Time: Mon Oct 13 06:23:10 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA27660;
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:18:16 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA23506;
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:17:57 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:17:11 -0700
To: BobRaymond@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: DEPOSITIONS
Hello Bob,
Use FOIA for supplemental discovery,
not controlled by the Federal Rules of Evidence,
and this will automatically invoke the proper
jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States
("DCUS"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) for authority.
The Citizen's Guide to the FOIA/Privacy Act is an
Exhibit in the last pleading listed in the Table of
Contents to Gilbertson's appeal to the 8th Circuit
(see USA v. Gilbertson in the Supreme Law Library).
Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF is our tour de force
of all major issues.
You are, unfortunately, already in the United States
District Court, yes? They are NOT one and the same.
For details, read the brief essay entitled "Karma and
the Federal Courts" in the Supreme Law Library ("SLL")
at the URL just below my name here.
You might also want to review the great progress
we have made in Kleinpaste v. United States et al.
For example, DOJ does NOT enjoy any Powers of
Attorney to represent either IRS or individual
IRS employees. Karl Kleinpaste can provide you
with all the details. His website is URL:
http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/govt/lawsuit/
It would be best to read his pleadings backwards,
(latest first) to save time. Early on, Karl was
struggling, for lack of good counsel.
Good luck!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copies: Supreme Law School, Karl Kleinpaste
p.s. My DCUS research notes are appended to the
end of this message (after your message).
At 08:50 AM 10/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>PAUL
>MY CO-DEFENDANT AND I WILL NOT CONSENT TO BEING DEPOSED OR WILL PLEAD THE
>5TH. THE USA IS DEPOSING OTHERS THEY BELIEVE MAY HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR
>FIRST AMMENDMENT ACTIVITIES CONCERNING THE INCOME TAX LAWS. THE USA FILED A
>CIVIL SUIT TO GET AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT US FROM TALKING ABOUT THE TAX
>LAWS AND WE FILED A COUNTER SUIT. WE ARE NOW IN THE DISCOVERY STAGE. ON OUR
>SIDE THE JUDGE HAS ALOWED US TO ORALLY DEPOSE THE REVENUE AGENT AND HAS GIVEN
>US UNLIMITED WRITTEN DISCOVERY OF LORRETTA ARGRET ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
>GENERAL, TAX DIVISION AND ROBERT WATKINS, SECTION CHIEF OF THE DEPT OF
>JUSTICE. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD LET ME KNOW. BOB RAYMOND
[Paul Mitchell's research notes:]
We begin with one of the great masters of Constitution, Chief
Justice John Marshall, writing in the year 1828. Here, Justice
Marshall makes a very clear distinction between judicial courts,
authorized by Article III, and legislative (territorial) courts,
authorized by Article IV. Marshall even utilizes some of the
exact wording of Article IV to differentiate those courts from
Article III "judicial power" courts, as follows:
These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional
courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the
Constitution on the general government can be deposited.
They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative
courts, created in virtue of the general rights of
sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of
that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules
and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the
United States. The jurisdiction with which they are
invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is
defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is
conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general
powers which that body possesses over the territories of the
United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be
exercised in the States in those courts only which are
established in pursuance of the 3d article of the
Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the
territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises
the combined powers of the general and of the State
government.
[American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton]
[1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added]
Constitutional provision against diminution of compensation
of federal judges was designed to secure independence of
judiciary.
[O'Donoghue v. U.S., 289 U.S. 516 (1933)]
[headnote 2. Judges]
The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in
Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a
wider connotation, had its historic significance and
described courts created under article 3 of Constitution,
and did not include territorial courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
[headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]
Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal
Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States
including named territorial courts, omission in rules when
drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and
certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal
Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
[headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added]
The following paragraph from Mookini is extraordinary for several
reasons: (1) it refers to the "historic and proper sense" of the
term "District Courts of the United States", (2) it makes a key
distinction between such courts and application of their rules to
territorial courts; (3) the application of the maxim inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius is obvious here, namely, the omission
of territorial courts clearly shows that they were intended to be
omitted:
Not only did the promulgating order use the term District
Courts of the United States in its historic and proper
sense, but the omission of provisions for the application of
the rules to the territorial courts and other courts
mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the
limitation that was intended.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
[emphasis added]
The words "district court of the United States" commonly
describe constitutional courts created under Article III of
the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long
been the courts of the Territories.
[Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.]
v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952)]
[emphasis added]
The phrase "court of the United States", without more, means
solely courts created by Congress under Article III of the
Constitution and not territorial courts.
[Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.]
[v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1948), headnote 1]
[emphasis added]
United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as
is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution.
U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]
[Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)]
[headnote 2. Courts]
The United States district courts are not courts of general
jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as
prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the
Constitution. [many cites omitted]
[Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]
The question of jurisdiction in the court either over the
person, the subject-matter or the place where the crime was
committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal
proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be
proved; and it is never waived by a defendant.
[U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)]
In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction
cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by
collateral attack.
[U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)]
Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the
proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and
execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.
[U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]
The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction
as Congress confers.
[Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin]
[191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail