c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA REPUBLIC
July 25, 1996
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND
Mr. William D. Browning
44 East Broadway
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA REPUBLIC
Re: U.S.A. v. Wallen, Case No. 95-484-WDB
Dear Mr. Browning:
I am Citizen of Arizona state, a Counselor at Law, and a
part-time student of comparative economic history. I recently
had a lawful contract obligation to attend a court trial over
which you presided. That obligation arose from a contract for
consideration paid in lawful money, i.e. silver dollars. During
that trial, the question of your authority was raised, and you
answered that your authority was the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
It is My understanding that the Constitution for the United
States of America, as lawfully amended, contains a provision
which prevents federal officers from impairing the obligation of
contracts. This provision is in the Constitution as published in
federal depository libraries, and in the official law books upon
which district courts rely for conclusive evidence of the Law.
This Constitution clearly forbids titles of nobility. See
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. It is My contention, based on
diligent research, that any license is construed by American
courts to be a title of nobility, which is forbidden by this
provision. However, no penalties were mentioned by this
provision and it is for this reason, I believe, that no penalties
currently attach to the exercise of licenses issued by the state
and federal governments. It was the lack of penalties which
motivated Congress to cure this oversight with a proposal to
amend the Constitution with penalties for exercising titles of
nobility.
My research has also uncovered a constitutional amendment,
ratified by the Union states in the year 1819, which penalizes
the exercise of titles of nobility with a forfeiture of
citizenship and with a disqualification from ever serving in any
public office in America (see attached). This Amendment is the
main reason why I am not now a licensed bar member, and have no
intention of ever becoming a licensed bar member, because I do
not want to forfeit My Arizona state Citizenship, and I would
like to serve in public office some day.
Constructive Notice and Demand:
Page 1 of 4
This Amendment supersedes any state "practice of law"
statutes, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, to the extent that
those statutes require the exercise of any titles of nobility.
Moreover, with or without this Amendment, it is My opinion that
membership in a bar association would require that I violate not
only My personal code of conduct, but also numerous provisions in
the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully
amended, including but not limited to the Sixth and Tenth
Amendments, and other laws of the United States, including but
not limited to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Such membership prevents me from diligently protecting the
fundamental Rights of My clients. My first loyalty is to My
Creator, to Myself, My Family, the Citizenship of My state, and
then to My clients and their fundamental Right to maintain that
very same loyalty. Bar membership reverses these priorities and
flatly violates this loyalty, because it requires loyalty to the
court, to the bar, to public policy contrary to the Constitution,
and lastly to My clients, in that order. These priorities
violate the doctrine of separation of powers and, more
importantly, My clients' fundamental Rights.
Accordingly, I have the following important questions for
you, sir: Was the original Thirteenth Amendment a provision in
the Constitution which you took an oath to support, or was it
not? Under rules of equity, I assert My fundamental Right to
know what provisions are in the Constitution which you took an
oath to support. This is matter of your contract with Me.
If you have ever exercised a title of nobility in America,
e.g. esquire, lawyer, attorney, Honor, then the original
Thirteenth Amendment is a constitutional authority which has
disqualified you from ever serving in the office of federal
judge, is it not? Judges occupy public offices, do they not?
I am asking this question specifically because of your
decisions to bar me from assisting My client, Sheila Terese
Wallen, at all times during Her recent criminal trial on charges
of illegal marijuana possession with intent to distribute same.
In fact, you ordered me to the back row of the gallery, with U.S.
Marshals standing between Me and My client, preventing any
communication with My client.
If you have, in fact, taken an oath to support the
Constitution, and the administrative record does appear to
support this fact, does that Constitution not also contain a
provision which bars you from impairing the obligation of
contracts? See Contracts Clause. I had a lawful contract with
Sheila Terese Wallen, and you impaired that contract.
My contract with Sheila was predicated upon My belief that
your oath of office placed you in a valid contract with Me. By
what specific lawful authority do you claim any Right to impair
the obligations of My contract with Sheila Terese Wallen? If you
are upholding the U.S. Constitution, then My contract with Her is
valid and enforceable, under rules of equity, and you are
forbidden from doing anything to impair that contract.
Constructive Notice and Demand:
Page 2 of 4
I will look forward to your timely response to this letter.
If I do not hear from you in writing within ten (10) working days
from the date of this letter, I will proceed on the basis of the
conclusive presumption that the original Thirteenth Amendment was
not in the Constitution which you took an oath to support.
I will stipulate that your oath predates the publication of
recent research proving that the original Thirteenth Amendment
has been well hidden from public knowledge (i.e. fraud).
Nevertheless, the original Thirteenth Amendment was lawfully
ratified, pursuant to Article V. This ratification has been
proven conclusively.
Therefore, you are now in the wrong contract with the
American People, because the Constitution which you took an oath
to support does not contain the original Thirteenth Amendment, as
evidenced by the Constitution as it was published in federal
depository libraries, and as it was published in the official law
books upon which district courts relied for conclusive evidence
of the Law, on the day you took your original oath of office.
Furthermore, you are disqualified from serving as a federal
judge for these and other reasons, because you have exercised one
or more titles of nobility or honor (e.g. "Honor", "Esquire")
since ratification of that Amendment. The original Thirteenth
Amendment does not contain any provisions for curing such a
disability or regaining your Citizenship. Your only defense now
is that you, too, were victimized by fraudulent concealment of
this Amendment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Whether or not the original Thirteenth Amendment was a
provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support,
the Contracts Clause has been in the organic U.S. Constitution
since its original ratification. You, sir, simply cannot impair
the Right of Contract, pursuant to an explicit prohibition which
is in that Constitution.
One last point: when exactly did the decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court become "hearsay," without any legal significance?
You ruled as such on July 17, 1996, in Sheila's case. I really
would like to know, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone
who claims to be a federal judge with expertise in federal law.
Are these decisions which you heard Supreme Court Justices say?
Does that make them "hearsay", in your opinion? If not, then
what does? Before I take any remedial action on this point, I
must have your explanation for what now appears to be gross
judicial misconduct on your part.
If you wish to rebut the presumptions which I have presented
to you in this letter, then please do so. I would welcome them,
sincerely. For the record, I am presenting these facts and laws
to you, pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986.
Thank you very much for your careful consideration, and I
will look forward to your timely response to this CONSTRUCTIVE
NOTICE AND DEMAND, before 10 days transpire.
Constructive Notice and Demand:
Page 3 of 4
Respectfully yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
all rights reserved without prejudice
copies: Clerk of Court
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit
Joelyn Marlowe, Esquire
U.S. Marshal's office
Federal Bureau of Investigation
email: supremelawfirm@yahoo.com
website: http://supremelaw.com
Constructive Notice and Demand:
Page 4 of 4
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Judicial Complaint against William D. Browning