Time: Tue Nov 12 21:07:05 1996
To: LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Karma and the Federal Courts
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:00:24
>To: LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
>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