From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:16 pm Subject: [SupremeLaw] S.Ct. #03-5070: MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PETITION FOR REHEARING Greetings Russ et al., It shipped from a UPS substation today, and is scheduled to arrive at the Supreme Court this coming Monday, October 27, 2003 A.D. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate the moral support VERY VERY MUCH! One little typo: "Americans laws" should be "American laws". The Clerk kicked back the MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS OF MANDAMUS by the United States, with instructions for curing the few clerical deficiencies (needs another MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP + supporting AFFIDAVIT). The Supreme Court's Rules automatically extend the time to re-file such a MOTION, whenever it doesn't get by the Clerk's initial screening. I didn't want to re-write everything I had already completed before the Clerk's letter arrived, late this afternoon. So, I attached the MOTION FOR MANDAMUS and thereby "lodged" it in the Clerk's docket file. "Filing" and "lodging" are distinct "modes"; the latter is a way of informing the Court that a pleading will soon be filed, as soon as some clerical details can be worked out. This puts the substance in front of the law clerks. I wanted to make it clear that whatever the Supreme Court decided to do with the WRITS OF MANDAMUS, that decision would constitute an intervening circumstance of a substantial or controlling effect (either way!) I engineered this result :) I'm also fighting to maintain my dual status as an Appellant and Relator. When I appear in the latter mode, I am there to represent the United States, which is doing the real argumentation now: COMES NOW the United States ex rel. etc. I think I succeeded in weaving in the real merits of the United States' MOTION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, because the research that it motivated into 42 U.S.C. 1985 was extremely productive, as you may have already realized. Substance prevails over form here. The BIG BONUS was finding that 42 U.S.C. 1985 literally "borrowed" language from 18 U.S.C. 241. HOW PERFECT! http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1985.html COUNTS THREE and FOUR did stall, in fact, because the cases have held that, as a private civil litigant, I do NOT have any private rights of action to enforce 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1512 or 1513, even though I did have a legal obligation to report the felonies: 241, 1512, and 1513; 242 is only a misdemeanor crime, so there was no legal obligation, as such, to report it formally in my Initial COMPLAINT. BUT ... both witness retaliation and deprivation of fundamental Rights, like equal protection and equal Privileges and Immunities, are covered by 42 U.S.C. 1985. The REALLY exciting thing, however, is that I am making real headway now to motivate the Supreme Court to confront the enforceability of the Human Rights Treaties, and formally to recognize two (2) classes of citizens, which has never been done at this level, only at the State Supreme Court level: http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm The slight change in the Statutes at Large was just a pearl of a discovery: "any citizen of the United States" was later changed to "any citizen". ANOTHER PERFECT FIND!!! What juxtaposition!! I'm so glad I noticed that Title 42 was never enacted; that motivated me to pull the Statutes at Large, so I was taking my own medicine as a teacher (something every M.D. should do now and then; D.C.'s don't need to do that, however, because they're already smarter than M.D.'s :) In fact, I may blow it sky high by formally challenging the constitutionality of the Reservations, because they do stipulate that the Covenant is NOT SELF-EXECUTING!! I think this is something that the United States should formally do, on behalf of the entire Nation. Now we are really making some historic progress here, yes? You'll note in the record that I steered the analysis to a probable declaratory judgment that State Citizens lack standing to enforce the Human Rights Treaties, whereas federal citizens do have standing under 42 U.S.C. 1983. If nothing else, from a logical point of view, I have now salvaged COUNTS THREE and FOUR by making it quite clear that 42 U.S.C. 1985 is "national" law and not "municipal" law and, as such, a State Citizen like Me can substitute 42 U.S.C. 1985 for the criminal statutes I cited in those counts, and move forward to litigate the same facts by enforcing the civil remedies of 1985. Given the choice between ruling that the Treaties can NOT be enforced, or steering me into an amended COMPLAINT which allows those COUNTS to go forward on the strength of 42 U.S.C.1985, I think the high Court is going to opt for the latter and thereby tell the world that our Human Rights Treaties really _CAN_ be enforced by private Citizens of the 50 States. Telling the world that they can _NOT_ be enforced by the very same Persons who are eligible to make law in the Congress, would be a colossal embarassment to the federal government: I don't see how it could ever recover from such a public relations disaster, coming as that would on the heels of prolonged foot-dragging by the Congress when it was asked to ratify the Covenant: the United States was one of THE LAST countries to ratify it, in point of fact! So, I've given the Court an effective judicial remedy, and that would be a wonderful outcome for the whole nation; certainly that would be much more preferable than a ruling which closes the door completely and holds that State Citizens are barred from enforcing those treaties, when federal citizens CAN enforce them. That would be grounds for charging the United States with aiding and abetting genocide -- NOT a good outcome! That is where I wanted to steer this whole strategy, because that result is -- ipso facto -- a clear and dangerous deprivation of equal protection of the Law and of equal Privileges and Immunities. See the Privileges and Immunities Clause, in chief: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:2:1 (another place where "Citizen" was used in the organic Constitution!) Remember also, the extension statutes have expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.; so, just what are the real differences between federal citizenship and State Citizenship, in light of all this litigation? Good question! I hope I have sufficiently challenged the high Court now to realize that this question is not only ripe, but I have handed them a golden solution on a silver platter: The saving grace was the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Its "penumbra" (shadow) if you will, reaches far beyond any strict construction of those two prohibitions: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#13th-amend The Civil War ended slavery when the Thirteenth Amendment was rapidly ratified. Congress was thereby given the Power to enforce that Amendment, by means of appropriate legislation. And, 42 U.S.C. 1985 is just that, namely, appropriate legislation that is available on an equal basis to State Citizens as well as federal citizens BECAUSE IT IS FEDERAL NATIONAL LAW, AND NOT FEDERAL MUNICIPAL LAW. When a federal citizen inhabits a State of the Union, s/he enjoys EXACTLY the same protection from slavery as all State Citizens who also inhabit that same State. Maybe the high Court will actually get around to reading "The Federal Zone" after all? Wouldn't that be nice! Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Private Attorney General copy: The Internet --- Dr. Russell MacDonald wrote: > Superbly written piece Paul. > > This MOTION is being filed tomorrow, yes? > > What is the "standard" time for extensions? > > Can they extend it for years, hoping you go away? > > You are continuously in our prayers. > > /s/ Russell MacDonald, DC > > -------Original Message------- > > From: SupremeLaw@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, October 23, 2003 09:56:16 PM > To: supremelaw@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [SupremeLaw] S.Ct. #03-5070: > MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PETITION FOR REHEARING > > http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mot.extend.time.2.htm > http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mot.extend.time.2.doc > > .htm = HTML > .doc = Microsoft WORD 2002 > > > Sincerely yours, > /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell > Private Attorney General