Re: the matter is res judicata

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Man of Reason on September 03, 1998 at 10:30:45:

In Reply to: the matter is res judicata posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 02, 1998 at 22:48:23:

Hmmm, interesting.

How do you reconcile the conflict between stating that the 14th Amendment is invalid and relying on court opinions interpreting that Amendment as the basis for your position? Once again, your definition and application of the law (at least your version of it) seem to change to suit your arguments, how convenient.

I would also suggest that anyone out there considering using this material to take some time and review Mr. Mitchell's past accomplishments as posted in his 'Library'. Each case follows the same pattern of 'shotgun' pleas and motions and most contain an outright loss (when defending) or dismissal (when complaining).

How about it Mr. M, why don't you take a moment and tally up your accomplishments using this approach to date? Tell us all where the defendants you've 'aided' are today. How many are behind bars at the moment, or will wind up there if your methods fail? (Oh that's right, I forgot...., you're battling a corrupt and conspiratorial judiciary aren't you? You wouldn't by any chance be from Arkansas, would you? I hear there's a vast group of people who don't like folks from Arkansas.)

If a bit of artistic license is allowed, I too will flaunt my dead language skills:

Semper ubi, sub ubi.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]