Bad Karma Paul Mitchell?

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 02, 1998 at 21:32:03:

In Reply to: Re: Bad Karma Paul Mitchell? posted by Common Right Group on April 02, 1998 at 05:42:18:

: : : 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
: : Information Act.

: : 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.

: :
: : Respectfully submitted,

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

: : Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
: : and Private Attorney General

: Yes Virginia, there is a sandy claws.....
: Thanks Paul. We've been wondering exactly where that cite was at regarding the difference between the venues of the different courts, and had lost track of the 1 USC reference somewhere in the shuffle of tall piles of poorly indexed misfilings on our office floor, or wherever.
: One additional point to Big Al AKA New kid on the Block: Do the statutes mean exactly what they say, or is that up to some judge having a (pardon the expresion please) 'brain fart' to decide? Check out the info on Law 101 at and see what ol' Thurston Bell has turned up.
: It looks like you'll find that, even though your favorite Congress-critter may be an idiot, legislative counsel and the lawyers that prepare the statutes are pretty sharp cookies. Ergo, the statutes say what they mean, and mean what they say; no more, no less.
: One citation or one statute does not the law make, just like one verse from the Bible is a lousy basis on which to establish a doctrine, but many violate that most basic of principles, in both cases. So sad.

Dear Friends,

Here are the pertinent cites which I could find
on the subject of strict construction of
federal jurisdictional statutes:

"The general policy of the Judiciary Act of
1887 and 1888, as has been recognized repeatedly,
was to contract [reduce] the jurisdiction of the
federal courts, and accordingly all doubts as to
jurisdiction must be resolved against it."

25 C.J. 4 [emphasis added]

"Jurisdiction of inferior federal courts, see
supra Sec. 4(1), based on diversity of citizenship
is entirely statutory, and the rule stated supra
that statutes conferring jurisdiction on the
federal courts are to be strictly construed
applies to the statute conferring diversity

36 C.J.S. 55


Thomson v. Gaskill, Neb.,
62 S.Ct. 673, 315 U.S. 442, 86 L.Ed. 951

City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank of
City of New York, Ind.,
62 S.Ct. 15, 314 U.S. 63, 86 L.Ed. 47,
reh. den. 62 S.Ct. 355, 356, three cases
314 U.S. 714, 86 L.Ed. 569

Trust Co. of Chicago v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
C.A.Ill., 183 F.2d 640

Seidman v. Hamilton, D.C.Pa.,
173 F.Supp. 641

Garfield Local 13-566 Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v. Heyden Newport
Chemical Corp., D.C.N.J.,
172 F.Supp. 230

Harris v. American Legion, D.C.Ind.,
162 F.Supp 700

Detres v. Lions Bldg. Corp., D.C.Ill.,
136 F.Supp 699, reversed on other grounds,
C.A., 234 F.2d 596

Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, D.C.N.Y.,
133 F.Supp. 496

Asbury v. New York Life Insurance Co., D.C.Ky.,
45 F.Supp. 513

Scarborough v. Mountain States Telephone
& Telegraph Co., D.C.Tex., 45 F.Supp. 176

Continental Min. & Mill. Co. v. Migliaccio,
D.C.Utah, 16 F.R.D. 217

"... [J]urisdiction must be based on a clear
statutory mandate." 36 C.J.S. 5


Carroll v. U.S., App.D.C.,
77 S.Ct. 1332, 354 U.S. 394, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442

"A strict construction of statutes conferring
jurisdiction on federal courts and prescribing
jurisdictional requirements is called for by
the policy of the statutes and due regard for
the rightful independence of state governments;
and, accordingly, all doubts as to jurisdiction
must be resolved against it."

36 C.J.S. 5


Aetna Ins. Co. v. Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co.,
C.A.Kan., 229 F.2d 584

Tsang v. Kansas, C.A.Cal.,
173 F.2d 204, cert. den. 69 S.Ct. 1515,
337 U.S. 939, 93 L.Ed. 1744

Kresberg v. International Paper Co., C.C.A.N.Y.,
149 F.2d 911, cert. den. 66 S.Ct. 146,
326 U.S. 764, 90 L.Ed. 460

Downing v. Howard, D.C.Del.,
68 F.Supp 6, aff'd C.C.A.,
162 F.2d 654, cert. den. 68 S.Ct. 155,
332 U.S. 818, 92 L.Ed. 395

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp.
v. Third Nat. Bank of Nashville,
D.C.Tenn., 60 F.Supp. 110, reversed
on other grounds, C.C.A., 153 F.2d 678,
cert. den. 67 S.Ct. 49, 329 U.S. 718,
91 L.Ed. 622, and 67 S.Ct. 50,
329 U.S. 718, 91 L.Ed. 623

U.S. v. Forness, D.C.N.Y.,
37 F.Supp. 337

"Jurisdictional statutes are construed narrowly."


Mozingo v. Consolidated Const. Co.,
D.C.Va., 171 F.Supp. 396

Central Mexico Light & Power Co.
v. Munch, C.C.A.N.Y.,
116 F.2d 85

Humphrey v. U.S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., D.C.Or.,
38 F.Supp. 224

25 C.J. p. 691, note 55

"Presumption against jurisdiction
see Federal Civil Procedure, Sec. 449."

"Policy generally is to disclaim
jurisdiction in doubtful cases."

The Emma Giles, D.C.Md., 15 F.Supp 502

"A grant of jurisdiction must appear
by clear and unambiguous provision."

36 C.J.S. 5


Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Co., D.C.Ohio,
68 F.Supp. 782

"...[A]ll doubts as to jurisdiction must
be resolved against it."

25 C.J. 4, p. 691, n. 55


St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Davis,
132 Fed 629, 632

Joy v. St. Louis,
122 Fed. 524, aff'd 201 U.S. 332,
26 S.Ct. 478, 50 L.Ed. 776

Resectfully submitted,

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

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
and Private Attorney General

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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