Time: Mon Feb 10 14:22:02 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA22823;
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 01:52:13 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:16:50 -0800
To: shamgar@juno.com (abc d goldfish)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: writs etc...
At 12:23 PM 2/10/97 GMT, you wrote:
>Paul,
> Read with great interest your last msg... hadn't heard that
>approach (if it is a defense) before. Had heard from various sources
>that FOIA's come back negative as to the Congress' assent to be
>represented by DOJ.
They are getting a lot of FOIA's,
and they cannot keep up with the
statutory deadlines. Either that,
or they fall silent because they
have no documents.
Do you have any definitive paperwork identifying
>DOJ as not contracted to rep for US or USA?
They have failed to produce statutes
or regulations which grant standing
to the "United States of America"
to bring civil and criminal actions
into federal court. The documentation
I do have would be available to you,
if you retained the Supreme Law Firm.
They have admitted, in a round-about way,
that the the "USA" has no standing, as such,
but all actions are being brought by the
plaintiffs "USA". Check it out!
>
> Find ref for Buck Act as 4 USC 105-110 (specifically 110(d) & (e)
>in 'Table of Popular Names'. Is there no reg supporting that?
No. See "Referrals to Department of Justice
and GAO" at page 937, CFR Index and Finding Aids,
January 1, 1993. This is the proof you need that
the Buck Act has no regulations, or they have been
hidden away within DOJ or GAO.
Also
>found PL 76-819 and 54 STAT 1059. Didn't have 28 USC 3231 on my ROM...
>it's 1992. Will try to pull of I'net tonight after AOL traffic dies
>down.
No. 18 U.S.C. 3231: the grant of
original jurisdiction to the
"district courts of the United States".
Not 28 U.S.C. ....
>
> Is there a suit that can be accomplished from FED PEN in re this
>info? I'd really like to get my buddy Gene out before his b'day end of
>this mo.
Habeas Corpus.
We have a Habeas Corpus expert
we can call upon to assist you,
if you need help.
>
> No jurisdiction for criminal actions in USDC? That one caught me
>of guard somewhat! How do they assume it?
Tyranny, and nobody knows how
to challenge it.
Or did I just answer the
>question myself. Do we volunteer?
No. Litigants cannot waive a defect
in subject matter jurisdiction; it
requires an Act of Congress. So,
there is a lot of Patriot mythology
floating about, e.g. that you grant
jurisdiction by crossing the bar,
wearing the wrong colored tie, etc.
No, criminal jurisdiction of federal
courts requires an Act of Congress,
and they don't have one. 18 U.S.C. 3231
specifies the DCUS, not the USDC!!
See also "Karma and the Federal Courts"
in the Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
> In re invoking 44 USC 1505, what about jury tampering? (18 USC
>1512/1515)
Yes, there is a perjury racket going
strong right now within DOJ, and it
is directly related to the kick-back
racket. See "The Kick-Back Racket"
in the Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
44 U.S.C. 1505(a) proves that without
regulations, they can only impose
statutes on federal officers, employees,
and contract agents.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
> Looking forward to your replies!!!!!!!!!
>
>shamgar
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com
Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail