Notes re: DCUS at 48 U.S.C. 864

We scoured the Miscellaneous Provisions at the very end

of the Act of June 25, 1948 today, looking for all occurrences of

"District Court of the United States", and we found that the term

"District Court of the United States" appears in several places

(with minor variations in capitalization):

"district courts of the United States"

occurs at 62 Stat. 986-987, Sec. 9 (June 25, 1948)

"district court of the United States"

occurs at 62 Stat. 989, Sec. 17 (June 25, 1948)

"District Court of the United States"

occurs at 62 Stat. 990, Sec. 21 (June 25, 1948)

So, we tracked down the last one above, and

traced it to the codified version at 48 U.S.C. 864:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/48/864.html

(click on Notes for further details)

Now, let's witness the "smoking gun" that I found

in the U.S. Code Service ("USCS") and

in the U.S. Code Annotated ("USCA"):

48 USCS 864 and 48 USCA 864 both cite the exact same

authority: 62 Stat. 990, ch. 646, sec. 21, June 25, 1948, for

a textual change which has been made to a statute in

the Miscellaneous Provisions of this Act, BUT THERE IS

NO CLUE AS TO WHO MIGHT HAVE MADE THIS ONE CHANGE,

BECAUSE CONGRESS CERTAINLY DID NOT!!

The Explanatory Notes at 48 USCS 864 say this:

The "United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico"

was substituted for "District Court of the United States for Puerto Rico" [BY WHOM??]

on authority of Act of June 25, 1948, ch 646, sec. 1, 62 Stat. 895,

which appears as 28 USCS secs. 132(a) and 119, and which provide

respectively, that there shall be a district court of record in each

judicial district known as the United States District Court for that

district and that Puerto Rico shall comprise one judicial district.

For the status of the Code as evidence, see 1 USCS sec. 204. <--- NOTE WELL!!

[end excerpt]

DO YOU SEE WHAT JUST HAPPENED HERE?

This is extremely interesting, because the Miscellaneous

Provisions are just as much as part of the Act of June 25, 1948,

as are all preceding sections, which re-vamped all of Title 28.

Those Miscellaneous Provisions clearly contain the term

"District Court of the United States" at 62 Stat. 990, Sec. 21,

AND at least two (2) other sections in those Miscellaneous

Provisions also use that same term (singular and plural).

In that very same Act, sections 132(a) and 119 do NOT amend

or otherwise change Sec. 21 at 62 Stat. 990. Neither 132 nor 119

expressly abolishs the Article III DCUS which had existed inside

the several States of the Union for 159 years (1789 to 1948).

AND, THERE IS NO SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT CITED

FOR THIS TEXTUAL CHANGE, WHICH THEREFORE

WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY ACT(s) OF CONGRESS

AUTHORIZING THAT TEXTUAL AMENDMENT.

The responsible party(s) also tipped their hands by adding:

"For the status of the Code as evidence, see 1 USCS sec. 204."

We infer from this admission that the status of this section,

in Title 48 of the U.S. Code, is questionable at least, because

the codified changes are legally NOT conclusive evidence

of the underlying Statute at Large from which it was derived.

The Statute at Large is the CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE,

NOT the U.S. Code, in this glaring example.

IN POINT OF LAW, THE TWO ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME,

PROVING ONCE AGAIN THAT THE U.S. CODE AND THE

STATUTES AT LARGE ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

Under "Codifications", the Historical and Statutory Notes

at 48 USCA 864 say this:

"United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico"

was substituted for "District Court of the United States

for Puerto Rico" in view of section 132(a) of Title 28, Judiciary

and Judicial Procedure, which states that "There shall be

in each judicial district a district court which shall be a

court of record known as the United States District Court

for the district" and section 119 of Title 28, which states that

"Puerto Rico constitutes one judicial district."

[end excerpt]

Again, these Historical and Statutory Notes in the USCA

do NOT cite any Act of Congress for this glaring textual amendment.

Contrast this with a section in the Miscellaneous Provisions

where Congress expressly changed the name of the

Federal district court in D.C. from DCUS to USDC!!

Congress certainly knows how to change the name of

a Federal district court, whenever it needs and wants

to do so!

If you are not familiar with federal laws and rules of construction,

you may not (yet) appreciate how significant this finding really it.

Let me summarize: the Act of June 25, 1948, clearly

uses the term "District Court of the United States"

at 62 Stat. 990, Sec. 21, and that Section was

subsequently never amended by any known Act of

Congress; it appears to have been amended instead

by the federal personnel responsible for assembling

and publishing the United States Code, but without

any Act(s) of Congress authorizing such a key

textual amendment to a Statute at Large.

THIS IS FRAUD!!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm