The offending and UNconstitutional "amendments" to the FRCrP
are archived here, for evidence
purposes:
Your citation to Risquet further confirms the controlling
relevance
of Willy v. Coastal Corp.: not only may Rules of Court NOT
expand or restrict original
jurisdiction, but also such amendments
to Rules of Court may not have
any retroactive legal force or effects!
"that would merely mean
that the predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. §3231
were [sic] still in effect" [probably
should read "was still in effect"]
("district
courts of the United States")
("circuit
and district courts of the United States")
See ex post facto
prohibition in the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, it does not require
any extensive investigations
or protracted litigation to
conclude that "district courts of the
United States"
did enjoy original criminal
jurisdiction for AT LEAST 159 YEARS:
from the Judiciary Act of 1789
to the two Acts of June 25, 1948.
And, that same "district
court" STILL enjoys the same original jurisdiction --
To bring you up-to-date, we have
requested the capable assistance
of the Law Library of Congress with
this pressing inquiry;
specifically, we have asked them
to point us to resources
that will help us determine whether
or not the House of Representatives
did timely and lawfully vote
for, or against, Senate "amendment No. 10":
Evidence of such a vote should
be available somewhere!
The introduction to the latter
Senate Report No. 1620 makes the following
important admission, to wit:
"The amendments proposed by
the committee consisting of new legislation
enacted since passage
of the bill by the House,
perfecting amendments, and
corrections of printing errors,
together with the reasons for each, are listed below."
Given your scholarly and erudite
professional experiences,
the significance of the latter
admission should be self-evident!
Any "new legislation
enacted since passage of the bill by the House"
would clearly have required a
proper, and timely, vote either for, or against,
by the U.S. House of
Representatives.
By "timely"
we mean circa June 18, 1948 e.g.:
However no such vote is recorded anywhere in the
"Notes"
as published under 18 U.S.C.
3231 here:
Senate Revision Amendment
The text of this section
was changed by Senate
amendment.
See Senate
Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.
Obviously, a timely vote by the
House of Representatives is rather
conspicuous for its absence from
the latter Historical and Revision Notes.
The United States ex rel.
has a specific need to confirm, with proof,
(1) the text of that section BEFORE it was
"changed by Senate amendment"
(2) the text of that section AFTER it was
"changed by Senate amendment".
Meanwhile, we await correct
answers from the Law Library of Congress.
Thank you for your professional
consideration.
Bcc: U.S. House of Representatives
