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

Posted by djf on September 17, 1998 at 23:16:10:

In Reply to: USDC vs. DCUS posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 17, 1998 at 20:39:24:

: 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.

It certainly makes sense that DCUS would have jurisdiction at law, since Erie V Tompkins, "Federal" courts have had equity and admiralty jurisdiction only. Also, another court mentioned as article III court is the Court of International Trade, which has no meaning for say FRANCE, but does make sense for a person (juristic or natural) of say, the foreign state of Nebraska

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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