Time: Tue Apr 15 08:38:50 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA29494;
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:36:43 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:32:31 -0500
Originator: civprocedure-l@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: Multiple recipients of list <civprocedure-l@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu>
Subject: Motion to Remand
Ninth Circuit docketed a similar removal,
but feds put an undercover agent in my
living room, who then threatened my life
twelve times and followed that by telling
my client that I was the government agent.
She believed him, because it gave her an
excuse not to pay my fees. So, I had to
pull off the case.
See also People v. United States et al.,
DCUS Montana, Billings. Motion for
Reconsideration of remand was served
today. See also American Insurance Co.
v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511,
7 L.Ed. 242 (1828).
Also, compare 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c).
Section 1964(a) grants authority to the
"district courts of the United States" (DCUS);
Section 1964(c) grants authority to the
"United States district court" (USDC).
Finally, the removal statutes at 28 U.S.C.
1441 et seq. intermix USDC and DCUS.
The USDC is a territorial tribunal,
authorized by Article IV in the
U.S. Constitution. This was all
explained by C.J. John Marshall
in 1828. The USDC gets people into
more trouble, because its judges are
subject to the undue influence of
the IRS, as admitted by the judge who
wrote the opinion in Lord v. Kelley,
240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965). Compare
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
The issue came up again in Balzac v.
Porto Rico (the way they spelled "Puerto Rico"
for a while, until Congress changed it).
See 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed 627 (1921).
USDC is not mentioned at 18 U.S.C. 3231,
the grant of original jurisdiction to
prosecute criminal violations of Title 18,
United States Code. Moreover, there are
no regulations for section 3231, invoking
the limitations imposed by 44 U.S.C. 1505(a)
(Federal Register Act).
The DCUS is the court of original jurisdiction
to compel production of documents requested
under the Freedom of Information Act. This
is now res judicata, pursuant to ORDER of
U.S. District Judge John M. Roll,
In re: Grand Jury Subpoena Served on
New Life Health Center Company, USDC Arizona,
Tucson, dated May 21, 1996. Judge Roll ruled
"This [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).
This is not "weird"; it is the law.
Congress has attempted to over-extend the
limited subject matter and territorial
jurisdiction of the USDC into the several
states of the Union, under the ruse of a
secret federal bankruptcy which was
imposed on the whole nation in 1933;
in Downes v. Bidwell the SC ruled that
the U.S. Constitution does not apply
inside the federal zone and, after the
bankruptcy, the federal courts have taken
the position that the U.S. Constitution
doesn't apply inside the state zone either
(or only when THEY want it to apply there).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 06:32 PM 4/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 06:02:41 -0500
>> Reply-to: civprocedure-l@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>> From: [address in tool bar]
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
<civprocedure-l@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu>
>> Subject: Motion to Remand
>
>In Response to Sue Ochs' question re removal, etc., Paul Andrew Mitchell
>replied:
>
>> One attack we have used is to demonstrate two things:
>> 1. defendants removed into the United States District Court
>> ("USDC"), which is a territorial tribunal authorized by
>> Article IV in the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to the
>> American Insurance case in 1828, but said USDC only has
>> territorial jurisdiction within the federal zone; the
>> removal should have been accomplished by requesting a
>> warrant of removal by the District Court of the United
>> States ("DCUS"), which is a judicial power forum authorized
>> by Article III in the U.S. Constitution, having territorial
>> jurisdiction within the state zone;
>>
>> 2. all federal judges are currently paying federal income
> [snip]
>
>In the course of running a fairly popular legal web site I receive lots of
>messages similar to Paul's, and advancing all sorts of wonderful legal
>advice, theories and "truths".
>
>My response... after I stop laughing... is usually: "Please send
>confirmable - as in an official reporter rather than in a transcript of
>some lunatic's lecture - instances where this has succeeded."
>
>I have yet to be provided with any such thing. Until then, I respectfully
>suggest that the promoters of such apparent bullshit deal with reality -
>or just shut-up - rather than spreading misinformation that can - and has
>- lead unknowing people into following advice that has only multiplied
>their legal problems.
>
> ~~+~~~~~+~~ Jeff Liebling, staff@lectlaw.com ~~+~~~~~+~~
> ** The 'Lectric Law Library(tm) -- http://www.lectlaw.com **
>"Best legal resource that we have come across on the Web" - CNN
> "The most complete law library on the Web" - Point Reviews
> "Best damn site I've seen" - Chief Justice John Marshall
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Private reply: [address in tool bar]
>Public replies: CIVPROCEDURE-L@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>To subscribe, signoff: listserv@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>Listserv questions: Quintin Chatman, qchatman@pf.com
>With technical assistance from WashLawWEB
> http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/washlaw/washlaw.html
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------
Private reply: [address in tool bar]
Public replies: CIVPROCEDURE-L@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
To subscribe, signoff: listserv@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
Listserv questions: Quintin Chatman, qchatman@pf.com
With technical assistance from WashLawWEB
http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/washlaw/washlaw.html
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail