Constitutional Questions In re: GJ Subpoena to NLHC


                      Paul Andrew Mitchell
                      (all rights reserved)

Introduction by Bill Van Mastrigt

Challenge to  the jurisdiction  of the court may also be effected
by challenging  the constitutionality of the process, rather than
implicating  the   involvement  of   admiralty  jurisdiction  and
challenging it  directly.   After all, we are talking strictly in
terms of  constitutional issues.   Anything  less  than  that  is
really not  relevant and  may even  be damaging  to one's  cause.
Though at  some point  the latter method may yield fruit, it will
be nigh  impossible to  get any  court to  admit it  is operating
under the cloak of a foreign jurisdiction.

The object  for success  is target acquisition and holding, i.e.,
identifying the  major issue, remaining on point, never deviating
from that point and never allowing the court to deviate from that
point.  BillvM

We have  already put  the following  challenges on  the table, in
formal pleadings submitted to the Clerk, to the judge, and to the
Grand Jury,  in addition  to serving  copies of everything on the
Postmaster, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the IRS,
the local Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a supervisory judge on the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to wit:

1.   grand  jury  selection  statutes  are  unconstitutional  for
     excluding Citizens  of the  freely associated compact states
     who are not also citizens of the United States, citing State
     v. Fowler and Gardina v. Board of Registrars (confer in "The
     Federal  Zone");     28  U.S.C.  297;    voter  registration

2.   "illegal  tax   protestor"  statutes,   regulations,  rules,
     policies, practices, and procedures are unconstitutional for
     violating the  First Amendment  Rights to  freedom of speech
     and to petition government for redress of grievances.

3.   fundamental Right  to choose Representatives every two years
     has  been   infringed  by   voter  registration   affidavits
     requiring a  statement that  affiant  is  a  "U.S.  Citizen"
     before being  eligible to  vote, see  Article 1,  Section 2,
     Clause 1.

4.   Downes v.  Bidwell is  unconstitutional holding per Harlan's
     eloquent and  prescient dissent, on grounds that two classes
     of  geographic  jurisdiction  deny  equal  protection,  also
     citing Hooven and Allison v. Evatt (1945).

5.   FOIA  exemption   for  Judiciary   is  unconstitutional  for
     violating intent  and proper  construction of  the  original
     13th Amendment,  barring licensed  attorneys from serving in
     state and federal offices, see 5 U.S.C. 551, 13th Amendment.

6.   "Internal Revenue Service" is an illegal trust #62 domiciled
     in  Puerto   Rico  under   color  of   the  Federal  Alcohol
     Administration which was declared unconstitutional in 1935

7.   Petitioner has  been denied his fundamental Right to a trial
     by jury to obtain declaratory relief under FRCP Rules 38 and
     39 as to:

     (a)  whether or  not the Company and its General Manager are
          guilty of  contempt of Court in the instant case, given
          the entirety  of evidence  now on  file in  the instant

     (b)  whether or not certain named and unnamed individuals in
          the "Internal  Revenue Service", the "Department of the
          Treasury",  and/or  the  United  States  Department  of
          Justice have  participated in  a conspiracy of multiple
          crimes, including but not limited to fraud, mail fraud,
          obstruction  of   justice,  jury   tampering,  perjury,
          extortion, barratry, and contempt of court, in order to
          destroy the  Company's  business  and  to  destroy  the
          reputations of its officers, co-workers and Trustee(s);

     (c)  whether or  not evidence is sufficient to sustain legal
          conclusions that  the so-called  Fourteenth, Sixteenth,
          and Seventeenth  Amendments to the Constitution for the
          United States  of America,  as lawfully  amended,  were
          never properly  approved  and  adopted,  and  that  the
          original Thirteenth Amendment was properly approved and
          adopted, according  to the  provisions of  Article V of
          said Constitution;

     (d)  whether or  not certain  named  individuals  associated
          with the  instant case  have proper  credentials to  be
          exercising the  powers and authorities of the office(s)
          they claim  to occupy  and,  if  not,  whether  or  not
          official action  should be  initiated to oust them from
          said offices  by the  Attorney General of Arizona state
          by  filing   a  petition  with  a  court  of  competent
          jurisdiction for  a Writ  of Quo  Warranto against  all
          such individuals;

     (e)  whether  or   not  the   pleadings  filed   by  Counsel
          separately, and  by Counsel  and  Dr.  Burns  together,
          should be  stricken from  the official  record  of  the
          instant case,  in light  of the material evidence which
          they contain  of gross prosecutorial and gross judicial
          misconduct, including  but not  limited to  fraud, mail
          fraud, jury tampering, obstruction of justice, contempt
          of court,  barratry, perjury,  and practice of law from
          the bench,  all in  violation of applicable statutes in
          Titles 18  and 28,  and in light of the fundamental Law
          in these united States of America.

8.   Petitioner is entitled by Right to a declaratory judgment as
     to whether  or not the credentials of Evangelina A. Cardenas
     now in  evidence do  exhibit proper  authority to  act as  a
     Special Agent  for the  "Internal Revenue  Service" and that
     her Oath  of Office  now in evidence did bind her to support
     and defend  a version of the U.S. Constitution which was, at
     the time  when Ms.  Cardenas executed said Oath, incorrectly
     published  in   federal  depository  libraries  and  in  the
     official law  books upon  which this  Court has  relied  for
     conclusive evidence of the Law, then as now.

9.   District Court  ousted itself of jurisdiction when it denied
     Dr. Burns the effective assistance of his Counsel of Choice,
     Paul Andrew  Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state,
     Federal Witness, and Vice President for Legal Affairs of New
     Life Health Center Company, an Unincorporated Business Trust
     domiciled in the Arizona Republic.

10.  The "United States of America" have no standing to bring the
     instant action  in the  first instance, because the District
     Court  has   a  subject   matter   jurisdiction   which   is
     circumscribed by  legislative grants of power, none of which
     evidence any grant to the several Union States to bring said
     action, and  none of  which states  has brought said action,
     because  their   respective  Attorneys  General  have  filed
     absolutely no  pleadings in  this case.  The "United States"
     is a  singular noun  with a  meaning which  is distinct, and
     different, from the plural noun "United States of America."

11.  The authorizations  required  at  IRC  7401  have  not  been
     entered into  the record,  because the  AUSA has  failed  to
     produce evidence  of  his  oath  of  office,  delegation  of
     authority, license  to practice law in the State of Arizona,
     and fidelity  bond, and  because the  agent of the "Internal
     Revenue Service"  has never  been a  "SA"  (Special  Agent),
     which  nomenclature  appears  on  the  original  grand  jury
     subpoena, as  evidenced by  her Appointment  Affidavit which
     was provided  in response  to a  Freedom of  Information Act
     request and appeal properly submitted to said IRS agent.

12.  We have  reserved our  Right to attack the validity of 7401,
     in the  first instance,  because it falls within subtitle F,
     and the provisions of subtitle F shall not take effect until
     the day  after the  date  of  enactment  of  the  Title  (26
     U.S.C.).   See IRC  7851(a)(6)(A).   Title 26,  as such, has
     never been enacted into law and is only prima facie evidence
     of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC").

13.  We have  reserved our  fundamental Right  to attack 7851 for
     being void  for vagueness,  because it refers to itself and,
     as such, creates confusion even among People educated in the
     construction and  meaning of  federal law;  the members of a
     grand and  trial jury  should  be  excused  if  they  cannot
     understand this  statute, because  they are required to know
     and understand  plain English,  and 7851  is plain  English,
     unlike many other statutes within the IRC.

14.  The Trust  enjoys the same Rights, Privileges and Immunities
     as all Citizens in the several States, because it was formed
     by their  fundamental Right  to enter  and  exit  contracts,
     under the  Tenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities

15.  The  fundamental   Right  to  enjoy  Counsel  of  Choice  is
     infringed by the Arizona Supreme Court rule restricting non-
     bar  members   from  pleading,  because  provisions  in  the
     Administrative Procedures  Act allow non-licensed Counsel to
     represent clients  before  administrative  agencies  of  the
     United  States,   and   the   Supremacy   Clause   overrides
     conflicting state  laws on  this point;  application of this
     holding should be extended to the judiciary also to maintain
     equal protection  of the laws, and to maintain separation of
     powers,  both   of  which  are  principles  upon  which  the
     Constitution was founded.

There is more.  That's all I can recall from memory.

                              # # #

Return to the Table of Contents for