Time: Mon Nov 04 15:34:39 1996 To: CEO@Citadel.Net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: No Problems (with you, that is) Cc: Bcc: Leonard, Thanks. When I get rolling, as I am right now, the inbound email arrives at the rate of one new message every 2 to 3 minutes, so I have to scamper to keep up with all of it. As usual, I am trying to do too much, but I save my quiet moments for the best writing, either very early in the morning, or very late at night. I must have missed an important detail. Thanks for pointing out my error. Bear with me; I get there when the dust settles. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. I think we have lots to share. Thank you for your kindness to me. At 05:03 PM 11/4/96 +0000, you wrote: >Greetings Paul! > You're probably wondeing why you keep getting the same email >message from me? You're sending this information to my mailbot >instead of my email address. My email address is CEO@Citadel.Net > >Leonard > >On 4 Nov 96 ,Paul Andrew Mitchell insightfully wrote: > >> [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 >> >> =========================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> =========================================================== >> >> >> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail