Time: Tue Sep 02 10:16:08 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA00360;
	Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:15:52 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11249;
	Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:12:07 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:12:07 -0700
To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: USDC v. DCUS -- a just battle rages on

See Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, now
before the 8th Circuit in St. Louis.
It is in the case law section of the
Supreme Law Library, at the URL
just below my name here.

See also Document #15, in which U.S. 
District Judge John M. Roll ruled that the
USDC is not the proper forum to bring a
request under the Freedom of Information
Act.  See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), in chief,
and compare with the Citizen's Guide to
the FOIA/PA, which names the wrong court.

We will be loading many more documents
into the Supreme Law Library which have
litigated the same question, notably the
case of People v. United States et al.
See also State v. Kemp, U.S.A. v. Wallen,
and U.S.A. v. Looker.  Looker trashed every
single pleading I wrote for him, after he
commissioned, signed, and filed every single
one of them.  Wallen's case was docketed by
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit,
when we petitioned for a 3-judge DCUS panel.
Herb Crawford stepped in to convince Wallen
that I am a federal agent;  this was a vicious
lie.  Crawford is now facing charges of
obstructing justice for that conduct.

The matter is res judicata already, pursuant to 
the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton,
and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].  These cases
are cited in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF.  
C.J. John Marshall has issued the most beautiful
holding on this subject, imho.

You must take the question in a broad context,
because no federal judges are qualified to
preside on the DCUS, if their judicial 
compensation is currently being diminished
by federal income taxes.  Unfortunately, 
all federal judges are currently paying
taxes on their compensation;  for proof,
read "The Lawless Rehnquist," also in the
Supreme Law Library.  C.J. Rehnquist admitted
as much, in front of the University of Arizona
Law School in January of 1997.

I was there;  I heard him say it.  It came up
in the context of the impeachment trial of
Samuel Chase.  Rehnquist off-handedly stated
that federal judges SHOULD be punished for 
serious crimes -- like TAX EVASION.  That was
the moment when my hand shot straight into the
air, "Excuse me, Mr. Rehnquist, but aren't
federal judges immune to taxes on their pay,
pursuant to Article III and Evans v. Gore?"

Rehnquist:  "There has been a change in doctrine."

The problem is 28 U.S.C. 132, which duplicates
a second court in each of the Union states.
For example, 28 U.S.C. 82 creates a "judicial district"
for Arizona, in addition to the "United States
District Court" created by section 132.  The USDC
is NOT a judicial forum;  it is a territorial forum,
convened under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
Judicial power courts are convened under Article III.

The Historical and Statutory Notes following section
132 are most interesting:  they construct the term
"this title" to mean a Title of the United States
Code.  Compare, in pari materia, IRC 7851(a)(6)(A),
wherein the term "this title" is also used.

All of this is discussed in great detail in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF.  Help yourself!

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 10:13 AM 9/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
>*Jus Dare*
>Tired of Inuendo
>Comments: Authenticated sender is <harold@mail.halcyon.com>
>From: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
>Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 17:24:52 +0000
>Subject: Re: [jus-dare] Which Court?
>With respect to the post below, can Brad or anyone offer any 
>specific cases or names and contact information for people who have 
>successfully raised and used the USDC vs. DCUS issue;  i.e., is there 
>anybody out there who has challenged the jurisdiction of the United 
>States District Court, demanded a hearing by the District Court of 
>the united States and actually had the USDC judge admit that he did 
>not have jurisdiction and transfer the case to the District Court of 
>the united States.
>Now, I am not talking about 1 or 2 people who may have raised a 
>jurisdictional challenge based upon DCUS/USDC arguments and then 
>mysteriously had the matter "continued" into eternity or dismissed on 
>other technicalities.  That is not a "win" on the merits of THIS 
>For that matter, is there anybody out there who has ever had a court 
>ADMIT to being the District Court of the united States?  Is there 
>anybody who's argued a case in the DCUS and clearly received 
>recognition of his "constitutional rights" and prevailed in the 
>I like the theory here, but see little point in considering it if NO 
>ONE has successfully done what appears to be being presented as such 
>a matter of fact thing that anyone and everyone should understand it 
>and have been doing it since day one.
>Believe me, nobody wants these things to be real and 
>be successful more than I.  But I weary of hearing legal theories 
>cussed and discussed while my fellow Americans continue to go to jail 
>using those very theories and variations thereof.
>Harold Thomas
>> From:          "Dave Delany's Freedom House" 
>> To:            "The friends of "Freedom@hancock.net
>> Date:          Mon, 1 Sep 1997 16:40:10 +0000
>> Subject:       [jus-dare] Which Court?
>> Reply-to:      jus-dare@freedom.by.net
>> Priority:      normal
>> *Jus Dare*
>> Which Court?
>> From: Brad Barnhill <bradbva@chv.mindspring.com>
>> Subject: Re: (Jus Dare) Don's Own Response
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>I claim my right to be secure from the jurisdiction of any court
>> >>judge, federal or otherwise, who refuses to allow constitutional
>> >>issues, including but not limited to my claim to any right, to be
>> >>raised in his court.  This judicial attitude is utter crap and must
>> >>not be allowed to continue.  It is itself grounds for appeal.
>> >>
>> >>That being said, can anyone offer any explanation or legal background
>> >>for this judicial prohibition of the U.S. Constitution in the courts? 
>> >>Has anyone appealed this kangaroo court attitude?  What were the
>> >>results?
>> If you are hauled into federal court, at least be congnizant of the forum
>> into which you will plead. There is a dichotomy in the federal court
>> USDC and DCUS.  United States District Court is an administrative court
>> empowered under Article IV (or I), and is for federal crimes committed on
>> 'federal territory' only. You know, the lands ceded to the United States by
>> act of the state legislature? If you are summoned to USDC, then demand to
>> see the state legislative act which ceded the territory in question to the
>> United States, and the Act of Congress accepting it. You cannot commit a
>> federal crime unless you are on federal property. (Or if you grant them
>> jurisdiction by appearing in any manner except specially)
>> Have the case removed to the district court of the United States (DCUS),
>> which is the judicial court constituted under Article III. Even then, you
>> will only get a judge whose compensation is being diminished in
>> contravention to Article III, section 1. But the judge is not the court,
>> building is not the court, the cases are the court. Only in the DCUS are
>> your rights (supposed to be) secured.
>> ========================================================
>> Brad Barnhill
>> e:bradbva@chv.mindspring.com
>> ========================================================
>> "The government which steps out of the ranks of the 
>> ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under
>> disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is 
>> a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the 
>> health and will therefore be bought, is in that 
>> particular a tyranny."
>>            --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.
>>              http://pages.prodigy.com/jefferson_quotes/
>> ========================================================
>Harold Thomas
>  *  *  *  *  *
>*Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>This list deals with the perversion of the Supreme Court.
>To subscribe, send the message "add yourmailname.server"
>in the body of a message to jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>or contact Dave Delany <freedom@hancock.net>
>Order the booklet _Jus Dare: Perverse Web of the Supreme Court_
>$8.00 postage paid, from
>Dave Delany's Freedom House  PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>*Jus Dare* is a service of Hearthside Family Publications.

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