Time: Tue Nov 12 10:45:17 1996
To: Society of Professional Journalists <spj@link2000.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FOIA Conference
Cc:
Bcc:
Julie,
Thanks very much.
I just cannot afford
to underwrite the travel
and other expenses involved
in attending without
a speaker honorarium.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 12:26 PM 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Paul:
>At this point, the conference program is set, and SPJ has no funds available
>for speaker travel. Kyle Niederpruem, SPJ's Freedom of Information chair,
>organized the conference. You might want to speak with her concerning
>distributing your work. She might be able to work out something regarding
>handouts, and she does a monthly FOIA newsletter where some of it might be
>needed. Kyle can be reached at the Indianapolis Star at (317) 633-9385.
>Thanks for your interest,
>Julie Grimes
>Communications Director, SPJ
>******************************************
>
>At 03:31 PM 11/10/96 -0700, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>>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
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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