Gmail

Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Re: 18 U.S.C. 3231:  getting very close to the bottom of this ...

"Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:35 AM

To:  Alchemy

Bcc:

this next brief is VERY ROUGH SLEDDING, but

it's filled with facts that SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE

of anyone who cares even slightly about the Rule of Law:

 

 

The "gift" I discovered hidden in that morass of illegality,

just as I was being born on June 21, 1948, was a

pair of cases that simply held this:

 

"Well, if that 1948 version of 3231 was defective, THEN

the 'district courts' had jurisdiction

by reason of prior Acts of Congress."

 

THINK ABOUT THAT HOLDING, FOR A SECOND:

 

There were no USDCs in the 48 States prior to June 25, 1948.

Therefore, criminal jurisdiction was previously conferred

on the DCUS and ONLY the DCUS inside the several States.

 

The DCUS were the Federal district courts with criminal jurisdiction

during the span of 159 YEARS between 1789 and 1948!

 

18 U.S.C. 3231, as amended in Title 18 on June 25, 1948,

was NOT lawfully enacted by the House and Senate.

Therefore, IT IS NOT AND WAS NOT FEDERAL LAW.

 

YES!  That finding reverts jurisdiction to prior Acts of Congress,

chiefly the 1940 version and/or the 1909 version:

 

 

Even though the latter "Notes" omit any votes by the House,

they are valuable for citing these 2 prior Acts of Congress:

"district courts of the United States"

"circuit and district courts of the United States"

 

AND, chiefly as a result of enforcing the ex post facto Prohibition,

not only could Congress NOT change the latter statutes RETROACTIVELY;

the 2 x Abrogation Clauses that we discovered were also PREVENTED

from causing any RETROACTIVE effects --

using "amendments" to Rules of Court.

 

I raised the ex post facto Prohibition IN THIS SAME CONTEXT

in our brief to SCOTUS here:

 

 

Questions Presented

 

Is the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq.,

unconstitutional for exhibiting vagueness,

for violating the ex post facto prohibition ....

 

Here are the two (2) cases which agreed that prior Acts of Congress

would still be in force IF Section 3231 was not lawfully enacted

on or about June 25, 1948:

 

 

 

Technically, the latter 2 decisions are NOT PRECEDENTS,

because they were not issued by U.S. Courts of Appeal.

 

But, by reviewing related cases, it's obvious that the Federal courts --

who were asked to decide the fate of 3231 -- did recognize the documented

problems, and desperately needed to present a "UNITED FRONT"

against the many prisoners who jumped on 3231's flaws.

 

Here's where those Federal courts walked right into a trap

of their own making:

 

In simplest of terms,

3231 was either enacted on June 25, 1948

-or-

3231 was NOT enacted on June 25, 1948.

 

If it was enacted on June 25, 1948, it STILL -- even TODAY --

confers criminal jurisdiction on the Article III DCUS.

 

If it was NOT enacted on June 25, 1948, the 1940 version

also conferred criminal jurisdiction on the Article III DCUS.

 

In EITHER CASE, the "district courts of the United States"

were conferred with original criminal jurisdiction;  AND,

the hard and fast rule in Federal jurisprudence is that

statutes conferring original jurisdiction on Federal district courts

must be STRICTLY construed.

 

Lastly, there is NO AVAILABLE WAY for 2 x Abrogation Clauses

to have any RETROACTIVE effects on the 1940 or 1909 versions of 3231.

 

Likewise, there is NO AVAILABLE WAY for either Abrogation Clause

to effect any RETROACTIVE changes to 3231 in 1949 solely as a result of

"amendments" to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure promulgated

in that year.

 

The SCOTUS decision in Willy v. Coastal Corp. held -- CORRECTLY --

that Rules of Court may NOT expand, or restrict, original jurisdiction

already conferred upon district courts by prior Act(s) of Congress.

 

In this instance, as we have already explained in formal litigation,

in order to change the court named in 3231 from DCUS to USDC,

Congress would need to either

(1) amend it properly

-OR-

(2) repeal and re-enact 3231 so as to change the named court

from DCUS to USDC.

 

 

Bottom Line:  the "district court" named in Section 3231 and 2 prior versions

was NEVER modified by any "amendments" to any Rules of Court

NOTWITHSTANDING those 2 x UNconstitutional Abrogation Clauses.

 

QED

 

 

/s/ Paul

 

 

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:48 AM Alchemy wrote:

 

This is brilliant work Paul.

 

I've been reading through these emails.

 

Right on target, focusing resolution getting finer and finer.

 

No squeak room!

 

So glad you "retired" :)

 

 

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, 10:27 "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

"even if 18 U.S.C. 3231 was flawed,
legislation that pre-dated section 3231 would have
operated to give the Court jurisdiction over federal
crimes"

 

That latter claim is PLAIN ERROR, however, because

statutes conferring original jurisdiction on Federal district courts

must be STRICTLY construed;  and, the USDC did NOT exist

in any of the (now 50) States of the Union PRIOR TO June 25, 1948.

 

Therefore, legislation that pre-dated the current section 3231

operated to give the DCUS jurisdiction over federal crimes!

 

An Act of Congress could NOT confer any jurisdiction on a

Federal Court that did not already exist.

 

QED

 

As anyone can read with their own eyes, the "district court"

granted with original criminal jurisdiction is the Article III DCUS!

 

I updated this page slightly today:

 

     The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in
     Criminal Appeals Rules, without  an addition  expressing  a
     wider  connotation,  had  its   historic  significance  and
     described courts  created under article 3  of Constitution,
     and did not include territorial courts.
 
     Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly 
     speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.
     We have often held  that  vesting a territorial court with 
     jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts 
     of the United States does not make it a "District Court of 
     the United States." 
 
                    [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)]
                             [headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]

 

 

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 7:14 PM "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Re:

(click on "Notes" where there is no mention of any vote

by the U.S. House of Representatives)

 

 

Tom,

 

This is the version approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 18, 1948,

after receiving a proposed amendment from the U.S. Senate:

 

 

Here's that "amendment No. 10" as proposed by the Senate:

 

 

I've asked the Law Library of Congress to point me to the text

which the House sent to the Senate BEFORE it was amended by the Senate.

 

A comparison of both should tell us a lot about that statute,

AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

 

I also found case law which held that prior versions of this statute

would apply today IF the Act of June 25, 1948 was defective:

 

 

"... predecessor statute unmistakably grants the same type of jurisdiction ...."

 

See also Gentry:

 

 

"... the 1948 amendment to Section 3231 passed both Houses of Congress ...."

 

 

In other words, perhaps without intending to do so,

that case law does confirm our "Sea Change" hypothesis:

 

DCUS was the district court of original criminal jurisdiction

between the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the 2 x Acts of June 25, 1948

and it remains so even today.

 

The "change" to Section 3231 did not result from any Act of Congress

but from application of two (2) Abrogation Clauses, in violation

of Willy v. Coastal Corp.

 

 

 

 

--

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Instructor,
Inventor and Systems Development Consultant

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)


 

--