Time: Mon Nov 04 14:53:22 1996
To: GovtAware-L@citadel.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Karma and the Federal Courts
Cc: 
Bcc: 

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


For Immediate Release                            November 2, 1996

                 "Karma and the Federal Courts"

                               by

                      Paul Andrew Mitchell
                       All Rights Reserved
                         (November 1996)


     The law  of karma  is this:  what goes around, comes around.
When you  begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your
house.

     And so,  we have  come to this point in decoding Title 28 of
the United  States Codes:   there  are  two  classes  of  federal
"District Courts" in the federal court system.

     One class  is for  the federal zone;  the other class is for
the state zone.

     Using  a  very  powerful  rule  of  statutory  construction,
"inclusio unius  est exclusio  alterius," we show that the phrase
"District Court  of the  United States"  refers to federal courts
for the  state zone;   and  the phrase  "United  States  District
Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.

     We have  this on  the authority  of the Supreme Court of the
United States,  most notably  in the  cases of American Insurance
Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].

     Now, here's  the rub:  Since federal courts are creatures of
statutes only,  they can  only cognize  subject matters which are
assigned to them expressly by statutes.

     When it  comes to  criminal  jurisdiction,  the  controlling
statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.

     This statute  grants original  jurisdiction to  the District
Courts of  the United  States (DCUS),  but does  not mention  the
United States District Courts (USDC)!

     How about them apples?

     Remember this carefully:

     Inclusio  unius  est exclusio  alterius  (in Latin  ).
     Inclusion of one is  exclusion of others (in English).

     Since the  USDC  is  not  mentioned,  its  omission  can  be
inferred as  intentional. (Read  that again,  then confirm  it in
Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).

     So,  from  the  historian's  point  of  view,  Congress  has
permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
of the  USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and


           Karma and the Federal Courts:  Page 1 of 3

into subject  matters over  which said  court has no jurisdiction
whatsoever.

     This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but
now it  is  obvious,  and  quite  difficult  to  change,  without
bringing down  the whole  house of  cards (which is happening, by
the way.   The  Liege firemen  are  literally  hosing  their  own
corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of
judicial tyranny.)

     By the  way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been
invited, via  the Internet,  to discharge the Belgian debt to the
United States  by moving  their talents  state-side.  They should
return home  debt free,  in about  ten years  or so, depending on
available supplies of soap and water.

     Imagine a  sheet of  Saran Wrap,  which has  been yanked too
far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which
surround the federal zone.

     This is  the United States District Court (USDC), in all its
limited Honors and tarnished glory.

     Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18
U.S.C. 1964(a)  and 1964(c).  Both statutes  grant  authority  to
issue remedies  to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by
18 U.S.C.  1962.   Section 1964(a)  grants civil  jurisdiction to
issue injunctive  relief to  the DCUS;   Section  1964(c)  grants
civil jurisdiction  to issue injunctive relief to the USDC.  Both
refer  to   the  exact   same  subject   matter,   namely,   RICO
(Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.

     So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did
Congress need to enact two separate statutes?

     The answer  is simple:   one  authority was  needed for  the
DCUS, and  the other  was needed  for the  USDC.  Simple, really,
when the  sedition by  syntax  is  explained  in  language  which
penetrates the deception.

     Now, if  this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to
prove us  wrong about  this matter,  the United  States  (federal
government) is  in a  heap of  trouble here,  because it has been
prosecuting people  in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War;
furthermore,  those   courts  have   no   criminal   jurisdiction
whatsoever, because  such an authority is completely lacking from
Titles 18  and 28,  both of which have been enacted into positive
law, unlike  Title 26,  which has  not been enacted into positive
law.  See Title 1 for details.

     What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery?  Well, when
any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a
Freedom of  Information Act  (FOIA) request immediately, for such
things as  any regulations  which  have  been  published  in  the
Federal Register,  pursuant to  the Federal  Register Act, for 18
U.S.C. 3231.



           Karma and the Federal Courts:  Page 2 of 3

     It won't  hurt to  send submit similar FOIA requests for the
credentials of  all federal employees who have "touched" the case
in any way.

     Since we  already know  that there are no regulations for 18
U.S.C. 3231,  and that  federal employees  will usually refuse to
produce their  credentials, your  FOIA requests  will be met with
silence, whereupon  you will file a FOIA appeal.  Once the appeal
deadline has run, you are in court.

     But which court?  Guess ...

     ... the  answer is  the District Court of the United States.
What an  amazing discovery,  yes?  A United States District Judge
in Arizona,  in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States
District Court  (USDC) is  not the  proper forum  to  litigate  a
request under  the FOIA.   That can only be because FOIA requests
must be  litigated in  the District  Court of  the United  States
(DCUS).

     Now we  have the United States checkmated.  The proper forum
for FOIA  is now  res judicata.   If the DCUS is the proper forum
for FOIA,  and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then
the USDC  is not  the proper  forum for prosecuting violations of
Title 18  either, because  the USDC  does not show up in 5 U.S.C.
552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!

     Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it.
It's okay  to admit  that you  must read  it several  times; this
writer once  read a  paragraph from  Hooven and  Allison v. Evatt
some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.

     Inclusio unius  est exclusio  alterius.    The  omission  by
Congress  of  the  USDC  from  18  U.S.C.  3231  must  have  been
intentional;   the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was
intentional.   Use of  this maxim allows for us to exploit one of
the most  powerful techniques  in American  jurisprudence.  It is
called "collateral  attack"  --  a broadside, rather than a head-
on, collision.

     Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...

     ... freedom.  Freedom!  FREEDOM!!!

     Love it.


Common Law Copyright
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
November 2, 1996


                             #  #  #



           Karma and the Federal Courts:  Page 3 of 3
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail