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