Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 30, 1998 at 17:12:57:
In Reply to: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, from "Encyclopedia of the American Constitution" posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 29, 1998 at 15:39:19:
Dear Dan Meador et al.,
Go to Volume 62 in the Statutes at Large.
Turn to page 996.
Focus ONLY on March 3, 1911.
Focus ONLY on Chapter 231 repeals.
Go to the column headed "Section".
Note sections which were NOT repealed.
Here is the list I have inferred from
the inverse Schedule of Laws Repealed:
10, 25, 40-42, 65,
130-131, 133-134, 144,
181-182, 241-252, 263,
270-271, 282-285, 288,
291, 297, 301
These variously refer to the
United States District Court and the
district court of the United States.
Here is a more comprehensive way to
organize the same information:
Schedule of Laws Repealed and Not Repealed
[62 Stat. 996, repeals in Act of March 3, 1911]
Repealed..........Not Repealed
----------......----------------
1-5
5a
6-9
.......................10
11-24 (pars 1-25)
24....(.."..26)
.......................25
26-39
.......................40-42
43-58
59
60-64
.......................65
66-70
71
72-118
118a
118b
119-129
.......................130-131
132
.......................133-134
135-143
.......................144
145-180
.......................181-182
183-187
187a
188-240
.......................241-252
253-262
.......................263
264-269
.......................270-271
272-274
274a
274b
274c
274d
275-281
.......................282-285
286
287
.......................288
289
290
.......................291
292-296
.......................297
298-300
.......................301
302-308
["..." added to prevent blank removal
by some email software programs.]
Now, if this method should prove sound,
we can pull the text of each section
which was NOT repealed, and then track
subsequent amendments and/or repeals
of those sections.
Remember, in particular, in this context,
that Section 2(b) of the Act of June 25, 1948,
provided in part that the provisions of
"this title" as set out in section 1 of said Act,
with respect to the organization of the court,
shall be construed as a continuation of existing law!
====================================================
[equal signs "=" signify double-underlines, for emphasis]
In other words, the organization of the federal courts
shall be construed as a continuing of existing law.
Translation: the massive reorganization on June 25, 1948,
shall not apply to sections of the Act of March 3, 1911,
which we not expressly repealed on June 25, 1948.
This legislative intent was brought to the attention
of the 8th Circuit, in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF
(now published in the Supreme Law Library).
"Existing law" must embrace at least those sections of
the Act of March 3, 1911, which were NOT repealed, yes?
But, there is still much more work to be done. We must
track the fate of each surviving section, right up to
the present time.
Now, for each section which survives without repeal
up to the present time, we can lump each section
into one of three groups: (1) mentions district court(s)
of the United States ("DCUS"), (2) mentions United States
District Court(s) ("USDC"), and (3) mentions neither.
Then, we focus on groups (1) and (2), proving that
Congress specifically intended to retain the DCUS,
in particular by our inferring legislative intent
from the explicit language of section 2(b) of the
Act of June 25, 1948.
Moreover, we can construct "noscitur a sociis" from the
places which are associated with each respective court
e.g. USDC is ONLY mentioned in the context of places like
Puerto Rico (read "the federal zone").
Clearly, this is a "United States District" [sic], whereas
none of the 50 Union states is a "United States District",
because the 50 Union states are disjoint with respect to
all territories, possessions, and enclaves situated
inside the federal zone, per 4:3:2 and 1:8:17.
Then, we nail the coffin shut with Mookini, which is
precisely on point, and entirely favorable to our
position. It is also a U.S. Supreme Court holding,
still standing, so we are on solid ground further still,
for this reason alone. Mookini constructs the statute
in question using "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius."
Now, with this solid foundation in place, we can then
move onwards, to supplement this statutory analysis with
ever widening circles of substantiating evidence, whether
in Acts of Congress or not.
So, all we need is money, and we can finish this reseach,
write up the results, and publish the results on the
Internet. If you like, I can also file the results
in the form of a MEMORANDUM OF LAW in any of the several
cases which I keep open, just for this purpose.
The 372(c) complaint against John M. Roll would be a
good place to docket it; also, I have a pending
Application for Leave to Intervene in Gilbertson's
appeal, filed by me as Relator on behalf of the
People of the United States of America. That
court never ruled on this application for intervention.
We have lots of options for filing this analysis
in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Good will and good hunting to you and yours!
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General
copies: various Internet friends