c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC July 25, 1996 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND Mr. William D. Browning 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC Re: U.S.A. v. Wallen, Case No. 95-484-WDB Dear Mr. Browning: I am Citizen of Arizona state, a Counselor at Law, and a part-time student of comparative economic history. I recently had a lawful contract obligation to attend a court trial over which you presided. That obligation arose from a contract for consideration paid in lawful money, i.e. silver dollars. During that trial, the question of your authority was raised, and you answered that your authority was the Constitution and laws of the United States. It is My understanding that the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, contains a provision which prevents federal officers from impairing the obligation of contracts. This provision is in the Constitution as published in federal depository libraries, and in the official law books upon which district courts rely for conclusive evidence of the Law. This Constitution clearly forbids titles of nobility. See Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. It is My contention, based on diligent research, that any license is construed by American courts to be a title of nobility, which is forbidden by this provision. However, no penalties were mentioned by this provision and it is for this reason, I believe, that no penalties currently attach to the exercise of licenses issued by the state and federal governments. It was the lack of penalties which motivated Congress to cure this oversight with a proposal to amend the Constitution with penalties for exercising titles of nobility. My research has also uncovered a constitutional amendment, ratified by the Union states in the year 1819, which penalizes the exercise of titles of nobility with a forfeiture of citizenship and with a disqualification from ever serving in any public office in America (see attached). This Amendment is the main reason why I am not now a licensed bar member, and have no intention of ever becoming a licensed bar member, because I do not want to forfeit My Arizona state Citizenship, and I would like to serve in public office some day. Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 1 of 4 This Amendment supersedes any state "practice of law" statutes, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, to the extent that those statutes require the exercise of any titles of nobility. Moreover, with or without this Amendment, it is My opinion that membership in a bar association would require that I violate not only My personal code of conduct, but also numerous provisions in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, including but not limited to the Sixth and Tenth Amendments, and other laws of the United States, including but not limited to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Such membership prevents me from diligently protecting the fundamental Rights of My clients. My first loyalty is to My Creator, to Myself, My Family, the Citizenship of My state, and then to My clients and their fundamental Right to maintain that very same loyalty. Bar membership reverses these priorities and flatly violates this loyalty, because it requires loyalty to the court, to the bar, to public policy contrary to the Constitution, and lastly to My clients, in that order. These priorities violate the doctrine of separation of powers and, more importantly, My clients' fundamental Rights. Accordingly, I have the following important questions for you, sir: Was the original Thirteenth Amendment a provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support, or was it not? Under rules of equity, I assert My fundamental Right to know what provisions are in the Constitution which you took an oath to support. This is matter of your contract with Me. If you have ever exercised a title of nobility in America, e.g. esquire, lawyer, attorney, Honor, then the original Thirteenth Amendment is a constitutional authority which has disqualified you from ever serving in the office of federal judge, is it not? Judges occupy public offices, do they not? I am asking this question specifically because of your decisions to bar me from assisting My client, Sheila Terese Wallen, at all times during Her recent criminal trial on charges of illegal marijuana possession with intent to distribute same. In fact, you ordered me to the back row of the gallery, with U.S. Marshals standing between Me and My client, preventing any communication with My client. If you have, in fact, taken an oath to support the Constitution, and the administrative record does appear to support this fact, does that Constitution not also contain a provision which bars you from impairing the obligation of contracts? See Contracts Clause. I had a lawful contract with Sheila Terese Wallen, and you impaired that contract. My contract with Sheila was predicated upon My belief that your oath of office placed you in a valid contract with Me. By what specific lawful authority do you claim any Right to impair the obligations of My contract with Sheila Terese Wallen? If you are upholding the U.S. Constitution, then My contract with Her is valid and enforceable, under rules of equity, and you are forbidden from doing anything to impair that contract. Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 2 of 4 I will look forward to your timely response to this letter. If I do not hear from you in writing within ten (10) working days from the date of this letter, I will proceed on the basis of the conclusive presumption that the original Thirteenth Amendment was not in the Constitution which you took an oath to support. I will stipulate that your oath predates the publication of recent research proving that the original Thirteenth Amendment has been well hidden from public knowledge (i.e. fraud). Nevertheless, the original Thirteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified, pursuant to Article V. This ratification has been proven conclusively. Therefore, you are now in the wrong contract with the American People, because the Constitution which you took an oath to support does not contain the original Thirteenth Amendment, as evidenced by the Constitution as it was published in federal depository libraries, and as it was published in the official law books upon which district courts relied for conclusive evidence of the Law, on the day you took your original oath of office. Furthermore, you are disqualified from serving as a federal judge for these and other reasons, because you have exercised one or more titles of nobility or honor (e.g. "Honor", "Esquire") since ratification of that Amendment. The original Thirteenth Amendment does not contain any provisions for curing such a disability or regaining your Citizenship. Your only defense now is that you, too, were victimized by fraudulent concealment of this Amendment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001. Whether or not the original Thirteenth Amendment was a provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support, the Contracts Clause has been in the organic U.S. Constitution since its original ratification. You, sir, simply cannot impair the Right of Contract, pursuant to an explicit prohibition which is in that Constitution. One last point: when exactly did the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court become "hearsay," without any legal significance? You ruled as such on July 17, 1996, in Sheila's case. I really would like to know, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone who claims to be a federal judge with expertise in federal law. Are these decisions which you heard Supreme Court Justices say? Does that make them "hearsay", in your opinion? If not, then what does? Before I take any remedial action on this point, I must have your explanation for what now appears to be gross judicial misconduct on your part. If you wish to rebut the presumptions which I have presented to you in this letter, then please do so. I would welcome them, sincerely. For the record, I am presenting these facts and laws to you, pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986. Thank you very much for your careful consideration, and I will look forward to your timely response to this CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND, before 10 days transpire. Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 3 of 4 Respectfully yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness all rights reserved without prejudice copies: Clerk of Court Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Joelyn Marlowe, Esquire U.S. Marshal's office Federal Bureau of Investigation email: supremelawfirm@yahoo.com website: http://supremelaw.com Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 4 of 4 # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Judicial Complaint against William D. Browning