Time: Mon Oct 20 16:10:08 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA19675;
	Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:08:44 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05727;
	Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:00:54 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:01:50 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Human Rights treaties and "persons"

The treaties were enacted to bolster the
enforcement of fundamental Rights.
You MUST read the explicit reservations,
which take the Tenth Amendment into account.

The treaties guarantee effective judicial remedies,
notwithstanding that violations were committed
by "persons" acting in their official capacity.

They also obligate the United States to 
develop the possibilitites of effective
judicial remedies.  The operative term here
is "effective judicial remedies".  

See the DRAFT NOTICE OF TREATY VIOLATIONS
in State v. Kemp, to follow my latest
thinking on this point, in the Supreme
Law Library.  

Federal judges simply CANNOT provide 
effective judicial remedies, if they have
adverse conflicts of interest, and/or if
they attempt to preside on courts which
do not have competent jurisdiction,
pursuant to Law.  We now argue that
the W-4 is evidence of an adverse
conflict of interest. 

That "Law" is the U.S. Constitution, 
and Title 28,  United States Code, 
at the very least.  Title 28 does not
give the U.S. Supreme Court authority
to promulgate rules for the District 
Court of the United States, but ONLY
for the United States District Court!!

But, the Supremacy Clause also renders
these treaties supreme Law as well,
notwithstanding whatever the "Patriot"
community might say about those treaties
vis-a-vis the United Nations.  Wolfgram's
treatise does a brilliant job of cutting
away all the noise in this controversy. 

The best extant attack on these treaties 
is the  DRAFT APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION 
OF RIGHT, which we never filed, but we did
write, in Hawks v. County of Butte.
This attack is based on an argument 
that the 17th amendment was never lawfully
ratified;  see that DRAFT APPLICATION for
the details.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com

copy:  Supreme Law School


At 03:33 PM 10/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>But it seems to me that treaties only apply to "persons" ?

===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13

      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail