“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.

Prof. Nils Melzer, UN Rapporteur on Torture, has accused the U.S.

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.:

"Furthermore, we cannot impute to Congress an intent now or in the future
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)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/337/582.html

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

ever contemplated.

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

with survival.

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

that it was the Judiciary who conned the Congress

into enacting two (2) Abrogation Clauses, which have

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

a Special Session of Congress.

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!

Further reading:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/congress.conned.htm

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hovind/recon1.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm#sec7c

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/karmacts.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/schwan/sedition.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-e

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/makarian/notice.rule.44.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/edwards/notice.rule.44.htm

Sincerely yours,
/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.