THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18! Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis

>  Did you know anything about this?

Yes:  there are other very serious problems with 18 U.S.C. 3231.

Such statutes conferring original jurisdiction upon Federal District courts

must be STRICTLY construed:  section 3231 confers original

jurisdiction upon the Article III District Courts of the United States ("DCUS"),

NOT upon the Article IV United States District Courts ("USDC"):

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

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 the Historical and Revision Notes also:

Senate Revision Amendment

 

The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment.
See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.

No vote by the House of Representatives, and no signature by the President!

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gakoumis/memo.Senator.Casey.2008-07-15.htm

The rest of the story is here:

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

In particular, see 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]

Here's that full 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.

[end excerpt]

 

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

---

From: Clyde Young <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:41 PM
Subject: Fw: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...

Did you know anything about this?  Most of the criminal charges I could have brought against local government was based in it.

 

:Clyde-Earl: Young  

:AUTOGRAPH: COPYCLAIM: 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: JesusIsTHETruth <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

REMEMBER: CHECK FOR THE NEW PHONE AND PIN NUMBER FOR THESE CALLS BY LOGGING INTO YRIITL AND CLICKING ON THE FREE TELE-CONFERENCES TAB   Public Service Announcement: THIS Tuesday CALL       CONFERENCE CALL   S P E C I A L A N N O U N C E M E N T ~*~ A  MAJOR  ANOUNCEMENT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE  OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18!! UPDATE ON TITLE 18 CLASS ACTION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2012             September 27, 2012             A Motion for Summary Judgment was docketed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court, requesting immediate relief for anyone on the petition.             The Motion is based on the un-refuted affidavits and proof that no Constitutional passage occurred for Title 18, the criminal code in the 80th Congress (1947-1948).             Since the Title also includes the only authorization to allow federal courts jurisdiction in any criminal case, whether Title 18, Title 21, or Title 26, 18 USC section 3231, then the motion requests relief for each person on the petition.               You have a limited amount of time to get on the petition.  Contact us immediately! In a challenge to the Validity of Title 18 (Public Law 80-772), the government has now admitted that Public Law 80-772 is unconstitutional. These admissions can be used in the Class Action on Title 18 and in other federal criminal cases.  The original class action petition was filed in the DC court on 2/23/2012. The judge refused to rule on the merits or make findings of fact and conclusions of law and now it is on appeal. An opening brief, a reply brief, and a Motion for Summary Judgment have been filed by our group. The government has waived argument on the issues presented.  A verified request for proof of claim was filed in a separate case on August 27, 2012 by our group. 18 stipulated answers were provided, to which the government waived argument on all stipulations, thus admitting the stipulations.   Included in those admissions were that “no quorum existed on May 12, 1947 and June 22 and 23, 1948”, rendering 18 USC section 3231, which is the only statute which gives the district court jurisdiction to prosecute any federal crime, invalid.   The government also admitted that the quorum issue has never been heard on the merits; that no Supreme Court precedent exists for the government; and that the  US attorney is violating the law by prosecuting any crime.   The government also admitted that no prior statute gives the federal courts jurisdiction; that the indictment is void on any federal criminal case; that the  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation; and that pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the government was required to answer the proof of claims.   Since the government violated the APA, then their silence can only be equated with fraud. See  U.S. v. Pruden, 424 F.2d 1021 (1970). Under the authority of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC section 556(D)-Burden of Proof, “the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof.” The Supreme Court has stated that “if any tribunal (court) finds absences of proof of jurisdiction over person or subject matter, that case must be dismissed.”  Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Motley, 211  U.S. 149 (1908).   The Attorney General was given 3 opportunities to respond to affidavits of fact and a request for a certified question of law related to the invalidity of Title 18. No response was made. In  U.S. v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981), the court held: “Indeed, no more than that, [Affidavits], is necessary to make the prima facie case.” Id at 536. “Moreover the threshold of relevance is a low one.” Id at 537. “The burden is therefore on the Respondent who must come forward with special facts to support a legally sufficient rebuttal or defense.” Id at 538-39. The stipulated answers are now admitted.   Included in the stipulated facts the government has now admitted are:  1. An internal memorandum by Harley G. Lappin to Department Heads of the Bureau of Prisons on July 27, 2009 in which he states that “In order for any bill to be valid the Journals of both Houses must show that iw was passed in the presence of a Quorum. See  United States v. Balin, Joseph & Co., 144  U.S. 1, 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 voe was a ‘voice vote,’ but the Parliamentarian of the House states that a voice vote is only valid when the Journal shows that a quorum is present and that it’s unlawful for the Speaker of the House o sign any enrolled bill in the absence of a quorum. On May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the hall of the House was required to be entered on the Journal in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 voice vote to be legal.”   2. A letter from Jeff Trandahl, clerk of the House to Mr. Charles R. Degan dated June 28, 2000, in which he states: “Congress was in session on June 1,3,4,7-12 and 14-19, 1948, however Title 18 was not voted on at this time.”   3. A letter from Karen L. Haas, clerk of the House, dated September 11, 2008, in which she stated: “After conducting a thorough examination of the journals, I found no entry in the journal of the House of any May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3190 bill…”   4. A letter by Nancy Erickson to Mr. Wayne E. Matthews dated March 9, 2009 in which she stated that “I asked the Senate Historian’s office to review the correspondence you enclosed, and they were able to verify that no action was taken by the Senate on H.R. 3190 prior to the December 19, 1947 sine die adjournment.   5. A letter dated August 24, 2010 from the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives which stated: “Our office has conducted research of the House Journal and the Congressional Record in regards to HR 3190 and the voice vote that was taken on May 12, 1947. After researching these official proceedings of the US House of Representatives we have been unable to find the names of the 44 Members who responded to the voice vote.”   Pursuant to their oath of office, the courts are required to follow the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.    ~*~ YRIITL has been serving the American community for over 7 years to secure the very best in Information Providers to assist you and teach you to deal with court related matters.  Our Students are simply the best informed, bar none.        ~*~  For more information .......  Contact Martin Michaelsson:  [email protected]  Brought to you by.... www.AmericansRestoringAmerica. com     The Phone Numbers and Pins are published at http://www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com behind the Free Tele-Conference tab. Enter with your User Name and Password. If you don’t have one, click on “New? REGISTER HERE” and create your unique User Name and Password. Information is available only to registered members. Click on Free Tele-Conference Calls and you will see the correct information.   PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL YOUR GROUPS AND LISTS   So, if you want to learn how you can accomplish this Offensive Posture for yourself, listen to and participate in the Free Tele-Conference Calls most every evening of the week. See the 'Free Tele-Conferences' TAB at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com, AND THE NEW CALENDAR TAB. There are also the Archives to view two years of historical conference calls! Best regards, ME Click one of the links below to learn more about our self-help courses, or to order your copy today:   The Leader in Step-by-Step Lawsuit Self-Help . . . On the Web Since 1997 Case-Winning Lawsuit Procedure for Non-Lawyers ... Learn How-to-Win In Just 24 Hours ! I also encourage you to purchase the 24 hour JurisDictionary Course found at the products and services page at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com. This course is the absolute minimum entry level for anyone who is anticipating having to deal with a lawful issue. It will be the best 24 hours you have ever spent! I have heard it said this course, when completely understood by you, could put you on par with 85% of the lawyers you may come across.     DISCLAIMER: Legal Information is NOT the same as Legal Advice This site provides entertainment/educational information about law designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal educational information is not the same as legal advice. The application of law varies with an individual's specific circumstances. The laws of every state are in constant change, and although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it is appropriate to your particular situation.

Related: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/10/paul-andrew-mitchell-constitution-citizens-and-the-united-states.html