Time: Mon Aug 18 17:06:41 1997 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 http://www.supremelaw.com copy: webmaster, Supreme Law School At 04:16 PM 8/18/97 PDT, you wrote: >Paul: > >FYI > >Dale Robertson > <snip> >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >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 >on >the list before that there are those who believe District Courts of the >United States are Article II courts and that United States District >Courts >are Article I or IV courts. Paul Mitchell holds this view and has a >brief >written on such at >http://www.supremelaw.com/library/usa_vs_gilbertson/opening.html. > >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 >venue >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 >is > 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]. >snipped > > By way of demonstrating newly found evidence of confusion and >duplicity in the federal laws in question, Appellant submits the >following >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 >it >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 > <snip> ======================================================================== 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