Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 01, 1998 at 14:17:44:
In Reply to: Re: Bad Karma Paul Mitchell? posted by New Kid on the Block on March 31, 1998 at 22:11:49:
: I response was posted on an email service I subscribe to after your article on karma and the courts was distributed there. Can you make a rebuttle to the issue?
: Mitchell is so far behind times it is a shame. We discovered this over three years ago and it don't mean a blame thing. Foia or privacy cannot be heard in ANY district court. Its all administrative and so are districts courts administrative agencies of Congress. So when you approach either district court the matter is res judicata for the other agency has had its court hearing. Now for the remedy that the administrative agency can't give you, the only place to get judicial review of an administrative agency is founfd in Title 5 United Stated Code Service at section 706 NOTE 6. Read it and see for yourself. Now you can see how far Mitchell is off base. HE ASSUMED it was the "other "district court, huh? Not so when reading the forementioned Title.
: Big Al
Dear Al et al.,
No, bad karma federal judiciary!!
I respectfully disagree. Many pertinent
court authorities have held that statutes
granting original jurisdiction to federal
courts must be STRICTLY construed. Confer
at "Federal Courts" in C.J.S., for example.
Title 1, U.S.C. controls the construction
of singular versus plural; i.e., they refer
to one and the same entities, always, without
exception. The American Insurance and
Balzac v. Porto Rico holdings clearly
distinguish the USDC from the DCUS. And,
the federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)
expressly mentions the DCUS, NOT the USDC!!
Such was the essence of John M. Roll's ORDER
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life
Health Center Company, to wit:
This [USDC] is not the proper forum to
bring a request under the Freedom of
See exact wording in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF.
For this reason, the matter is res judicata.
Confer also at:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
The inference can be made that, what was omitted,
was intended to be omitted. Congress, therefore,
INTENDED to omit the USDC from said statute.
Likewise, compare 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c).
Your use of ad hominem argumentation is
properly ignored -- for being frivolous.
/s/ Paul Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup