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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Formal challenge to "not self-executing" Declaration appended to U.S. ratification of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Main | Introductory General Semantics Course | General Semantics: An Approach To Effective Language Behavior »

TITLE 18 USC LAWSUIT SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Request for comments re: this late 2011 announcement and US DOJ's interest in it now

Why is the US DOJ interested in this?

TITLE 18 USC LAWSUIT SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Request for comments re: this late 2011 announcement and US DOJ...

 

Over the last week or so this is the second time they have queried it but I didn't think anything came of it in the past, since late 2011.

Usdoj Tonydavis Sitemeter-com

 

Re:http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2011/11/title-18-usc-lawsuit-special-announcement.html

TITLE 18 USC LAWSUIT ANNOUNCEMENT TONIGHT. Please Forward Far and Wide !!!

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2011/10/title-18-usc-lawsuit-announcement-tonight-please-forward-far-and-wide-.html

TITLE 18 USC LAWSUIT SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

Today you are invited to Dead Doctors Don't Lie Daily Podcast and Store (an outstanding opportunity):

http://beyondtangytangerine2dot0.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/dead-doctors-dont-lie-daily-radio-podcast-store/

___

Post Main:

Please Forward Far and Wide   

 

Help me Help others……

 

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: TITLE  18  USC  LAWSUIT – TONY  DAVIS

 

A MOST IMPORTANT CALL 

www.FreedomsRadio.com

9pm EST / 6pm Pacific Tuesday

 

Subject to Change at the Last Minute, as Always…..

 

M A R K    Y O U R    C A L E N D A R

 

CLASS   ACTION   LAWSUIT

 

A.             Class Action Being Filed

 

The most significant challenge to federal court jurisdiction is being filed shortly as a class action challenging the jurisdiction of the DOJ to incarcerate federal prisoners.  LAW is a group dedicated to the preservation of Constitutional and Human Rights.   The lawsuit, in D.C., seeks expungement plus $3,000/day/person. Cost is $2,000 to cover expenses.[1]

 

B.             The Challenge

 

Our group has obtained and verified the evidence directly from Congress that Public Law 80-772 was never passed by Congress, the only statute which gives the court jurisdiction to indict and convict on any crime (Title 18, Title 21, Title 26).  No court has addressed the challenge as presented properly[2], nor the evidence obtained by us directly from Congress.  Over 3 years, all administrative and court remedies have been exhausted.  

 

C.              Bond Opens the Door

 

One of the most significant cases in recent history related to jurisdiction and the right to challenge a federal statute was ruled on by the Supreme Court on June 16, 2011.  In Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that Bond had “standingto challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States”, pg. 3-14.  “Anything in repugnance to the Constitution is invalid or unlawful”.  Bond, supra

 

Bond now opens the door for us to challenge 18 USC section 3231, part of the enactment of Title 18, which states:  “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. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.”  Without the validity of 18 USC § 3231 a federal court must revert the powers of the federal courts back to the states. The Bond ruling provides standing for anyone to challenge 18 USC § 3231 and any crime that could have been tried by the state where you would have received less time (in many cases the state decided not to prosecute at all).  See U.S. v. Sharpnack, 355 US 286 (1957).  " It further specifies that "Whoever . . . is guilty of any act or omission which . . . would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State . . . in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like [federal] offense and subject to a like punishment."   

 

          D.      Services Provided By LAW

 

            Class action challenging jurisdiction

Bond v. U.S. petitions for a reduction or elimination of sentence. 

            3582 crack motions.

            28 USC § 2255 motions

            28 USC § 2241 petitions

            Complete case investigations

 

WHAT PEOPLE SAY

 

“I heard your show last night.  You were awesome!!”  Joe F. Cal., 9/28.11. (LAW has been on radio talk shows 6 times in the last few weeks explaining the class action.) 

Over 50 wins!

Only research group accepted directly 5 times on habeas into Supreme Court!

“What you wrote is awesome!” Habeas, NDCal, 8/25/11. Karen F.

Massive Grand Jury Fraud uncovered!  C.D.Cal., 6/1/11. 

“You’re known for not quitting until you get results.”  G. Spry, S.D.W.Va., 6/10/11. 

 

Revised 10/22/11

 

WHY THE BOP DOES NOT WANT YOU TO JOIN THE CLASS ACTION

 

            After 9 years of research, we have established conclusively by fact and law that Public Law 80-772 was never enacted by Congress, which contains 18 USC § 3231, the only statute allowing a court criminal jurisdiction, making illegal any charge or conviction. 

            The BOP admitted that in an internal memo from Harley Lappin, BOP Director (below).  The facts in the memo have been verified.  Thus any court has no jurisdiction to sentence.  The BOP Budget for FY 2011 is $6.8 Billion, a 10% increase from 2010.[3] We have already caught one warden giving legal advise.[4] “Trust me, I am from the government.”  Or is it about money?  Below is memo:

 

From: "Harley G. Lappin" <harley,lappln@usdoj.gov> Sent: Monday, July 27, 20093:17 PM

“Attention all Department Heads, there has been a large volume of inmate Requests for Administrative Remedies questioning the validity of the Bureau's authority to hold or classify them under 18 U.S,C, §§ 4081, et seq., (1948). On the claim that Public Law 80-772 was never passed or signed In the presence of a Quorum or Majority of both Houses of Congress as required by Article I, § 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, Although most courts have, thus far, relied on Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649(1892) to avoid ruling on the moots of these claims, however, there have been some which have stated that they were not bound by theField case, but those cases did not involve any Quorum Clause challenge. So out of an abundance of caution, I contacted the Office of Legal . Counsel, the National Archives and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to learn that there is no record of any quorum being present during the May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3190 Bill in the House (See 93 Cong.Rec. 5049), and the record is not clear as to whether there was any Senate vote on the H,R. 3190 Bill during any session of the 80th Congress, There is only one Supreme Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid the Journals of both Houses must show that it was passed In the presence of a Quorum. See United States v. Ballin, Joseph & Co., 144 U.S. 1, 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 vote 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 to 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. It appears that the 1909 version of the Federal Criminal Code has never been repealed. Therefore, in essence, our only true authority is derived from the 1948 predecessor to Public Law 80-772. “Although adjudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought to be beyond the jurisdiction of federal administrative agencies, this rule is not mandatory," according to the Supreme Court in the case of Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U,S, 200,215 (1994), Therefore, the Bureau under the advice of the Legal Counsel feels that it is in the best interest of public safety to continue addressing all of these Administrative Remedy Requests by stating ,that only the Congress or courts can repeal or declare a federal statute unconstitutional.”

 

Revised 10/11/11 ©2011

 

[1] The BOP receives about $100+ per day for each day a person is in prison.  Funding comes from Congress. Lappin knew about the problem at the latest in 2009, exercised his “discretion” to leave people in prison, then the BOP submitted their FY2011 budget for $6.8Billion without advising Congress of the problem.  

[1] It is understandable that the BOP is concerned.  BOP was required to notify Congress re 2011 budget they had a major problem, and ask Congress to address it. Instead, concealment.  Obstruction of Congress???

 

 

 

UPDATE ON CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

 

A.    All administrative remedies have been exhausted

 

LAW specializes in the preservation of Constitutional and Human Rights. As of August 31, 2011, LAW had exhausted all administrative remedies related to the class action lawsuit as well as all court remedies, thus freeing up LAW to file the class action. 

 

B.   Number of People on the Lawsuit

 

We currently have about 250 people on the class action. We anticipate having approximately 500 prior to filing. The brief has already been written and will be filed in the next few weeks.   Anyone wishing to join should contact us immediately.

 

C.      The Bond Case has Opened the Door

 

In their 9-0 ruling in Carol Ann Bond v. United States, 09-1227, the Supreme Court stated that any act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is void.  Lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court rulings, and we have seen an improved attitude in district courts after the Bond ruling regarding jurisdictional challenges.  We currently have filed an amicus curaie brief in a case in Denver, a case in New Jersey, the government has waived argument on a habeas case in Houston, and the district judge in Miami has stated on the record that if the facts could be proven, the person would be released.   One of the members of LAW has been interviewed on 6 radio talk shows regarding the petition. 

 

D.    Request for Declatory Judgment

 

      As part of the class action lawsuit, LAW will also file a request for Declatory Judgment pursuant to 28 USC § 2201, et seq., in order to force the court to research the Congressional records and declare the statute invalid. 

 

E.     Who Is Eligible

 

      Anyone charged with a federal crime since 1948, pretrial, post-trial, or released.          

 

 

 

You are receiving this email because you are a member of www.AmericansRestoringAmerica.com and your email preferences are set to allow notification emails.
If you want to stop receiving these emails, please sign into your account and change your preferences.
If you want to be removed from our database and close your account, please reply to this email with the word REMOVE in the Subject line.
Please DO NOT reply to this email EXCEPT to remove yourself from our database and close your account.
This mailbox is electronically scanned for the word REMOVE in the subject line of received emails. All other email’s received will be deleted.

 

 Please Forward Far and Wide 

 

Help me Help others……

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.

[1] A Major federal judge has agreed to hear the issue on October 28, 2011and release person upon evidence.  A second major federal judge issued a show cause order to government; government waived argument.

[2] The Enrolled Bill Rule, Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649  does not apply to a proper challenge, because Munos Flores, Clinton v. N.Y., and Bond v. United States, all S.Ct. overturned Field v. Clark.

[3] The BOP receives about $100+ per day for each day a person is in prison.  Funding comes from Congress. Lappin knew about the problem at the latest in 2009, exercised his “discretion” to leave people in prison, then the BOP submitted their FY2011 budget for $6.8Billion without advising Congress of the problem.  

[4] It is understandable that the BOP is concerned.  BOP was required to notify Congress re 2011 budget they had a major problem, and ask Congress to address it. Instead, concealment.  Obstruction of Congress???

___

COMMENTS:

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:26 AM
subject: Re: TITLE 18 USC LAWSUIT SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Request for comments re: this late 2011 announcement and US DOJ's interest in it now
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com Filter messages from this mailing list
mailed-by: googlegroups.com
signed-by: googlegroups.com
unsubscribe: Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
: Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3231

Source
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826.)

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.



(1)  statutes conferring original jurisdiction like 18 USC 3231 must be STRICTLY construed:

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

5(c) The United States District Court (“USDC”) has no original jurisdiction over the specific subject matter raised in Appellant’s Initial COMPLAINT.  The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, corresponding to 15 U.S.C. 1121 (never codified), conferred original jurisdiction on the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”), i.e. “The district courts ... of the United States shall have original jurisdiction ... of all actions arising under this Act ....”  Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed (elaborated below).  For example, compare 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, with 17 U.S.C. 512(h) conferring original jurisdiction on the USDC.  In particular, see:

 

36 C.J.S. 55:  Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942);  City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank of the City of New York, 314 U.S. 63 (1941);  Harris v. American Legion, 162 F.Supp. 700 (S.D. Ind.);  Detres v. Lions Bldg. Corp., 136 F.Supp. 699 (N.D. Ill. 1955);  Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, 133 F.Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955);  Scarborough v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 45 F.Supp. 176 (W.D. Texas 1942);  and,

 

36 C.J.S. 4‑5:  Joy v. City of St. Louis, 122 Fed. 524 (1906);  Carroll v. U.S., 354 U.S. 394 (1957);  Aetna Insurance Co. v. Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co., 229 F.2d 584 (10th Cir. 1956);  Tsang v. Kan, 173 F.2d 204 (9th Cir.);  Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. Munch, 116 F.2d 85 (2nd Cir. 1940);  The Emma Giles, 15 F.Supp. 502;  Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 68 F.Supp. 782.

 

(2)  the distinction between DCUS and USDC is well documented:

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.htm


(3)  the constitutional origins of the USDC are NOT mentioned
in the law which established them within the 50 States:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/132


(4)  compare other laws which do mention the constitutional
origins of other Federal courts:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/251  (Article III)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/171  (Article I)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7441  (Article I)


(5)  inclusio unius est exclusio alterius:  the omission of any
constitutional origins from 3231 must be inferred as an
intentional Act of Congress


(6)  we must, therefore, resort to standing decisions
of the U.S. Supreme Court in order to confirm authority
for the USDC's constitutional origins e.g. Balzac v. Porto Rico

     The United States District Court is not a true United States
     court established  under  Article III of the Constitution to
     administer the  judicial power  of the United States therein
     conveyed.    It  is  created  by  virtue  of  the  sovereign
     congressional faculty,  granted under Article IV, Section 3,
     of  that   instrument,  of  making  all  needful  rules  and
     regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United
     States.  The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true
     United  States   courts  in   offering  an   opportunity  to
     nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local
     influence,  does   not  change   its  character  as  a  mere
     territorial court.

                     [Balzac v. Porto  Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312]
                              [42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1921)]

(7)  there is also some evidence that 3231 was amended withOUT

a vote by the House of Representatives or signature by the President:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3231  (Notes)

Senate Revision Amendment


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

 

 
(8)  as such, the USDC appears to be a legislative tribunal:

supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm

Academic Treatises:

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, has summarized the overall problem quite nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name.  While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

 

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]
 
(9)  see this brief for one such constitutional attack:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama


(10)  rules of court may not expand or restrict original jurisdiction
conferred by prior Acts of Congress:  Willy v. Coastal Corp.:

http://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]




On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com> wrote:

--

More reading is here:

http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/

http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/cover.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/letter.of.submittal.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/letter.of.transmittal.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page02.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page03.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page04.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page05.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page06.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page07.gif
http://supremelaw.org/FRCrP/HDoc30/page08.gif

REMEMBER HOWEVER:  such amendments to Rules of Court
can NOT expand or restrict original jurisdiction already conferred
by Acts of Congress:  Willy v. Coastal Corp.  ( !!! )

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


/s/ Paul


On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder where we might find hard copies --
perhaps in locked library archives?

/s/ Paul

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:21 PM, skink.waves@gmail.com <skink.waves@gmail.com> wrote:
Have seen blue and green copies of court rules for the two system, tending to confirm what you are saying, as their rules are even printed separately.


 

January 26, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink