Time: Sun Mar 09 05:01:26 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA29342;
	Sat, 8 Mar 1997 21:28:22 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 04:50:36 -0800
To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: [jus-dare] Reigning in the Courts

In point of law, federal courts have no 
jurisdiction WITHOUT an Act of Congress.
In this regard, they are the exact opposite
of state Superior Courts, which are presumed
to have jurisdiction unless the contrary is
proven, on the record.  In federal courts,
jurisdiction is presumed to be lacking, unless
a positive showing is made in the record.

Remember when we were kids, and we used to say, 
"That is going to take an Act of Congress!"  Well, 
when it comes to the subject matter jurisdiction
of federal courts, IT TAKES AN ACT OF CONGRESS,
and the absence of such an Act cannot be waived
by any parties.  So, you cannot "grant" jurisdiction
by crossing the bar, or wearing the wrong color
tie, because only Congress has the power to grant
jurisdiction to the federal courts.  The one 
exception to this, of course, is the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, which is defined in Article III
of the U.S. Constitution (which Congress cannot
change).  See Article III, Section 2.  See also
Section 1, which immunizes Article III judges
from federal income taxes, pursuant to Evans v.
Gore. (Subsequent decisions were faulty for
assuming only one class of citizenship;  there
are actually two, but that's another story.)

So, the comments below are well taken and right
on point, imho, and in the opinion of literally
hundreds of courts which have ruled on the question
of jurisdiction and its many ramifications.  
Despite all of its atrocious decisions in the
areas of tax and monetary matters, the Ninth Circuit
has actually ruled more often on the issue of
federal court jurisdiction that all the other
Circuits.  

Here is some Latin, for all you scholars out there:

"Juris diction"    -- the power to speak of law.
"Juris Doctor"     -- being a Doctor of Law.
"juris et de jure" -- of law and by law.

I knew my Latin would come in handy in one
of these decades.  :)

Father O'Toole, I hope you are proud of me now!!

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com




At 10:45 PM 3/8/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>*Jus Dare*
>Reigning in the Courts
>
>The idea of a Congress that will exercise its authority to reign in 
>the courts is encouraging. Certainly, given the limited 
>Constitutional authority of the courts. it is completely in the hands 
>of the representatives and senators to give a little tug and say 
>"whoa!"
>
>We are not going to make the courts listen, but our hope is to let 
>congress know . . . We can work on them at the same time.   :)
>
>Dave
>
>
>From: Bruce Coe <BruceCoe@televar.com>
>Subject: Reigning in the Courts
>
>
>Following is a Paul Weyrich editorial:
>
>Three separate yet related events yesterday provide new hope that
>perhaps -- just perhaps -- Congress is beginning to grapple with the
>runaway judiciary in this country. 
>
>First, some Republican Senators, in a closed-door session yesterday,
>debated ways of asserting their constitutional role to advise and
>consent on the matter of federal judges. Republican Senator Slade
>Gorton of Washington wants senators to inform the White House that if
>their advice is not sought on federal judges before they are
>nominated, the nominations will be dead on arrival. Gorton was named
>by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to chair a task force on federal
>judges. Senator Phil Gramm wants to take an even tougher line. He
>proposes, for example, that if a majority of Republican Senators in a
>judicial circuit oppose a Clinton nominee for Circuit Judge, that
>nominee will not go forward. That would have the effect of stopping
>most of Clinton's current nominees. The Chairman of the Senate
>Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, continues to argue for the status
>quo but more and more Republican Senators reject that notion and are
>coming to the realization that everything they enact in Congress could
>well be voided by a judiciary dominated by Bill Clinton's activist
>judges. 
>
>Also today, Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri, a new Member of the
>Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that as Chairman of the
>Constitutional Subcommittee, he will hold hearings on the abuses of
>judicial power. Such hearings could well begin a process by which the
>Congress considers measures to restrict the federal judiciary.
>Ashcroft, a former Attorney General in Missouri, is one of the most
>assertive of the newer Senators on the subject. Similar hearings may
>also be held on the House side. 
>
>Meanwhile, the House of Representatives yesterday went on record in
>support of an Alabama Judge, Roy S. Moore, who has posted the 10
>Commandments behind his bench. Last month, on a motion filed by the
>ACLU, another Alabama judge ordered Moore to remove the 10
>Commandments. Alabama Governor Fob James has said that authorities
>would have to run over state troopers and President Clinton would have
>to federalize the national guard if they wanted to remove the display.
>
>
>The House voted 295 to 125 for the non-binding resolution supporting
>the idea of displaying the Ten Commandments in public places. The
>wonder is that almost a third of the House would vote against the 10
>Commandments, but at least they are being honest about it. Had such a
>vote been held 30 years ago, there would have probably been ten votes
>against the resolution. Granted, this vote has no force of law. Still,
>the U.S. Supreme Court, which will ultimately rule on this case, will
>be aware of the sentiment in the House and, political body that it is,
>might take that sentiment into consideration. 
>
>All of these are tiny steps. Liberal republican senators are unlikely
>to go along with either Senator Gorton or Senator Gramm. Together with
>a united front of Democrats, they can continue to confirm Clinton's
>radical judges. Mere hearings on federal judicial power are not enough
>to curb abuses and positive measures to do so are unlikely to garner a
>majority in this Congress. And, true enough, the Supreme Court has
>ignored public sentiment and the will of the Congress before in its
>headlong rush to eliminate God from the public square. 
>
>Still, what is happening today is a far cry from the last Congress
>where it was simply presumed that radical activist judges had to be
>approved without dissent by the Congress. No Senators were even
>thinking of -- let alone talking out-loud about -- curbing the federal
>judiciary. And a resolution condemning the actions of any judge would
>have been out of the question. 
>
>So this situation represents progress and is an indication of the
>growing anger on the part of the public about the federal judiciary.
>When Tom Jipping set about to find 100 organizations that would join
>the Free Congress Foundation to protest activist judges, he wasn't
>sure anyone would agree. Today the number of organizations is climbing
>toward the 300 mark and several Senators have even signed a pledge to
>oppose judicial activism. 
>
>Viewers constantly question whether their actions have any impact.
>This is one positive example that the system still works. Of course,
>we have miles to go. Some federal judges, who are abusing their
>authority, need to be impeached. Congress needs to consider taking
>away jurisdiction on some issues from federal judges. Measures need to
>be considered to curb the imperial judiciary, which thinks there is no
>end to taxpayers money, and spends it on lavish new facilities and
>large staffs. Congress also needs to look at amending the Constitution
>to change the system so that federal judges can be reconfirmed as
>happens in many states. Other even more radical initiatives should at
>least be looked at. 
>
>Thus, what has happened so far in no way puts the brakes on the
>runaway judiciary. However, the first step toward the cure of a
>potentially terminal patient is the acknowledgment of the illness and
>we are well on our way toward that happening. And for a change, there
>are some aggressive legislators such as Senator Ashcroft who are on
>the side of the Constitution and are in a position to do something
>about it. 
>
>Small steps, to be sure, but a glimmer of hope nevertheless. In this
>bleak do-nothing Congress, any ray of sunshine is a welcome change. 
>
>brucecoe@televar.com
>
>  ...  < ......|
>   .. .  `\  ~..  @      
><..........   ,  .   : .  ?~:- - .- - .......=:-|
>
>     ....... ]  ..  .   %
>..   *..
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find out what's in it for you!  Send along your snail mail address:
>      Suggested $20 subscription for a year of the REAL THING!
>                                  <><
>                            Member: SPECLUSA
>      For an on line subscription, send the message "subscribe" 
>                          freedomh@spectra.net.  
>
>                  Copyright: Dave Delany's Freedom House
>                           "Let My People Go!"
>       
>                      Dave Delany's Freedom House
>                              PO  Box 212
>                           Conklin, NY 13748
>                                  ><>
>             "If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant!"
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                              *JUS DARE*
>                   c/o Dave Delany's Freedom House
>                    PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>                               ========
>      Sponsored by Mike Goldman and By.Net (http://Names.By.Net)
>                               ========
>                 Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court
>            *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>
>     To subscribe or unsubscribe to *Jus Dare*, send a message to
>                   jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>       In the BODY, put the text "ADD" or "DELETE" respectively.
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail