Time: Mon Oct 13 06:23:10 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA27660; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:18:16 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA23506; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:17:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:17:11 -0700 To: BobRaymond@aol.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: DEPOSITIONS Hello Bob, Use FOIA for supplemental discovery, not controlled by the Federal Rules of Evidence, and this will automatically invoke the proper jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States ("DCUS"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) for authority. The Citizen's Guide to the FOIA/Privacy Act is an Exhibit in the last pleading listed in the Table of Contents to Gilbertson's appeal to the 8th Circuit (see USA v. Gilbertson in the Supreme Law Library). Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF is our tour de force of all major issues. You are, unfortunately, already in the United States District Court, yes? They are NOT one and the same. For details, read the brief essay entitled "Karma and the Federal Courts" in the Supreme Law Library ("SLL") at the URL just below my name here. You might also want to review the great progress we have made in Kleinpaste v. United States et al. For example, DOJ does NOT enjoy any Powers of Attorney to represent either IRS or individual IRS employees. Karl Kleinpaste can provide you with all the details. His website is URL: http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/govt/lawsuit/ It would be best to read his pleadings backwards, (latest first) to save time. Early on, Karl was struggling, for lack of good counsel. Good luck! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com copies: Supreme Law School, Karl Kleinpaste p.s. My DCUS research notes are appended to the end of this message (after your message). At 08:50 AM 10/13/97 -0400, you wrote: >PAUL >MY CO-DEFENDANT AND I WILL NOT CONSENT TO BEING DEPOSED OR WILL PLEAD THE >5TH. THE USA IS DEPOSING OTHERS THEY BELIEVE MAY HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR >FIRST AMMENDMENT ACTIVITIES CONCERNING THE INCOME TAX LAWS. THE USA FILED A >CIVIL SUIT TO GET AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT US FROM TALKING ABOUT THE TAX >LAWS AND WE FILED A COUNTER SUIT. WE ARE NOW IN THE DISCOVERY STAGE. ON OUR >SIDE THE JUDGE HAS ALOWED US TO ORALLY DEPOSE THE REVENUE AGENT AND HAS GIVEN >US UNLIMITED WRITTEN DISCOVERY OF LORRETTA ARGRET ASSISTANT ATTORNEY >GENERAL, TAX DIVISION AND ROBERT WATKINS, SECTION CHIEF OF THE DEPT OF >JUSTICE. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD LET ME KNOW. BOB RAYMOND [Paul Mitchell's research notes:] 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)]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail