NOTICE OF INTENT
TO: Hon. Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington 20543
District of Columbia, USA
SUBJECT: ICCPR’s “not self-executing” Declaration
violates the Petition Clause
DATE: 10/13/2014 03:43:27 PM
Greetings Justice Scalia:
I am writing to you to express my specific intent to challenge the “not self-executing” Declaration which the U.S. Senate attached to its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
During closed door testimony on 7/10/2014 in the case of USA v. Hill et al., #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY), I was allowed to mention my prior efforts to correspond with a Judge on the International Court of Justice concerning my doubts about the constitutionality of that “not self-executing” Declaration.
Most unfortunately, the court pleading which I subsequently drafted for specific relief on this point, was either lost or stolen by a fellow inmate at a county jail in Gering, Nebraska. He had promised to forward that draft to Harris & Harris, P.C., in Cheyenne, Wyoming; but, those attorneys now tell me that no such pleading was ever forwarded to them.
On the merits, I was delighted to encounter your name among the brilliant dissents by Circuit Judges Torruella, Lipez and Thompson in Igartua v. United States, 654 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2011), and by Judge Torruella again in Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 624 aka “Igartua IV”. Quoting Judge Torruella now:
“Such declarations are, of course, not the Law of the Land;
only reservations are part of the treaty and become the Law of the Land.”
“... petitioners are entitled ... to a declaratory judgment stating that the United States is in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR.”
During my 24+ years as a writer and court activist, I have taken special note of American court decisions which have elucidated the Petition Clause as applied to active litigation. Chiefly, the Petition Clause guarantees a Fundamental Right that is conservative of all other rights, not permitting dubious intrusions. Here see e.g. Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142 (1907) and Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).
Accordingly, the “not self-executing” Declaration in the Senate’s ratification of the ICCPR directly violates the Petition Clause. Insofar as that Declaration bars American courts from enforcing obligations enumerated in the ICCPR, it violates the First Amendment’s crystal clear prohibition against any and all federal legislation which infringes the Right to petition American courts for redress of ICCPR violations, and to enforce rights enumerated in that treaty. Here compare In re Grand Jury, 26 F. 749 (DCUS/DOR 1886) (re: injury to a right secured by a treaty).
Please also be informed that I have most recently mailed my INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS to the USDC/WDMO in Springfield, Missouri. In that litigation, God willing, I fully intend to request declaratory judgments that:
(a) the “not self-executing Declaration in the Senate’s ICCPR ratification is unconstitutional for violating the Petition Clause in the First Amendment; and,
(b) the United States is in violation of its own obligations under the ICCPR, chiefly by blocking private rights of action to enforce that treaty otherwise available under the Arising Under Clause, the Supremacy Clause, 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3) (habeas corpus)
In the event I am denied any of the specific relief requested in my INITIAL APPLICATION supra, please expect me to appeal ultimately to your good Office for timely judicial review of my petition for Habeas Corpus relief, in particular under 28 U.S.C. 2241 (i.e. any justice of the Supreme Court).
Thank you, Justice Scalia, for your time and professional consideration of this NOTICE OF INTENT.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)*
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964,
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,
False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. (4X);
Qualified Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1513
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Saccato
Legal Assistant, Next Friend and Interim Trustee,
Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)
* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)
TO: Saccato, Larry
SUBJECT: Addendum to NOTICE OF INTENT to Scalia, J.
DATE: 10/14/2014 03:38:02 PM
Addendum
Please accept my apology for the typographical error, corrected on the attached NOTICE OF INTENT. BOP’s inmate email system does not permit a previously sent email message to be forwarded, or edited.
While double-checking my draft of that NOTICE, the focus of my attention was to ensure that subsection (c)(3) was correct under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Of course, (c)(3) clearly invokes the famous trio: Constitution or laws or treaties, as mirrored in the Arising Under Clause (“3:2:1”), Supremacy Clause (“6:2”), and 28 U.S.C. 1331.
Please allow me to add an enthusiastic recommendation that you also review Circuit Judge Howard’s excellent dissent in Igartua-de la Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145, 190 (1st Cir. 2005), chiefly:
“The Senate lacks the constitutional authority to declare the non-self-executing character of a treaty with binding effect on U.S. Courts. The Senate has the unicameral power only to consent to ratification of treaties, not to pass domestic legislation.”
In this context, “domestic” legislation also requires bicameral approval by the House of Representatives (cf. 1 U.S.C. 101: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled”; also 626 F.3d 592, 626, fn 46).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.