Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Attention Florida: Help Save Whales, Sea Turtles from a Drilling Disaster | Main | Private Attorney General comments re: FBI: DOMESTIC TERRORISM The Sovereign Citizen Movement »

Private Attorney General elaborates Re: BOP Director, 18 USC void

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: Cajun Mike <cajunmike2008@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 9:32:44 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General elaborates Re: BOP Director, 18 USC void

It's MUCH WORSE that that.  

The key statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231, which expressly confers original
criminal jurisdiction upon the Article III District Courts of the United States ("DCUS"):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html

The general rule here is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction
on Federal district courts must be STRICTLY construed
!!

That statute was never amended to change the name to USDC.
It had conferred jurisdiction upon the DCUS for 159 YEARS 
from the Judiciary Act of 1789, up to the "sea change" on June 15, 1948!

Now, check out the Notes:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003231----000-notes.html

Senate Revision Amendment

The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment.   [ OH?? ]
See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.  [end quote]

Now read this:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gakoumis/memo.Senator.Casey.2008-07-15.htm
(Casey never responded!)

The Federal Courts tried to do it with Rule Changes, but the Supreme Court has held -- correctly -- that Rules of Court cannot expand or restrict original jurisdiction conferred by Act of Congress.


Willy v. Coastal Corp.:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm

In adopting rules, federal courts are not free to extend or restrict jurisdiction conferred by statute.

 

The FRCP must be deemed to apply to a particular Federal District Court civil proceeding only if the application of the rules will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred on federal courts by the Federal Constitution’s Article III ‑‑ which describes the subjects over which federal courts have jurisdiction ‑‑ because the caveat that federal courts, in adopting rules, are not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power described in Article III of the Constitution.

 

[Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 112 S.Ct. 1076]

[117 L.Ed.2d 280 (USDC, S.D. Texas 1992), headnote 3]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

Here's that decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=131

But in Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1 (1941), we observed that federal courts, in adopting rules, were not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute. Id., at 10. Such a caveat applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power of the United States described in Article III of the Constitution. The Rules, then, must be deemed to apply only if their application will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred by Article III. We must therefore examine petitioner's second, and related, contention that the District Court action in this case lies outside the range of action constitutionally permitted to an Article III court.



We summarized our findings here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm


Conclusion:  The USDC have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever,
notwithstanding the Abrogation Clause at the original 18 U.S.C. 3771
(later amended, then repealed and replaced with a completely different statute):

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/62stat846.3771.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/62stat846.3771.gif


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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


April 16, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink