« In-depth story of Bill Clinton's shunned and banished son, Danney Williams (Full interview) | Main | MEDIA'S PHONY GROPER ALLEGATIONS FALLING LIKE DOMINOES Common Democrat tactic used to slander, destroy opponents unravels »

United States District Court (USDC) has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever

The Yalta Conference at end of WWII is a MAJOR CLUE ... USDC has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever

One essential component of the MAJOR THEORY we are pursuing
goes like this:

World War II was contrived to make money for Daddy Warbucks
and family (War Bucks, get it??)  WWI had already poured
huge sums into their coffers, so they knew how lucrative
another "world war" would be for them. 

The U.S. debt to the bankers had jumped
from $1 Billion before WWI to $25 Billion after WWI.
 
I wasn't paying attention during a lecture given by one of
my fellow seminarians, I believe it was Junior Year High School
at Queen of Angels Seminary in San Fernando, California:
the focus of his lecture was the Yalta Conference.

Now, consider this:  at Yalta we see photos of
FDR, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin --
very famous photographs.
 
By the time that Conference started, the defeat
of the German Wehrmacht (military machine) was in sight:
February 4-11, 1945.  Germany formally surrendered on May 7, 1945
-- just 3 months later.
 
What we do NOT see in any of those historical photos
are the bankers, hiding behind the scenes like
the Wizard of Oz (oz = gold, get it?)

What I strongly suspect happened at Yalta was
some kind of secret "deal" which FDR consummated
with the banks:

The United States was running out of money,
and it needed lots more to finish off Japan,
particularly if a land invasion of Japan
was decided necessary to end WWII.

So, I do believe that FDR secretly accepted
massive loans from the international bankers,
in return for agreeing to turn American Courts
into collection agencies.

This plan or "scheme" had been hatched
even BEFORE the United States entered WWII --
with a RESOLUTION and NOT an Act of Congress,
mind you!

The evidence of this timing is found in the
history of revisions to Titles 18 and 28
of the U.S. Code.
 
As such, the lucky men and women who
were allowed to stay home, back in D.C.,
went to work quietly re-writing the entire
Federal Criminal Code (Title 18) and
the entire Judiciary Code (Title 28).

Both were eventually revised, codified
and enacted into positive law on the
same day -- June 25, 1948 -- one right
after the other in the Statutes at Large:
where the Title 18 revision ends
the revision of Title 28 begins --
no other pages in between the two!
 
I was only 4 DAYS old on that day.

Thus, with these historical facts in sharp focus,
it makes perfect sense that the Federal Courts
effectively "morphed" into legislative tribunals
with an unstated purpose of collecting interest
payments on behalf of world bankers who
financed the end of WWII.

Remember also that the United States was secretly
bankrupted by FDR et al. in 1933.

As such, FDR's solution to paying off war debts
was obviously different from Pres. Lincoln's approach --
greenbacks!
 
And, the debts which the United States agreed to pay
were engineered as COMPOUND INTEREST:
interest accruing on interest. 

Ah, what magic!!  I'm sure U.S. creditor banks were thrilled.
 
Unfortunately for that conspiracy, the U.S. Supreme Court
has now held -- correctly -- that Rules of Court may NOT
expand or restrict original jurisdiction already conferred
upon Federal District Courts by prior Acts of Congress:
Willy v. Coastal Corp.

We have now proven that the switch from DCUS to USDC
was ATTEMPTED by means of amendments to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Federal Rules of Evidence.

If you know what to look for, the Congress tried to
make this appear AOK by adding an "Abrogation Clause"
to the Rules Enabling Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2072

(b)  Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.
All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect
after such rules have taken effect.

That Abrogation Clause is obviously unconstitutional:
the Supreme Court may not make law, and Congress
may not delegate law-making authority to 9 black robes.
 
A similar Abrogation Clause was also added to the
Title 18 revision, at the former 18 U.S.C. 3771;
however, that statute was later repealed and
replaced with a different statute dealing with
Crime Victims' Rights ("CVRA").

It's highly unusual for a section in the
U.S. Code to be repealed and then
REPLACED with entirely different text
but retaining the same section number!
 
Now that the Abrogation Clause in Title 28
has been proven to be unconstitutional,
the holding in Willy v. Coastal Corp. bars
all United States District Courts from
claiming any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.

We know full well that they do make that claim,
but they cannot prove it!
 
The general rule in all Federal jurisprudence
is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction
upon Federal District Courts must be STRICTLY
construed.  Just read it for yourself and
confirm that section 3231 granted criminal jurisdiction
to the Article III DCUS:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3231

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction,
exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.

Check out this extra ZINGER, in the Notes under that section:

Senate Revision Amendment

The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment.

See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.

 

There is no evidence of any vote by the U.S. House of Representatives,

and no evidence of any Presidential signature on that "Senate amendment".

As such, this "Senate amendment" is further evidence of a

fraudulent attempt to tamper with section 3231, so as to

make it APPEAR that the USDC had been conferred with

criminal jurisdiction, when such a claim simply cannot be

sustained in light of Willy v. Coastal Corp. and the

obvious unconstitutionality of the Abrogation Clause

still found at 28 USC 2072(b).

 

Further reading:  Hovind was released
soon after this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
was filed and served in his case:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hovind/recon1.htm


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

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

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, SoundSignal <soundsignal@comcast.net> wrote:

October 17, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink