[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 17, 1998 at 20:39:24:

In Reply to: USDC vs. DCUS posted by New Kid on the Block on September 17, 1998 at 07:11:12:

Good question! If you read the pleadings which
we prepared in USA v. Knudson (excluding the
Notices and Demands for Mandatory Judicial
Notice), we "follow the money" there to the
Supreme Court's authorization to issue rules
for the USDC, but the DCUS is not mentioned
in that authority. Dan Meador found the
very same thing, and has documented same in the
recent essay of his which we cite elsewhere
in this forum. Mookini is our court authority
for applying the rule "inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius" to the statute which
authorizes the SC to issue rules for the USDC.

It is well settled that laws granting original
jurisdiction to the federal courts must be
STRICTLY construed. [Cites already listed
in the Supreme Law Forum debate concerning
28 U.S.C. 451, i.e. "Bad Karma" etc.]

It appears, therefore, that there are presently
no rules for the DCUS, other than common law rules,
since the DCUS has original jurisdiction
over all matters arising under the Constitution,
laws, and treaties of the United States (see
Arising Under Clause in Article III), and the
common law is expressly preserved by the Seventh
Amendment. That "common law" would, necessarily,
embrace proceeding At Law in a civil case,
in other words, common law proceedings
(and rules which reflect same). The Tenth
Amendment governs here as well, since it expressly
reserves to the People of the several states
such fundamental Rights.

Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF touches on this
problem briefly, where it mentions the
original jurisdiction of the DCUS. Gilbertson
attempted to convene the DCUS, among other
reasons to enforce the FOIA upon all
government personnel who had failed to
produce certified evidence of the requisite
oaths of office. The court of original
jurisdiction to enforce the FOIA is the DCUS;
this matter is res judicata, pursuant to
court ORDER In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
Served on New Life Health Center Company
(also discussed in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF).

I hope this helps. It is difficult to be
brief about such a complex subject.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]