Time: Sat Aug 30 21:12:17 1997
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04350;
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:09:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:08:03 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Kangaroo Attitudes: Results?
>>Confer at "United States" in Black's Law Dictionary,
>>Sixth Edition, for the correct citation to Hooven.
>
>Thank you. However, I do not use Black's unless I want to illustrate just
>how corrupt and far removed from Constitutional reality our federal judicial
>system has become. I recommend you contrast the entry "United States" in
>Black's Law Dictionary with the entry "United States of America" in
>Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914). The former is one short paragraph; the
>latter is four and a half pages.
I did quote Bouvier's, in "The Federal Zone",
second edition, 1992. Many "patriots" have
chosen to steal the electronic version from
me, by refusing to pay the shareware fee,
even though they obtained a bootleg copy
from the Internet, where it was posted
without permission. I presume from your
comments here that you are not one of "those".
>
>>These themes are well documented in Gilbertson's
>>OPENING BRIEF, now in the Supreme Law Library
>>at the URL just below my name here. Several
>>of the Appendices are available there as well.
>
>Thank you again. However, as pleased as I may be that you are documenting
>these themes for all to see and ponder, the question remains: Do you think
>for one minute that any federal court judge in his right mind (if that is
>not a contradiction in terms) is going to cite Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, or
>Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 1945, as his or her justification for citing
>and/or incarcerating me for contempt after he/she has announced he will not
>tolerate Constitutional issues being raised, and I stand up and say "Then
>DAMMIT, I claim my right to be secure from the unConstitutional jurisdiction
>of this court!"
I also criticize Downes, and side with Harlan.
I hope you haven't missed those statements
of mine. It is interesting that the U.S.
Constitution empowers Congress to exercise
exclusive legislation inside the federal zone,
and yet the Supreme Court has decided to rule
that the Constitution does not bind Congress
inside that zone. This "logic" is untenable.
My question to you is this: What are you going
to DO about your knowledge, now that you have
acquired it? Talking about it on the Internet
is fine, and laudable, but are you willing to
enter their "arena" and fight it out there too?
For example, I have urged clients to invoke
the right to petition for issuance of rules,
specifically, for 18 U.S.C. 3231. I believe
this is a pivotal statute, because it goes
to the issue you are discussing above. See also
"Karma and the Federal Courts" in the Supreme
Law Library at the URL just below my name here:
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail