Scam based on assumption

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 09, 1998 at 22:16:13:

In Reply to: Re: Scam based on assumption posted by Patrick Henry on September 09, 1998 at 18:02:49:


: By the way, dummy. The law of this nation was NOT founded upon some figment of your imagination which you call "[c]hristian common law," but was in fact based upon the Anglo-Saxon common law, which in turn was based upon the Hebraic law of the Old Covenant.

: "Christianity" is a quaint term, wrongly meant to refer to followers of a Hebrew Messiah with a Greek title transliterated into English as "Christ." In actuality, so-called "christianity" has little or nothing to do with the teachings of either the Old or New Covenants.

On the basis of the key holding in Eisner v.
Macomber (i.e., Congress cannot change the
Constitution), the "common law" is preserved
by the Seventh Amendment, in so many words.
And yes, it is Anglo-Saxon common law to which
the Seventh Amendment refers, because that term
already enjoyed a very rich history, prior to
1791, dating back many centuries to the
Magna Charta (aka "Magna Carta"), conceded
by King John of England on June 15, 1215,
"... and afterwards, with some alterations,
confirmed in parliament by Henry III and
Edward I. This charter is justly regarded
as the foundation of English constitutional
liberty." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth

"The 'common law' is all the statutory and
case law background of England and the
American colonies before the American
revolution." Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, citing People v. Rehman,
253 C.A.2d 119, 61 Cal.Rptr. 65, 85.

Congress cannot legislate different meanings
for the term "common law", because its true
meaning and proper construction remain intact,
until and unless the Seventh Amendment
should be amended further, via proper and
lawful ratification by three-fourths of
the several states of the Union, of which
there are not 50 in number. See Article V,
in chief.

On this basis, which is sound and fundamental,
federal prosecutions of state Citizens MUST
confront the fatal error now extant in the federal
Jury Selection and Service Act. Federal grand
and trial juries which exclude state Citizens
by legislative intent, are no more lawful than
juries which are all white (by statute), or
all male (by statute), or all Republican
(by some equally unconstitutional statute).
Their indictments AND convictions are ultra
vires (without authority) ab initio (from the

Confer at the terms "Suits at common law" and
"the rules of the common law" in the Seventh
Amendment, in the Bill of Rights, which WAS
lawfully ratified in 1791. In case you failed
to notice, the "common law" is mentioned twice
in the Seventh Amendment.

Check it out! It's your birth Right!!

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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