Time: Wed Feb 05 17:02:30 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23930; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:14:50 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:01:08 -0800 To: <minutemn@pcl.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Supplement to Refusal Cc: pmitch@primenet.com SUPPLEMENT TO REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: 28 U.S.C. 2284; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Supremacy Clause COMES NOW ... to supplement Defendant's previously submitted NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE, filed on [mm/dd/yy] in the instant case, for the following substantive reasons: 1. The ORDER by Senior United States District Judge James H. Hancock, dated January 24, 1997, erred by determining that a three judge court is not required. Specifically, said ORDER stated as follows: This court is fully satisfied that a three judge court is not required. Judge Hancock is in error, because Section 2284 of Title 28, United States Code, specifically authorizes a three judge panel to adjudicate the apportionment of congressional districts, to wit: (a) A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or _when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts_ or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body. [emphasis added] _abc_ means underline Defendant has previously challenged the constitutionality of the apportionment of all congressional districts, because all Union states are currently requiring voter registrants to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they are all federal citizens. Defendant is a Citizen of Alabama state who is not also a federal citizen, by Right of Election. See Tenth Amendment. Accordingly, the apportionment of congressional districts is being skewed, as a matter of law, by this unconstitutional discrimination against Citizens of the several states who are not also federal citizens (read "citizens of the United States"). 2. Said Citizens of Alabama state are presently barred from registering to vote, which bar constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of the fundamental Right to choose their Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. Moreover, the federal Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA") exhibits obvious class discrimination against said Citizens also, by barring them from serving on federal grand and petit (read "trial") juries. See Defendant's previously filed MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and associated VERIFIED STATEMENT, which detail overwhelming evidence that the JSSA exhibits prohibited class discrimination. 3. Accordingly, the combination of Union state voter registration practices, and the obvious class discrimination exhibited by the JSSA, results in depriving Defendant of all voices He might otherwise have in the management of His state and federal goverments. As such, the class discrimination against Citizens of the several Union states constitutes a clear deprivation of the Petition Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution"). Defendant cannot vote, cannot serve on a federal grand jury, and cannot serve on a federal trial jury. Defendant is effectively rendered a "White Nigger" by the combination of current federal and state practices. 4. As a Principal of these governments, Defendant hereby complains of systematic violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Said treaties guarantee effective judicial remedies for violations of fundamental Rights, notwithstanding that the violations were committed by persons acting in their official government capacities. Said treaties also guarantee competent judicial forums to adjudicate matters which arise under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Federal judges who compensation is currently being diminished by federal income taxes are barred by law from presiding on this honorable Court. See Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore [cite omitted]. 5. Furthermore, Congress has explicitly reserved to "localities" legal standing to compel United States (federal government) obedience to these treaties, in the event that the federal government should fail to perform its obligations under said treaties, which are both rendered supreme Law, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Defendant submits that county courts within Alabama state fall within the legislative meaning of "locality" as that term was utilized by Congress in the explicit reservations which Congress attached to said treaties. Executed on: mm/dd/yy Respectfully submitted, William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris etc. Please acknowledge receipt to Paul Mitchell. ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail