Time: Mon Nov 04 15:34:39 1996
To: CEO@Citadel.Net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: No Problems (with you, that is)
Cc:
Bcc:
Leonard,
Thanks. When I get rolling, as I am right now,
the inbound email arrives at the rate of one
new message every 2 to 3 minutes, so I have to
scamper to keep up with all of it. As usual,
I am trying to do too much, but I save my
quiet moments for the best writing, either
very early in the morning, or very late at
night. I must have missed an important detail.
Thanks for pointing out my error. Bear with
me; I get there when the dust settles.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
P.S. I think we have lots to share.
Thank you for your kindness to me.
At 05:03 PM 11/4/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Greetings Paul!
> You're probably wondeing why you keep getting the same email
>message from me? You're sending this information to my mailbot
>instead of my email address. My email address is CEO@Citadel.Net
>
>Leonard
>
>On 4 Nov 96 ,Paul Andrew Mitchell insightfully wrote:
>
>> [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>
>> For Immediate Release November 2, 1996
>>
>> "Karma and the Federal Courts"
>>
>> by
>>
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell
>> All Rights Reserved
>> (November 1996)
>>
>>
>> The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around.
>> When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your
>> house.
>>
>> And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of
>> the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal
>> "District Courts" in the federal court system.
>>
>> One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for
>> the state zone.
>>
>> Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction,
>> "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase
>> "District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts
>> for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District
>> Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.
>>
>> We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the
>> United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance
>> Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].
>>
>> Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of
>> statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are
>> assigned to them expressly by statutes.
>>
>> When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling
>> statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.
>>
>> This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District
>> Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the
>> United States District Courts (USDC)!
>>
>> How about them apples?
>>
>> Remember this carefully:
>>
>> Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ).
>> Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English).
>>
>> Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be
>> inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in
>> Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).
>>
>> So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has
>> permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
>> of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and
>>
>>
>> Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 1 of 3
>>
>> into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but
>> now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without
>> bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by
>> the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own
>> corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of
>> judicial tyranny.)
>>
>> By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been
>> invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the
>> United States by moving their talents state-side. They should
>> return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on
>> available supplies of soap and water.
>>
>> Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too
>> far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which
>> surround the federal zone.
>>
>> This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its
>> limited Honors and tarnished glory.
>>
>> Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18
>> U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to
>> issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by
>> 18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to
>> issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants
>> civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both
>> refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO
>> (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.
>>
>> So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did
>> Congress need to enact two separate statutes?
>>
>> The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the
>> DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really,
>> when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which
>> penetrates the deception.
>>
>> Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to
>> prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal
>> government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been
>> prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War;
>> furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction
>> whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from
>> Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive
>> law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive
>> law. See Title 1 for details.
>>
>> What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when
>> any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a
>> Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such
>> things as any regulations which have been published in the
>> Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18
>> U.S.C. 3231.
>>
>>
>>
>> Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 2 of 3
>>
>> It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the
>> credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case
>> in any way.
>>
>> Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18
>> U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to
>> produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with
>> silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal
>> deadline has run, you are in court.
>>
>> But which court? Guess ...
>>
>> ... the answer is the District Court of the United States.
>> What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge
>> in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States
>> District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a
>> request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests
>> must be litigated in the District Court of the United States
>> (DCUS).
>>
>> Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum
>> for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum
>> for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then
>> the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of
>> Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C.
>> 552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!
>>
>> Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it.
>> It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this
>> writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt
>> some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.
>>
>> Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by
>> Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been
>> intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was
>> intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of
>> the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is
>> called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head-
>> on, collision.
>>
>> Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...
>>
>> ... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!!
>>
>> Love it.
>>
>>
>> Common Law Copyright
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell
>> Counselor at Law, federal witness
>> and Citizen of Arizona state
>> All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
>> November 2, 1996
>>
>>
>> # # #
>>
>>
>>
>> Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 3 of 3
>>
>> ===========================================================
>> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail