Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 18, 1998 at 21:07:11:
In Reply to: Re: USDC vs. DCUS posted by djf on September 17, 1998 at 23:16:10:
: It certainly makes sense that DCUS would have jurisdiction at law, since Erie V Tompkins, "Federal" courts have had equity and admiralty jurisdiction only. Also, another court mentioned as article III court is the Court of International Trade, which has no meaning for say FRANCE, but does make sense for a person (juristic or natural) of say, the foreign state of Nebraska
Yes, in USA v. Wallen, after conviction and
judgment, we attempted to file a Notice and Demand
with a judge on the Ninth Circuit, to certify
that a vacancy existed -- on the DCUS which we
had attempted to convene. This certification
would then have been served on the Chief Justice,
who has authority to appoint temporary judges,
wherever bona fide vacancies exist.
Since the Court of International Trade is the ONLY
Article III court with sitting judges that we could
find anywhere in Title 28, we specifically requested
the Ninth Circuit Judge to request C. J. Rehnquist
to appoint a temporary judge -- from among the
panel currently sitting on that Court (the Court
of International Trade). We were, of course,
waiting in the wings with a challenge to their
payment of federal income taxes, which challenge
we intended to litigate all the way up the ladder
(if necessary).
It was right about that time when one of
Elizabeth Broderick's interstate "proteges"
had moved into my guest bedroom, as he put it,
"to avoid service of a federal grand jury
indictment in Oregon, for conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine." He watched
over my shoulder very closely, as I prepared
the pleadings in the Wallen case. I even
went out of my way to fix his 586/90 PC,
which had a nasty virus on it. (Yes, he
brought this virus-laden machine right
into my living room.) The Western Digital
website had a program which I downloaded
to fix his computer's problem. Why did he
bring that virus right into my living room,
I ask you?
He had originally requested to occupy my
guest bedroom for only 2 weeks. Some 5 weeks
later, I was getting pretty fed up with his
chain smoking, and all of his chain-smoking
friends, and I awoke with a bold idea one
morning. I decided to tell him of my
decision to testify against Elizabeth Broderick.
This enraged him to such an extent, that he
threatened my life 12 times. When I demanded
that he stop threatening me, he slammed my
electronic notepad onto my desk top. When I
told him I was going to call 911, he
threatened me even further. He moved out
that night, and took about $1,400 worth of
office equipment and cash with him.
About a week later, an anonymous fax informed
me that the Ninth Circuit had actually docketed
our Notice and Demand for Sheila Wallen -- as a
Mandamus -- and that it was proceeding. In that
same week, the client threw me off the case.
Somebody convinced her that I was a federal
agent. This was a great pity: the Ninth
Circuit has done more work on jurisdiction
than any other Circuit Court.
Do you think that, just maybe, we might be
right over the target here?
Flak always seems to get most intense, when
we are right over the target.
Check the case of USA v. Wallen, in the
Supreme Law Library, for the Application for
Warrant of Removal. Admittedly, this was
my first attempt at such a thing, so there
are a few rough edges. Nevertheless, it was
served upon Judge Kozinski, whom I had selected
to supervise all my litigation work. He has
consented by his silent acquiescence. In other
words, he has never requested that I stop
sending him our pleadings, and I have recently
adopted the convention of showing the phrase
"(supervising)" after his name on the CC: line
in transmittal letters and PROOFS OF SERVICE.
I believe the Wallen case was also scuttled.
Pity, that.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.