Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 16, 1998 at 22:42:37:
In Reply to: Re: Dan Meador's essay deserves to have its own heading here. posted by MARTIN on September 16, 1998 at 22:17:20:
Then you obviously disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court
in Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic], American Insurance
Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and a host of other
similar authorities which are cited, in detail,
in the pleadings filed in People v. United States
et al., published here in the Supreme Law Library.
Mookini is particularly on point, in light of
the rules of statutory construction known as
"inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" a/k/a
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius".
Confer in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
for definitions. Literally translated, these are:
"inclusion of one is exclusion of all others" and
"expression of one is exclusion of all others".
I studied Latin for 5 1/2 hears.
The "United States District Court" [sic] ("USDC")
is a territorial court, with constitutional
authority which emanates from Article IV,
NOT Article III, in the Constitution for
the United States of America. See Preamble
for the correct title of that Constitution.
To confound Article IV with Article III
is to evidence a direct violation of the
Separation of Powers doctrine. See
New York v. United States, as cited in
Meador's essay supra, for that citation.
The federal zone, and the state zone,
are geographically disjoint.
The USDC has no territorial jurisdiction within
the 50 states of the Union. If you have any
doubt about the state you may now occupy,
try calling Directory Assistance.
Having to repeat these key authorities so often
is beginning to get rather boring, frankly.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General,
Federal Witness, and Candidate for the
U.S. House of Representatives
p.s. link to citations now follows:
Post a Followup