Posted by KatNip on September 30, 1998 at 14:33:51:
In Reply to: Dan Meador's letter to Paul Andrew Mitchell, 9/29/98 posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 30, 1998 at 14:12:25:
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company...was not
Union Pacific Railroad Company a national corporation
charted by United States and not of any State?
: : Paul & Dan, extremely interesting reading indeed. There is no room to doubt congresses plenary power as far as the territories and insular possessions. I have heard as others have that USDC has concurrent Art I and Art III capacities. But as Dan points out there is extensive evidence of DCUS, so where are they? We also know some of the "courts" are not even courts, but are in fact executive, administrative agencies, US Tax Court is a rename of an earlier administratitive board.
: : If USDC cannot act Art III, a jurisdictional challenge should be sufficient. If it can act Art III, this should be part of the "venue" and should be entered into the record.
: One of the objectives we will accomplish, as we
: progress to the end of Phase I developments in
: the Supreme Law Library, is to document the
: history of our efforts to convene the DCUS,
: beginning with USA v. Wallen, and continuing
: with People v. United States et al.,
: USA v. Looker, and USA v. Gilbertson.
: That particular battle is far from over.
: Several statutes in the Act of March 3, 1911,
: survived the numerous repeals therein, enacted
: on June 25, 1948. Brushaber v. Union Pacific
: Railroad Company was convened in the DCUS,
: pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1911.
: The statutes surviving after June 25, 1948, are
: proof-positive that the DCUS still existed
: after the deception caused at 28 U.S.C. 132.
: See the Schedule of Repeals, at the very
: end of the Act of June 25, 1948, and focus
: on the sections of the Act of March 3, 1911,
: which are expressly NOT repealed there,
: e.g. section 248.
: Repeals by implication are not favored.
: Remember, Congress cannot change the meaning
: of terms "retroactively," because ex post facto
: legislation is expressly prohibited. Section 248
: of the Act of March 3, 1911, is particularly
: obvious, as regards the rules to be used on
: appeals from the former Philippine Supreme Court,
: to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, the search is
: now on to locate the original DCUS rules.
: This search is now complicated by the fact that
: Congress attempted to blend law and equity
: into a single FRCP.
: 28 U.S.C. 2072(a) is also quite pertinent in
: this regard, because it only authorizes the
: U.S. Supreme Court to issue rules for the USDC;
: the DCUS is not even mentioned in that statute!
: See discussion in USA v. Knudson on this point
: of authority to promulgate rules.
: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
: Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
: and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup