legal stipulation may result in transferring the adversary to an inappropriate venue under Title 28. “Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). Accordingly, a federal court must consider their authority “even though parties are prepared to concede it.” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 165, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1934)). Parties cannot circumvent statutory re quirements, including venue requirements, through stipulations. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471 n. 12, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (<HOLDING>). This Court must determine the proper venue of
holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that state prisoners must obtain a coa to appeal denials of 28 usc  2241 petitions holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that parties could not stipulate a construction of state law to obtain jurisdiction inconsistent with 28 usc  12542 and prudential doctrines