Re: U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

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

Posted by 'MARTIN on October 02, 1998 at 00:12:34:

In Reply to: U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on October 01, 1998 at 23:59:35:

Paul; we are talking about getting people out of prison who were brainwashed into believing that the "We the People" constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Don't you care about these people?

Brainwashing is a very good defense.

I bet the FED.s would not oppose the facts in such a case.

Paul, do you have Meaders mailing address so that I can send him a card?

Is this prison address with ZIP and all in the"FEDERAL ZONE"
: That particular matter was first placed on the table
: In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health
: Center Company.

: Our FOIA requests for oaths of office were deliberately
: intended to "smoke out" the exact, and full provisions
: of the Constitution they had agreed to support, whatever
: THAT might be.

: We expressly reserved our right to compel disclosure
: of those provisions, in writing, under subpoena power,
: and to present those questions to a competent and
: qualified jury.

: Congress has already incorporated its version of the
: U.S. Constitution in the United States Codes, and
: federal courts must take judicial notice of those Codes,
: particularly when they have been enacted into positive
: law.

: It is enough to show that the 14th was never lawfully
: ratified; the facts recited in Dyett v. Turner must
: be viewed under the mandates of the Full Faith and
: Credit Clause. Those facts concern the verifiable Acts
: of State Legislatures.

: Under this approach, the conclusion is foregone:
: the federal government is in the "wrong contract"
: with the American People, to the extent that it is
: attempting to uphold the 14th, 16th, and 17th
: amendments. The 17th is a special case, because
: it would have required 100% of the states to
: ratify, because "no State shall be denied its
: equal suffrage in the Senate". Senators are
: supposed to be elected by State Legislatures,
: and represent the States in the Congress.

: Last but not least, the historical record proves
: that the original Thirteenth Amendment was
: ratified no later than 1819, when Virginia
: put it over the top, and into the Constitution.
: This fact, too, was entered into the record
: In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, by my Affidavit
: certifying the authenticity of the evidence
: attached thereto.

: So, there is no question that the federal government
: has been entering courts with unclean hands.

: The matter of "brainwashing" is begging the
: question, imho, and only serves to polarize
: a situation which is already too polarized
: as it is. If you want to start a psychology
: thread, please do so somewhere else.

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

: Supreme Law Webmaster

: p.s. Please sign your real name to
: all future posts. Thank you.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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