Time: Tue Nov 12 10:45:17 1996 To: Society of Professional Journalists <spj@link2000.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: FOIA Conference Cc: Bcc: Julie, Thanks very much. I just cannot afford to underwrite the travel and other expenses involved in attending without a speaker honorarium. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:26 PM 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Paul: >At this point, the conference program is set, and SPJ has no funds available >for speaker travel. Kyle Niederpruem, SPJ's Freedom of Information chair, >organized the conference. You might want to speak with her concerning >distributing your work. She might be able to work out something regarding >handouts, and she does a monthly FOIA newsletter where some of it might be >needed. Kyle can be reached at the Indianapolis Star at (317) 633-9385. >Thanks for your interest, >Julie Grimes >Communications Director, SPJ >****************************************** > >At 03:31 PM 11/10/96 -0700, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >>Dear Julie, >> >>We have been doing a lot of original >>research with the Freedom of Information >>Act (FOIA), and we have come to a point >>in our research where I would like to >>start sharing our findings. >> >>Following this note is a short essay >>which should give you a good glimpse >>of the thrust of our research. >> >>Is there any way I could be sponsored >>to your FOIA Conference, in return >>for an opportunity to address the >>gathering? I normally charge a >>speaker's honorarium for such an >>occasion, but this time I would be >>happy to trade the honorarium for >>the conference fee, travel, and living >>expenses. >> >>Unless I can find a benefactor, I am >>afraid my finances are too tight for >>me to pay the conference expenses >>by myself. And these research results >>are too terribly important to be >>hiding in my file cabinet. >> >>I will look forward to hearing from >>you as soon as possible. >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >> >>"Karma and the Federal Courts" follows: >> >> >>[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