Time: Thu Jun 05 18:43:57 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14362;
	Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:40:47 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 18:40:06 -0700
To: Charles Marcus:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Judicial vs Legislative courts

I respectfully disagree with you when
you say that we must deal with the matter
of Article III judges LATER [sic], you
guessed [sic].  No guessing!  Here is
what we must do ...

Look at it this way:  your caption is
perfect, and your jurisdictional authority
is perfect (e.g. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)),
so you pay your docket fee, serve the
complaint on the opposing party(s), but
then you can ONLY get relief, if but a
mere continuance, if and when a judge presides 
who is qualified, by law.  See Article III,
Section 1; Evans v. Gore; and Lord v. Kelley.

So, you are STUCK, right at the start
of your law suit.  If a taxpayer judge 
shows up at the first hearing, or signs
the first ORDER, you owe it to yourself to
object, because you may get estopped for
having failed timely to object.

Wouldn't it make more sense to anticipate this
obstacle, and deal with it properly, up front,
as we have done in the past? 

The chain of logic will lead you to O'Malley
v. Woodrough, which Rehnquist was correct to
cite at the University of Arizona Law School
last January.  There are two major problems
with Woodrough, however:

  1.  it was predicated on the presumption that
      there is only one class of citizenship, but
      there are two classes;

  2.  it was also predicated on the presumption
      that all federal judges are citizens of
      either class, when there is no law which
      requires federal judges to be citizens
      of either class.

See "The Lawless Rehnquist" in the Supreme Law
School at URL:

  http://www.supremelaw.com

So, O'Malley must fall, because it was based
on false and rebuttable premises.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

p.s.  We have already isolated the sample forms
in the Arizona state laws which distinguish
the legislative state courts from the judicial
state courts.  See the form for arrest warrants,
to identify the judicial forums in Arizona state.



At 09:20 PM 6/5/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I have just come across some information I have
>been meaning to post, but had forgotten about.
>
>I have to give the guys at Behold! (I don't
>remember if it was Randy or Robert) credit for
>reminding me in a post they were responding to,
>wherein they stated (paraphrasing):
>
>'The judicial power does not reside in the judge,
>it resides in the court.'
>
>I glossed over this at first, but then, when I
>re-read some of the information I got in John
>Nelson's first class, it hit me like a thunder-
>bolt...if the judicial power lies in the court,
>then hadn't we be sure we get the NAME of the
>court right, as it is our PAPERWORK (Process)
>that SETS THE COURT?
>
>Paul, you have been on the right track, but I'm
>not sure exactly what efforts you expended on
>this issue, but this should be a big help,
>especially in the federal courts.  State court
>names may differ from state to state, but I am
>assuming that the federal courts would be named
>the same all across the union.
>
>It is my understanding that John got these names
>by simply ASKING for them (imagine that!).  Now,
>I know it probably won't be that easy, but some
>of us may get lucky, and if not, there's always
>FOIA.
>
>Also, I don't know how important the case is in
>these, but I am typing them in just as I got them
>from John's material.
>
>Anyway, from John Nelson, a comparison of the
>NAMES of judicial vs legislative courts...
>
>JUDICIAL COURT                       LEGISLATIVE COURT
>--------------------------------------------------------
>IN THE                               County Court
>MONTEZUMA COUNTY COURT               County of Montezuma
>FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO            State of Colorado
>
>IN THE                               District Court
>DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS            22nd Judicial District
>OF THE 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT        State of Colorado
>FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO
>
>IN THE                               District Court
>DISTRICT COURT                       County of Montezuma
>OF THE 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT        State Of Colorado
>FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO
>
>IN THE                               Court of Appeals
>COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO         State of Colorado
>FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO
>
>IN THE                               Supreme Court
>SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO            State Of Colorado
>FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO
>
>IN THE                               United States District Court
>DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  For The State Of Colorado
>OF THE 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
>FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Paul, the last entry there appears to be what you
>need to be using in this brief you are working on.
>
>Apparently, the name of the court you should be in
>is:
>
>IN THE
>DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>OF THE 10TH(?) JUDICIAL DISTRICT
>FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>
>I wonder if this is something that can be corrected
>after the fact, or if you should withdraw, and refile
>under the correct name?  Anyway...
>
>Let's get cracking people.  Start requesting the
>names of all of the courts in your state, both
>Legislative and Judicial, and let's get this info
>spread far and wide.
>
>We'll have to deal with the issue of no Article III
>judges later, I guess.  Maybe 'Special Master'?  John
>says you can solve this problem by PAYING the man...in
>real money.
>
>In Liberty,
>
>Charles
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail