I was providing charactor [sic] references.

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 04, 1998 at 21:59:31:

In Reply to: I was providing charactor references. posted by MARTIN on September 04, 1998 at 20:51:38:

The statement above is contradicted by
the Utah Supreme Court in Dyett v. Turner;
the historical facts recited therein
remain unrebutted, across the board.

Since the faulty premises of martial law
and/or martial rule have been exposed
elsewhere to my satisfaction, I decline
to re-hash that worn-out debate here.
The Constitution was extended to D.C.
in 1871. See "Constitution Binds D.C."
elsewhere in this forum.

Suffice it to say that warring on the
several states is expressly defined
as treason. One of the penalties for
treason is death. (I am opposed to the
death penalty, however, on religious
grounds. Confer at the Ten Commandments.)

And, I don't need to have any opinion about
a man's character, to make a judgment about
the historical accuracy of some essay
he has co-authored. The two are entirely
separate, imho.

It would be just like the federal government
to utilize a person of ill repute to tell
a lot of truth, in the hopes that the source
would debauch the truth to some inferior level.

Please learn to spell: you have
misspelled "amendment" and "character".
In fact, you wrote "ammended" in one place,
and "ammendmants" in another. Both spellings
are incorrect.

Where did you go to school, anyway?
(Did you go to school?)

Your poor spelling is a bad character
reference -- for yourself.

Confer at "The Lawless Law of Nations,"
by Sterling Edmonds (might be "Edmunds").

The North's defeat of the South did NOT
amend the Constitution, because it can
ONLY be amended by three-fourths of the
several states. See Eisner v. Macomber
for authority on this point: "Congress ...
cannot by legislation alter the constitution,
from which alone it derives it power to
legislate, and within whose limitations alone
that power can be lawfully exercised."

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

p.s. Mr. Cooper is NOT "my Mr. Cooper" [sic].
His website is currently in violation
of my copyrights in "The Federal Zone,"
and he has defamed me here and elsewhere.
I STILL agree with his BATF/IRS document.
So does Dan Meador. So does his co-author.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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