UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
Case No.
)
Name, )
Defendant )
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ABOVE ENTITLED
CASE, WITH PREJUDICE
COMES NOW the Defendant, Eddie Ray Kahn, to MOTION this "UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT" to dismiss, with prejudice, the above entitled case,
as said Court has no jurisdiction over this case.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT has no jurisdiction over the instant case
for all the following causes and reasons:
1. Title 18 USC, Section 3231 states, in pertinent part:
"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."
This section of Title 18 makes no mention of any "UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT." It only mentions a court known as a "district court of the United
States."
2. United States Code Title 18 Chapter 211 mentions once a "United
States District Court," only in section 3241 which gives jurisdiction over
territories and possessions" of the United States. The Court shall take
mandatory judicial notice that even here the court named in the indictment
does not constitute a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" spelled out in all
capital letters.
3. The Supreme Court of the United States totally agrees with the
concepts put forth above, as cited below:
"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, 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. Nor does the legislative recognition that federal constitutional
questions may arise in litigation in Porto Rico have any weight in this discussion.
The Constitution of the United States is in force in Porto Rico as it is wherever
and whenever the sovereign power of that government is exerted. This has not
only been admitted, but emphasized, by this court in all its authoritative
expressions upon the issues arising in the Insular Cases, especially in the Downes v.
Bidwell and the Door cases."
Balzak v. People of Porto Rico, 258 US 298 (1922)
"The term District Courts of the United States, as used in the
rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic
significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the
Constitution. Courts of the territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and
are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a
territorial with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of
the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds
v. U.S., 98 US 145, 154; The City of Panama 101 US 453, 460; In Re Mills, 135 US
263, 268;
McAlister v. U.S., 141 US 174, 182-183; Stephens v. Cherokee
Nation, 174 US 445, 376-477; Summers v. U.S., 231 US 92, 101; U.S. v.
Burroughs, 289 US 159, 163. Not only did the promulgation order use the term
District Courts of the Unit4d States in its historic and proper sense, but the
omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and
other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was
intended."
Mookini v. U.S., 303 US 201
4. The foregoing citatations well-prove that any UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT does not constitute a "District court of the United States,"
but rather constitutes only an Article IV court with possible jurisdiction
only over territories and possessions belonging to the United States.
5. Since Defendant personally knows that none of the alleged federal
the rambling indictment failed to allege that Defendant committed any
offenses in or on any federal reservation or territory, and that the court
named in the indictment has no jurisdiction over Defendant, this Court must
dismiss with prejudice both the indictment and the instant case.
WHEREFORE this Court must immediately release Defendant from
incarceration with the apologies of the alleged Plaintiff, a non-existent
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not authorized in Title 16 USC to become a
Plaintiff.
Dated this ______ day of ____________, ______.
_____________________________
Name
Address of Detention Center