Time: Sun Nov 10 15:30:36 1996
To: Joel Campbell <FOIGUY@AOL.COM>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FOIA Conference
Cc:
Bcc:
>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:30:15
>To: spj@link2000.net
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: FOIA Conference
>
>Dear Julie,
>
>We have been doing a lot of original
>research with the Freedom of Information
>Act (FOIA), and we have come to a point
>in our research where I would like to
>start sharing our findings.
>
>Following this note is a short essay
>which should give you a good glimpse
>of the thrust of our research.
>
>Is there any way I could be sponsored
>to your FOIA Conference, in return
>for an opportunity to address the
>gathering? I normally charge a
>speaker's honorarium for such an
>occasion, but this time I would be
>happy to trade the honorarium for
>the conference fee, travel, and living
>expenses.
>
>Unless I can find a benefactor, I am
>afraid my finances are too tight for
>me to pay the conference expenses
>by myself. And these research results
>are too terribly important to be
>hiding in my file cabinet.
>
>I will look forward to hearing from
>you as soon as possible.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>"Karma and the Federal Courts" follows:
>
>
>[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