Time: Sat May 31 07:22:19 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA14360;
	Sat, 31 May 1997 06:55:04 -0700 (MST)
	by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA06207;
	Sat, 31 May 1997 06:54:58 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 07:20:25 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Suing the buzzards, Title 42 v. Title 18

Dear Bill,

This has to be the most articulate expose
of Title 42 actions which I have ever seen.
I think we have a lot to share, and I now
believe, after reading this brilliant tract,
that there is much more to be gained by
working together, than there can possibly
be gained by staking out disparate camps
and exchanging slings and arrows when the
sun comes up.  To avoid the Wadleigh holding,
I have directed my magnifying glass to focus on
Title 18, with emphasis on sections 242 and
241 (in that order).  Thus, when the critics
roll out of bed (usually after I have been
at work for 3 to 4 hours), I can tell them
I am using the Congressional definition of
"conspiracy," not theirs!

Many thanks, again, for this terrific summary.


/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com

p.s.  I particularly like your analogy of
the American in Paris.




>Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 23:05:37 -0700
>From: Common Right Group of San Diego county <sj346280@4dcomm.com>
>Organization: Common Right Group
>To: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Re: Suing the buzzards, Title 42 v. Title 18
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>> 
>> Be very wary of Title 42 actions,
>> because only federal citizens, and
>> others who are already subject to the municipal
>> jurisdiction of the federal government,
>> have standing to sue under those statutes.
>> 
>> Read 42 U.S.C. 1983 for proof, to wit:
>> 
>> "Rights under 42 USCS sec. 1983 are for
>> citizens of the United States and not of state.
>> Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F. 941."
>> 
>> from: "USCA, 42 USC 1983, B. Who is Protected;  Standing.
>>        Section 853. Generally."
>>Paul,
>  This is exactly what I said immediately after first hearing Rick 
>Schram's presentation about 4 years ago. However, when one explores the 
>sovereignty issue, one realizes the sovereignty of the state resides in 
>the people (the people do not, therefore, reside in the State). There is 
>no such thing as a United States without these united States. The States 
>are antecedent to and generally superior to the united States and the 
>United States. As to the issue of sovereignty, what sovereign would 
>permit anything to exist within his dominion that he does not have access 
>to? Title 42 Petitioners do not acquiesce to the "terms of the contract," 
>but assert status described at Article IV, Section 2, Cl. 1 of the 
>constitution for the United States of America. The suit is predicated on 
>42 USC 1986 for knowledge of the Law and neglect, then the injury(ies) 
>are specified under 1985, 1983, and, in cases of employment 
>discrimination, 1981. 18 USC 1621 = Perjury of Oath of Office. There is a 
>great deal more, but one e-mail shot isn't adequate to publish 175 pages 
>of manual. (It might be fun to try though. :)..)
>  I'm not in the least certain that I've effectively communicated in this 
>letter, but I agree with you that 42 actions require caution to avoid 
>getting trapped into the foreign venue unconstitutional "State within a 
>state" in pursuance of the Law of the Flag. The suits do not initiate a 
>cause of action and do not address subject matter, merely constitutional 
>issues and procedural due process violations by State actors acting in a 
>Federalized capacity, and without their constitutional delegation of 
>authoprity. They violate their law, and are sanctionable under their law. 
>If I were to have a cause of action against a Frenchman for something he 
>did or had a duty to do and didn't do while I was on French soil, I would 
>be perfectly correct in going to Franace and sueing said Frenchman under 
>French law, exercising my right of visitation under the law of nations. 
>I'm just sorely afraid the Wadleigh Court erred in its judgment. It makes 
>me wonder if Wadleigh filed for a cert. Of course, a cert could be 
>denied, so he would have been better off to file a Writ of Error against 
>that court. Many, maybe even most, judges hate 42 USC actions because 
>they are usually against colleagues, government agents, fellows of the 
>Bar, and like that. A conflict of interest is almost invariably present, 
>but it does not relieve the judge of his duty. Besides, the judge in the 
>District Courts of the united States (NOT the United States District 
>Courts) are not the triers of fact or law, but referrees. 6th and 7th 
>Amendments and F.R.C.P. Rule 38 assert the Right to Trial by Jury (NOT 
>Jury Trial), and said Jury becomes the trier of fact (civil) and of law 
>(criminal). Many 42 actions are a combination under 42 USC, under 18 USC, 
> 31 USC, and 28 USC. Remember that the Petitioner in a 42 acton is the 
>acting Attorney General, without Title of Nobility, and under the Common 
>Law of the state and district wherein he occupies the land. The 
>Petitioner has the Unalienable Right under the 1st Amendment to petition 
>government for redress of grievances (and to set his court in the venue 
>of his choice).
>  It further occurs to me that "U.S. citizenship is a virtual 
>impossibility. The United States is not a country or a nation. Is the 
>United Nations a country? No? then how can the united States be a 
>country? From the EEOC manual on "Laws Enforced by...." there is the 
>following: "(b) The term "employer" means a person......., but such term 
>does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholy owned by the 
>government of the [U]nited States, an Indian tribe, ......" and refers to 
>5 USC 2102. As corporations are fictions, their "citizenship" must also 
>be a fiction, but the good folks with real blood and suffering pain at 
>the hands of such fictions really to have an assertable authority over 
>these figments of the imaginations of fallen man and the machinations 
>thereof.
>  Well, for one who likes to be brief (wanna buy a bridge?), I just blew 
>it again. My prettier half just read this over my shoulder and said I 
>gave the jist of a 12 hour David Miller Seminar in less than five 
>minutes. Guess that means I have to save myself a copy of this so I can 
>know what I said. Maybe I'll sent a copy to David so he can shorten his 
>seminars, or add more material..... :).
>   Bill - for Common Right Group at San Diego county.
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail