Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 08, 1998 at 11:43:17:
In Reply to: Re: Bad Karma? posted by Dave on April 07, 1998 at 15:59:10:
: : : : : 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 www.taxgate.com 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
: : jurisdiction."
: : 36 C.J.S. 55
: : cites:
: : 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 o
Post a Followup