Time: Mon Aug 18 17:04:14 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA26998;
	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:04:33 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05493;
	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:01:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:59:58 -0700
To: "Dale Robertson" <habeascorpus@hotmail.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: LLAW: Article III courts (fwd)

Many thanks, Dale.  I am glad that
people discovered the OPENING BRIEF
so quickly.  The authorities cited
below (in this message) only begin
to scratch the surface of the full
set which are cited in the OPENING BRIEF. 
Please help yourself to this, some of my 
best, and most recent, work.  And please
also tell others about this bona fide miracle, 
now bestowed upon Us by the Lord Most High 
(my Boss).

There is one extraneous tab character, 
where there should be five spaces;  
I failed to notice this error, 
as I was pre-editing this file for
the webmaster.  Aside from this, 
the two spelling errors which I missed
have been corrected, so the entire
brief is grammatically as good as I can
make it.

Our webmaster and I have a joke about this:

  Seventh Wave Outside!!

and this from my body surfing days at
San Clemente, California.  There are
two more waves after this one, and
the "Court Cases" section of the 
Supreme Law Library has only just
begun to get loaded.

Loading the Court Cases into the
Supreme Law Library is justly the
Seventh Wave.  

The first wave was "The Federal Zone."  
The second wave was People v. Boxer,
which built upon the first wave.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
Architect of Freedom

copy:  webmaster, Supreme Law School

At 04:16 PM 8/18/97 PDT, you wrote:
>Dale Robertson
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>> >I believe some of you may be in process of asking the
>> >SC clerk about Art lll rules and where to get copies today.
>> >
>> >I sure hope so.
>> >
>Jay humbly submits that finding the Article III court in which the Rules
>apply is precedent in importance to finding the Rules.  It was mentioned 
>the list before that there are those who believe District Courts of the
>United States are Article II courts and that United States District 
>are Article I or IV courts.  Paul Mitchell holds this view and has a 
>written on such at
>There is no question in my mind that either the Congress and the Courts
>made many errors of omission in the "renaming" that took place in 1948
>previously posted or there is an actual and substantive difference in 
>and jurisdiction between USDC and DCUS.  The following snips from the
>aforementioned site are the evidence for this statement.
>See Balzac  v. Porto  Rico [sic],  258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), 42 S.Ct.
>343, 66 L.Ed. 627.  In Balzac supra, the high Court stated:
>     The United States District Court is not a true United States
>     court established  under Article  III of the Constitution to
>     administer the  judicial power  of the United States therein
>     conveyed.    It  is  created  by  virtue  of  the  sovereign
>     congressional faculty,  granted under Article IV, Section 3,
>     of  that   instrument,  of  making  all  needful  rules  and
>     regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United
>     States.  The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true
>     United  States   courts  in   offering  an   opportunity  to
>     nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local
>     influence,  does   not  change   its  character  as  a  mere
>     territorial court.                          [emphasis added]
>     The distinction  within the dual nature of the federal court system 
> also noted  in 18  U.S.C. 3241,  which states that the United States 
>District Court  ("USDC") for  the Canal Zone shall have jurisdiction  
>concurrently  with the district courts of
>the United  States [sic],  of offenses  against the  laws of  the United
>States  committed upon  the high  seas" [emphasis  added].
>          By way of demonstrating newly found evidence  of confusion and
>duplicity in the federal laws in question, Appellant  submits the 
>specific citations for
>the careful consideration of this honorable Court:
>     28 U.S.C. 1441(a)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1441(d)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1442(a)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1443       "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1444       "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1445(a)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1445(b)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1445(c)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1445(d)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1446(a)    "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1) "United States district court" [sic]
>     28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2) "United States district court" [sic]
>     28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(4) "United States district court" [sic]
>     28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(5) "United States district court" [sic]
>     28 U.S.C. 1448       "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1449       "district court of the United States"
>     28 U.S.C. 1450       "district court of the United States"
>Mitchell has put in a great deal of research on this subject and I think 
>bears directly on getting a habeas petition into an Article II court
>working according to Article III Rules.  So, to avoid re-inventing the
>wheel I suggest we digest and evaluate Mitchell's breif.
>> >I just had an inspiration--- The Art lll rules were published
>> >in the SC reporter on 9 May, 1934, at 292 U.S. 661.
>> >
>> >Could someone shepardize that cite and see if a later
>> >date and cite follows it.  If Shepards handles it like a
>> >case it should show the later changes to those rules, 
>> >and perhaps a 28 USC cite too.  Art lll rules are 
>> >worth a bit of work  to verify.  I do not know how to do
>> >so via the net, and I do not have Shepards out here in
>> >the brush.
>> >
>> >Tarheel

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail