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