Time: Thu Jul 31 04:39:06 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA28775;
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 21:18:47 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:16:30 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: FRCP Rule 38: jury trial preserved inviolate
I encourage you to evaluate all the
work we have done to challenge the
constitutionality of the federal
Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA"),
and comparable state statutes as I have
also done on my own behalf here in
Arizona state.
The JSSA challenge is now before the
8th Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri state,
and the 2nd Circuit in New York City.
Other circuits are coming on line,
as time, resources, and commitment permit.
For background, see "Juries in Check
around the Nation" in the Supreme Law
Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
See also "State Citizens Cannot Vote."
This challenge pivots on the Guarantee
Clause, one of THE most neglected areas
of American constitutional jurisprudence.
We are proud to say we have advanced the
state of the art on this paramount point,
because we have now proven that citizenship,
strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law.
The Qualifications Clauses have never been
amended, and they retain today the meaning
they had when they were first ratified into
the supreme Law of the Land.
The proof of our position is found in the
precedents which have already been set,
establishing a Right of Election [sic].
Confer at "Right" and "Election" in Black's
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The Maine
Supreme Court elaborated this Right, not
long after the Dred Scott decision written
by Chief Justice Taney.
C.J. Taney missed something very important
in the Preamble: "People of the United States"
is a tern which does NOT mention the
"United States of America", even though
the latter term is used at the very end of the
Preamble. The Framers were highly intelligent,
and they well knew the difference between the
United States and the United States of America.
The Guarantee Clause proves that they did, so
do the Articles of Confederation.
The key is to understand that the Guarantee Clause
does not obligate the United States to guarantee
a Republican Form of government to the federal
zone, only to the state zone. Without this
restraint in the Constitution, the United States
has been free to create a legislative democracy
inside the federal zone, and among all who are
associated with that zone, by virtue of their
federal citizenship. See Harlan dissenting in
Downes v. Bidwell, S.Ct. (1901) for proof that
the federal zone is a legislative democracy.
To invoke the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution
properly, litigants must first firmly establish
their state Citizenship first; then, all the
guarantees will follow. The big issue now before
the federal courts is the Right of Election, namely,
do Americans have the Right to expatriate from
federal citizenship?
The Law says they do. Congress established U.S.
policy in this regard, one day before the
so-called 14th Amendment was declared ratified.
By explicitly reserving all rights, litigants
can invoke this policy against the federal
government. This we have done in voluminous
documentation, now before the 8th Circuit.
The Brief of Appellees in that appeal completely
failed to address any of these implications of the
Guarantee Clause. We have now prevailed, via the
rule of prepondance, if nothing else.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness and
Citizen of Arizona state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
At 09:04 PM 7/30/97 +0000, you wrote:
>But Paul,
>
>Quoting all the laws are fine.
>Quoting Rights is fine too.
>
>Bbut when one is denied ACCESS to them,
>what good are the Rights? Quoting them is
>not the same as enjoying them. That's how
>this country got in the mess we're in today!
>We exclaim, "Freedom!" because we've been
>TOLD we are free, and because we THINK
>we are free -- not because we ARE.
>
>I'll be awaiting your response on the e-mail I
>just send about the court case...
>
>Kathie
>
>
>> Authority please?
>>
>> I have provided you with FRCP Rule 38,
>> and the Seventh Amendment.
>>
>> Under the Supremacy Clause, the Seventh
>> Amendment cannot be modified by actions
>> of any federal government employees.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>> Saying it's otherwise does not make it so,
>> by Law.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>> At 07:33 PM 7/30/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >When was the last time a property
>> >owner was given a "Jury trial"
>> >when their land is condemned in
>> >order to use for some so-called
>> >public good?
>> >
>> >There is no Jury Trial in an
>> >Equity Court.
>> >
>> >> See Rule 38, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
>> >> Jury trials are preserved inviolate, in all
>> >> civil cases. However, the U.S. Supreme Court
>> >> is empowered to make such rules only for the
>> >> United States District Courts; 28 U.S.C. 2072
>> >> does not empower the U.S. Supreme Court to
>> >> make such rules for the District Court of the
>> >> United States. For background, read "Karma
>> >> and the Federal Courts" in the Supreme Law
>> >> Library at the URL just below my name here:
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> http://www.supremelaw.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At 08:25 PM 7/29/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> >However, you failed to mention one
>> >> >important fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >The 7th Amendment right to a jury
>> >> >is inaccessible in most civil matters except
>> >> >in a court of common law.
>> >> >
>> >> >Check it out. Particularly in Equity
>> >> >Courts, no one has constitutional rights.
>> >> >Most people do not know this.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is how the courts have screwed
>> >> >the people -- by separating them from
>> >> >the jury.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you'd like details of a specific case,
>> >> >e-mail me privately and I'll give you
>> >> >the details of how and why I discovered
>> >> >this nasty fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >Kathie
>> >> >
>> >> >> U.S. v. Gaudin held in 1995 that juries
>> >> >> are empowered to determine relevance,
>> >> >> not the judge. Juries retain their common
>> >> >> law powers under the Tenth Amendment, because
>> >> >> they are institutions which pre-date the
>> >> >> ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
>> >> >> They had to exist prior to its ratification,
>> >> >> because they are mentioned in the Sixth and
>> >> >> Seventh Amendments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> >> http://www.supremelaw.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At 06:24 PM 7/29/97 GMT, you wrote:
>> >> >> >********************************************
>>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
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
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail