“Emasculating Constitutional Courts:
Sustaining the Systematic Failure of the American Judiciary”
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
June 21, 2019 A.D.
of a “sustained systematic failure of the judiciary” being deliberately
abused for ulterior motives in the case of Julian Assange.
Prof. Melzer has very succinctly summarized in very few words
what we have been documenting now for almost 30 years.
What superb and brilliant brevity!
In particular, let's focus for a moment or two upon
the following statement from a standing decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court issued in the year 1949 A.D.:
we cannot impute to Congress an intent now or in the
to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts
for the purpose of emasculating the former."
NATIONAL MUT. INS. CO. OF DIST. OF COL. v. TIDEWATER TRANSFER CO., 337 U.S. 582 (1949)
The latter astonishing statement is pregnant with meaning
and with very far-reaching legal and historical implications.
Here are just a few reasons which validate the latter diagnosis:
First of all, note the date -- 1949. That was the year in which
amendments to Rules of Court attempted to put into effect the
"Sea Change" from constitutional courts to legislative tribunals
throughout the entire Judicial Branch of the Federal government.
Second, that statement reaches the heart of the matter
by referring expressly to a transfer of original jurisdiction
from constitutional courts to legislative courts.
More than a few insiders must have made a very cogent
argument to the Justices seated on the Supreme Court
at that time, because such a transfer is exactly what
was attempted in vain by the two Acts of June 25, 1948.
The historical record is now littered with demonstrable
proof that legislative tribunals have thoroughly usurped
due processes of law that were historically guaranteed to
Federal court cases which had originated, and accumulated,
in District Courts of the United States for ONLY 159 YEARS!
Constitutional courts of original jurisdiction were established
by the famous Judiciary Act of 1789 A.D.
Third, that statement goes even further by admitting
that this transfer was very suspicious for attempting
to emasculate constitutional courts. The attempt
to emasculate any courts could have targeted
all legislative tribunals, but no such attempt was
The real intent targeted Article III constitutional courts!
And, we do not need any legal dictionaries fully to
appreciate the significance of the key word "emasculate".
Common English dictionaries already supply the
correct meaning: to make weaker or less effective.
"When you emasculate something, you take away its strength".
Cf. www.vocabulary.com .
What better way to emasculate constitutional courts
than to eliminate them from all future consideration?
Fourth, the Supreme Court indulged in classic double-talk
by trying to claim that America's high Court Justices
could not impute to Congress any such intent --
then or any time thereafter.
It is also very revealing when Supreme Court Justices
attempt to claim special knowledge of the future.
Since when did they ever have special knowledge
of the future? And, when they have peered into
their respective crystal balls, what were their
batting averages, please?
It is impossible to avoid the cynical conclusion that
the Supreme Court was actually passing the buck chiefly
because it was the entire Federal Judiciary which possessed
that nefarious intent all along -- particularly during WWII
when the rest of the world was desperately preoccupied
Thus, in all fairness to the U.S. House and Senate
at that time, we now have every reason to infer
that the Supreme Court was letting Congress
off the hook: the Supreme Court already knew
full well who was to blame for emasculating justice
with such stealth and with such irresistible fraud.
The historical evidence now calls for the conclusion
already been thoroughly documented and formally exposed
for manifesting fraud in the very first instance.
This fraud is completely exposed by another
standing decision of the Supreme Court, which held
that Rules of Court may not expand or restrict
original jurisdiction previously conferred by
prior Acts of Congress. See Willy v. Coastal Corp.
We knew we were right over the target when
we saw the Supreme Court condemn itself!
It is also impossible to ignore the historical context here.
At the infamous Yalta Conference in February 1945,
it is very likely that the United States desperately needed
a massive infusion of world banker money to finish off Japan.
We offer the following reasonable hypothesis:
FDR must have cut a secret deal with the bankers to bail out
the United States, in return for another secret agreement --
to switch the American Judicial system into "cash register courts".
That phrase was originally spoken to me by a former
California State Judge, who knew exactly what he was saying
because he was pressured off the bench for objecting to same.
When FDR died in office, Vice President Harry Truman
took over. And, as soon as Truman had signed the
two Acts of June 25, 1948, he promptly called
That Special Session of Congress was extremely unpopular
because the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate
were already home campaigning for the Fall elections that year -- 1948.
We can hear Truman explaining himself in some
smoke-filled room with the Party Leadership
from both Houses of Congress: the money borrowed
by FDR at the Yalta Conference will be repaid by
switching American courts into collection agencies.
That was THE DEAL which Truman inherited when FDR died.
Fundamental Rights -- which previously were
mandatory obligations upon the constitutional courts --
will henceforth and thereafter be treated as discretionary options --
to be enforced or not enforced at the arbitrary discretion of these
new legislative tribunals, imported from Federal Territories where
rights guaranteed by the Constitution were already optional.
Such an hypothesis has almost proven its own validity
in the same way that heavy plumes of smoke mean
there must be a fire somewhere.
Once Congress had been thoroughly conned, the
power grab was complete and the smoke was allowed
to settle -- while the entire planet was preoccupied
recovering from the unspeakable catastrophe which
World War II had inflicted upon at least 100 million people.
It is frankly almost impossible for me to contemplate without tears
how viciously corrupt the Federal Judiciary are now exposed and
finally self-condemned by these same historical facts.
My fellow Americans, now you know why it is entirely correct
to find the entire American Judiciary guilty of sustained and
systematic failure, commencing without cease 4 days after my birth
at high noon in Worcester, Massachusetts, on June 21, 1948 Anno Domini.
God bless America: we need His blessings now more than ever before!
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.