Time: Sat Nov 09 05:14:20 1996 To: mleeiv@u.washington.edu From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Karma and the Federal Courts Cc: Bcc: >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 12:59:03 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: Karma and the Federal Courts > >[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 >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail