly shows that they were intended to be omitted: 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 provisions for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended. [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] [emphasis added] The words "district court of the United States" commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long been the courts of the Territories. [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.] v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952)] [emphasis added] The phrase "court of the United States", without more, means solely courts created by Congress under Article III of the Constitution and not territorial courts. [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.] [v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1948), headnote 1] [emphasis added] United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution. U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344] [Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)] [headnote 2. Courts] The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. [many cites omitted] [Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)] The question of jurisdiction in the court either over the person, the subject-matter or the place where the crime was committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be proved; and it is never waived by a defendant. [U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)] In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by collateral attack. [U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)] Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus. [U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)] The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction as Congress confers. [Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin] [191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)] =========================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 ======================================================================== 12 [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail