Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 09, 1998 at 22:40:31:
In Reply to: Does 28 U.S.C. 451 destroy "Karma"? Answer: NO! posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 08, 1998 at 22:05:32:
Dear Dave et al.:
Dan Meador's work at URL:
comes very close to documenting the
evolution of federal law with respect
to the two classes of federal district
courts. This work may satisfy your
desire for an historical etymology
of the pertinent statutes and regulations.
Most notably, the Advisory Committee
Notes for 1972 Proposed Rules, immediately
following Rule 1101 in the Federal Rules of
Evidence, contain the following amazing
paragraph, to wit:
These various provisions do not in terms
describe the same courts. In congressional
usage the phrase "district courts of the
United States", without further qualification,
traditionally has included the district courts
established by Congress in the states under
Article III of the Constitution, which are
"constitutional" courts, and has not included
the territorial courts created under Article IV,
Section 3, Clause 2, which are "legislative"
courts. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648,
21 L.Ed. 966 (1873). However, any doubt as
to the inclusion of the District Court for
the District of Columbia in the phrase is
laid to rest by the provisions of the
Judicial Code constituting the judicial
districts, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 81 et seq. creating
judicial districts therein, Id. Sec. 132, and
specifically providing that the term
"district court of the United States" means
the courts so constituted. Id. Sec. 451.
The District of Columbia is included.
Id. Sec. 88.
[Federal Rules of Evidence, ]
[Advisory Committee Notes ]
[for 1972 Proposed Rules, ]
[Rule 1101, Subdivision (a) ]
I have added all of the URL's for Dan Meador's
work, as published here, to the Alta Vista search
index; indexing should be completed in 2 to 3
I hope this helps.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup