Time: Mon Jun 30 07:40:09 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA17235;
	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:23:17 -0700 (MST)
	by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA27966;
	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:23:07 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:21:25 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan
References: <>

Hello Joe,

You are on the right track, but my
research does not support use of the
term "united States of America" as
a legal term.  See the Preamble for
authority.  I realize this is popular,
but I do not think it has a sufficient
foundation in American Law.

Instead, I cite People v. De La Guerra,
40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870) in California, 
where the Respondent, a judge who signed 
the 1849 California Constitution, 
explained it this way:

The term "United States" in these provisions
means "States united".

He then goes on to use the unmistakable 
term "citizen of one of the States"
"according to the true meaning of the
Constitution" [sic].  

Very powerful, indeed, from a judge, no less!

Therefore, I prefer to cite 1:2:2, 1:3:3,
and 2:1:5 in the U.S. Constitution, and then 
to explain that the term "Citizen of the United States" 
in these provisions means:

"Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America"

I usually underline ONE OF (which I cannot do here).

Some people would do this:

"Citizen of _one of_ the United States of America"

I think we reach the same goal, but via different

Please note that in 8 U.S.C. 1449, Congress used
this term:

"citizen of the United States of America" [lower-case "c"]

I can find no legal references to "united States
of America", aside from De La Guerra's argument
for Respondent.

Let me know if you find any, okay?

Many thanks in advance.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 08:35 AM 6/30/97 CDT, you wrote:
>I put it to them this way.......are you a citizen of the United States or
>a Citizen of the united States??? (united as an adjective)
>Joe Koudelka
>Houston, Texas
>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:47:11 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in tool bar] writes:
>>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>              "Sedition by Syntax"
>>                   written by
>>                  Ralph Schwan
>>               The Upright Ostrich
>>           December/January, 1985-1986
>>                    edited by
>>        Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>>      Counselor at Law and federal witness
>>           Founder, Supreme Law School
>>       website:  http://www.supremelaw.com
>>     Are you  a citizen of the United States?  Be
>>careful!  I'll tell you something that the United
>>States Government  will never  want to  tell you:
>>That's a "trick" question.  The federal (feudal?)
>>government will ask you that trick question quite
>>     It would  be better to put the question like
>>this:  Are you a citizen of the United States, or
>>a Citizen of one of the United States of America?
>>Do you  think the two are one and the same thing?
>>Your education  via government schools serves you
>>poorly.   Recall some  fourth grade grammar, then
>>check the  Constitution for  the United States of
>>America,  particularly   the  Preamble   in  that
>>important document.   Hereafter, we will refer to
>>this Constitution as the "U.S. Constitution".
>>     Let's use  a simple  example:  Consider "the
>>house of  Mr. Jones."   We'll rewrite it to read,
>>"Mr. Jones'  house."   See the  apostrophe?    It
>>tells  you   something  about   the  relationship
>>between Mr.  Jones and his house.  In most words,
>>you would add both an apostrophe and an "s";  but
>>when a  word ends  in an  "s", you do not need to
>>add another.  Ah, yes, you do remember that rule!
>>Then, a  citizen of  the United  States could  be
>>rewritten as  "United States' citizen", but never
>>as "United States citizen".  Right?  Right!
>>     You now graduate to the fifth grade.
>>     Now, for  more grammar.   Examine  the  term
>>"United States".   Is  it a  singular  noun  (one
>>thing), or  is it  plural (more  than one thing)?
>>By the  U.S. Constitution,  it  is  singular  and
>>plural!   We know that, because the terms "their"
>>and "them"  are used as pronouns referring to the
>>"United States", e.g. treason against the "United
>>States"  is   "levying  War   against  them"   or
>>"adhering to  their Enemies,  giving them Aid and
>>Comfort".   You probably  memorized the  names of
>>the "United  States" in  fifth  grade.    Was  it
>>boring for you?
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 1 of 8
>>     But, the  term "United  States" is also used
>>in the  singular sense.   It  is one  Nation.   A
>>Nation is  a natural  thing.    This  one  exists
>>because of  the boundaries  of the states.  IT is
>>never defined  in other  terms.  The term "United
>>States" is  a geographical name -- one thing, one
>>Nation.   The United  States are  one Union.  The
>>United States  is one  Nation.  Are you confused?
>>You isn't?  I are!
>>     Because "United  States" is a noun ending in
>>"s",  it   can  be  either  singular  or  plural.
>>"Jones' house" could mean the house of one person
>>(Mr. Jones),  or many persons (Mr. and Mrs. Jones
>>and their  12 children).  But, in either case, as
>>we learned  in fourth  grade, the apostrophe must
>>follow the "s".
>>     Were you  born in  the United  States?   The
>>preposition "in"  shows that  "United States", in
>>that question, is a place -- a geographical place
>>named "United  States".   It is  a singular noun.
>>You can  only be born in one place;  so, the term
>>"United States"  is one  place.   When  the  term
>>"United States"  is  singular,  it  refers  to  a
>>natural place, a nation, a land.
>>     When "United  States" is  a plural  noun, it
>>refers to  the "Union"  of  the  several  states.
>>Unions are  things that  are "Un-natural";   they
>>are things, not places.  Unions, as We the People
>>said, need  to be  perfected;   nations cannot be
>>perfected.     Unions,  all   unions,  exist   by
>>agreement;  Nations exist naturally.
>>     The only  requisite for  citizenship is your
>>"place" of  birth.   Every Person  is  a  natural
>>Citizen of  some Nation.   Nature is so important
>>to citizenship,  that Persons  wishing to  change
>>citizenship must  be NATURAL-ized.  For those who
>>appreciate  2000-year-old   terms,  "naturalized"
>>means "born  again".   But, that's not important.
>>Just remember  that original  citizenship  exists
>>because of  places, not  agreements.  If you want
>>to get  fancy, look  up the  definition  of  "Jus
>>soli" in  a legal  dictionary, like  Black's  Law
>>Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with pronunciations).
>>     If you  were born  in the United States (the
>>"Nation",  in   the  singular   sense),  you  are
>>automatically a  Citizen of  the  United  States,
>>i.e. the  United States,  one place,  one Nation.
>>Would you  also like  to join  the  "Union",  the
>>United States  (in  the  plural  sense),  "them"?
>>Sorry, only  states can  join this Union.  People
>>cannot join  this Union,  although they can serve
>>in Congress.   Carefully  read the qualifications
>>for serving  in the  U.S.  Senate  and  House  of
>>Representatives;   both qualifications  share one
>>important thing:   every qualified candidate must
>>be a Citizen of (one of) the United States.
>>     At least that's how it was intended to be.
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 2 of 8
>>     In 1867, "United States" was either the name
>>of a  geographical place,  or the name of a Union
>>of states.   In  1868, a new meaning was created.
>>A  third   meaning.    The  Fourteenth  amendment
>>accomplished this  feat.   It begins  like  this:
>>"All persons  born ...  in the  United States and
>>subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
>>of the United States ...."
>>     The problem  here  is  that  the  Fourteenth
>>amendment uses the term "United States", first in
>>the singular,  geographic, national sense (in the
>>United States),  and then  in the  plural,  Union
>>agreement sense  (jurisdiction thereof) -- but it
>>did not  make the word "jurisdiction" plural.  It
>>should have  read "jurisdictions  thereof".  But,
>>that would  have been quite illogical, for places
>>do not  possess  jurisdiction.    The  Union  had
>>jurisdiction over  the several  states,  but  not
>>over People,  and We  the People had jurisdiction
>>over the  Union --  or so  We said.    Under  the
>>definitions of  the term  "United  States"  circa
>>1867, the Fourteenth amendment made no sense.
>>     Rather than to admit the foolishness of this
>>amendment (which  was never lawfully ratified), a
>>new  meaning   was  given  to  the  term  "United
>>States".   It became  a TITLE.   This meaning was
>>never imagined  by the  Framers of  the  original
>>U.S. Constitution.  They took great care in it to
>>grant no  titles to  the federal government.  The
>>U.S. Constitution merely describes the government
>>of the  United States;   it  used no Titles.  The
>>best example  of this  fact is that the "supreme"
>>Court is spelled with a lower-case "s".  The U.S.
>>Constitution "entitled" nothing.  "We the People"
>>is the  only real  title used  anywhere  in  that
>>document!    In  fact,  titles  of  nobility  are
>>expressly  prohibited   in   the   organic   U.S.
>>Constitution.   We the People had had our fill of
>>kings, and  nobles of  kings.   You  and  I  were
>>intended to  be the only Nobility of this Nation.
>>Our title was our birthright;  it was not granted
>>by the federal (feudal) government.  It was not a
>>privilege -- it was a Right, a fundamental Right,
>>no less.
>>     But,  the  Fourteenth  amendment,  while  it
>>attempted to establish a title, did not eliminate
>>or change the prior meanings of the terms "United
>>States", or  "Citizen", as  those terms were used
>>in the  organic U.S.  Constitution.  Hence, since
>>1868, the  term "United  States"  has  had  three
>>different meanings:  (1) the geographical name of
>>a Nation,  (2) the name of a Union of states, and
>>(3) a title of nobility referring to a government
>>operating outside  of the  several states  of the
>>Union.     The  first  meaning  is  singular  and
>>natural;    the  second  meaning  is  plural  and
>>created by  agreement;    the  third  meaning  is
>>singular and granted.
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 3 of 8
>>     But, wait!  The federal government may grant
>>no titles  of nobility.   True.   Very true.  The
>>government of  the United States may not, but you
>>     As a  nobleman, you  can grant a title, only
>>you.  Plus, you can abdicate your title;  you can
>>trade it  for a new one.  But, you can only trade
>>downwards, because  the title  you were born with
>>is the  highest title.   You  can trade your high
>>title for  a low  one;   that's a Right which you
>>possess.   It's easy to do -- too easy, actually.
>>They have  also made  it  as  easy  as  possible,
>>because government  agents want you to join their
>>vast herd of subjects.
>>     All you need to do is to claim that your new
>>title is  "citizen of  the United  States".    Do
>>that, and  you will  instantly inform the rest of
>>the world  that you are a person (lower-case "p")
>>who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United
>>States" [sic].  You will use "United States" as a
>>title conferred  upon "citizen" (lower-case "c"),
>>and you  will thereby  prove that you believe the
>>"United States" is something (someone) other than
>>a geographical  description, or  the  name  of  a
>>Union of  states.   By claiming  that  it  has  a
>>jurisdiction greater  than your own, you grant it
>>a TITLE.   The  "person" who  holds  the  highest
>>title of a Nation, and who subjects people to his
>>jurisdiction, is called a KING.
>>     Have you  ever claimed the title of "citizen
>>of the United States"?  Did you ever get a Social
>>Security number and card?  You did it.  How about
>>a passport?   Same  thing.   Passports and social
>>security are entitlements (read "en-TITLE-ment").
>>They are granted by the high noble, to the lesser
>>nobles.   Entitlements are granted by the "United
>>States" (in the singular sense).  This government
>>is a government of title.  It exists side-by-side
>>with the  constitutionally described  "government
>>of the  United  States  of  America",  under  the
>>Constitution for  the United  States  of  America
>>(see Preamble).
>>     Do you  want proof?  Take a look at anything
>>possessed by  this government.   On  that object,
>>you will  find a  label, or a placard, or a sign.
>>It  reads:     "property  of  the  United  States
>>Government."   It owns  more  property  than  any
>>feudal king ever dreamed of possessing, but then,
>>it also  has more  subjects than  any feudal king
>>ever had, by far!
>>     As a  person of  low title  under the United
>>States (feudal) government, you are bound to obey
>>not only law, but a "Code" as well.  Remember how
>>feudal knights  had to  obey a  code -- a code of
>>chivalry?   Well, the  "Code" which  a citizen of
>>the United  States is  bound to  obey  is  called
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 4 of 8
>>("entitled")  the   "United  States   Code"   (no
>>apostrophe).   Originally, this  Code was  called
>>the "Code  of Law  of the  United States", but it
>>was quickly  filled with so much non-law that the
>>name was changed, so that persons (not "Persons")
>>claiming low  title would  know that  it was  for
>>them to  obey.   You did not realize this?  Maybe
>>you don't deserve your birthright title!
>>     At the  same time,  another  problem  arose.
>>The courts  described  in  the  Constitution  had
>>jurisdiction  (read   "judicial  power")  in  all
>>matters arising under the Constitution, the laws,
>>and the treaties of the United States, which were
>>made under  THEIR authority, plural, the "Union".
>>If violators  of the  Code were to be punished by
>>the courts,  or if  the courts  were to  hear any
>>matter under  their special  "Code", then  a  new
>>court system  had to  be established  -- a  court
>>system for  persons of  low  title  (small  "p").
>>These courts would be courts of title.
>>     What are the names of these courts?  Answer:
>>"United States District Court" and "United States
>>Court of  Appeals".   The courts described by the
>>U.S. Constitution  would be  "district Courts  of
>>the United  States", "appeals Court of the United
>>States",  and   "supreme  Court   of  the  United
>>States".  It would appear that, since both titled
>>courts and  constitutional courts must now exist,
>>side-by-side, then the judges must sit in either;
>>they really hold two jobs.
>>     You determine which court by addressing your
>>petition to  one or  the other.   You  pick.  The
>>titled courts  are no  place  for  a  Freeman,  a
>>Citizen of  one of  the United States of America.
>>These courts  have a zillion rules (published for
>>the "Code"),  right down to the kind of paper and
>>the style of type you must use in your pleadings.
>>The courts  of the  United States  are quite  the
>>opposite,  having  no  published  rules.    These
>>courts are  courts of  Law, convened for Justice.
>>Trivial things  like paper and type style have no
>>bearing  on   either.    Here,  substance  always
>>prevails over form.  For proof, examine 28 U.S.C.
>>2072(a), where constitutional courts are not even
>>mentioned in the authority which Congress granted
>>the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice
>>and procedure,  and rules  of evidence,  but only
>>for  titled   courts  --  United  State  district
>>     If you  are a  citizen of the United States,
>>you will  have to appear before a court of title,
>>at  least   in  civil  matters  under  the  Code.
>>Jurisdiction  in  criminal  matters  is  properly
>>still left  to "district  Courts  of  the  United
>>States".   Lucky criminals!   Counterfeiters  and
>>pirates fare  far  better  than  persons  of  low
>>title!    Well,  they  should,  for  their  Court
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 5 of 8
>>follows Law  and Justice,  while a  United States
>>District Court follows only "Code".
>>     Titled  courts,   like  the   United  States
>>District Court, are harsh in their administration
>>of the  Code, for  they are bound to nothing else
>>(assuming the  presiding  judge  is  not  also  a
>>criminal).   These courts  will gladly  take  the
>>word of a United States ATTORNey over the word of
>>a  petty  citizen  of  the  United  States.    To
>>"attorn" is  to supervise  the transfer an estate
>>from the  old lord to the new lord;  it is a term
>>from feudal law.  When they attorn properly, they
>>are rewarded handsomely.
>>     In courts of title, rank has its privileges.
>>These  courts  owe  no  allegiance  to  the  U.S.
>>Constitution;   they need not rule by the Laws of
>>the United States of America (the "Union").  They
>>follow only  a Code.  They obey their master, the
>>United States (feudal) government.  These courts,
>>as did  the infamous  Crown  Courts  of  England,
>>exist only  for the  benefit of  the peerage and,
>>unfortunately, often  to  the  detriment  of  the
>>Freemen of the land.
>>     This "dual  court" system  is  probably  the
>>only reason for what, at first glance, appears to
>>be a  set of  contradictory "case laws".  While a
>>reasonable mind  can understand the potential for
>>divergent  court   holdings  from  one  state  to
>>another, the contradictions manifest in "federal"
>>court holdings are quite troubling, indeed.
>>     Ever wonder  how  the  "Supreme"  Court  can
>>overturn itself?   Most often, it does not.  But,
>>one can  quickly see that the decisions of courts
>>of title,  or "United  States Courts",  would oft
>>times   conflict   with   the   rules   made   by
>>constitutional "courts  of  the  United  States".
>>One  hears   only  matters   brought  by   titled
>>citizens, the  other  hears  matters  brought  by
>>Freemen.   Since the  decisions are  published in
>>the same volumes, with no distinction between the
>>courts, case law seems to contradict itself.
>>     Should you  find this "dual court" concept a
>>bit far  fetched, examine  the  Internal  Revenue
>>Code, sections  7402(b) and  7604(a).   You  will
>>find that  these sections  grant the authority to
>>two different  courts to  enforce a summons.  The
>>sections are  identical, word-for-word  in  every
>>respect, except  for  one:    one  section  gives
>>authority to  the "United States district courts"
>>and the  other section  gives  authority  to  the
>>"district courts  of the  United States".   For a
>>recent   discussion   of   this   all   important
>>distinction, read  "Karma and the Federal Courts"
>>in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
>>     Why both?   Income  taxes are  excise taxes.
>>They are an excise/occupation tax on a privilege.
>>The privilege  is your  title --  citizen of  the
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 6 of 8
>>United States.  A "first party" summons is served
>>upon a  titled person.    But,  a  "third  party"
>>summons might  be served  upon anyone,  titled or
>>not.   Thus, one court must enforce the one;  the
>>other court must enforce the other.
>>     Since a  titled person  (lower-case "p")  is
>>required by  the Code  to keep books, records and
>>papers,  the   court  of  title  can  demand  the
>>delivery of those documents, without particularly
>>describing them,  without describing the place to
>>be  searched,   without  the  presentment  of  an
>>accusation by  a party under oath or affirmation.
>>Should a  titled person  fail to  deliver up such
>>documents, he  will  find  himself  in  jail  for
>>contempt --  not contempt  of court, but contempt
>>of the  Code!   A court of title may jail him for
>>failing to  produce records which no one has even
>>claimed existed  in the  first place!  He will be
>>released from  jail only  when he  "creates"  the
>>documents which  a titled  person is  required to
>>     Nowhere is  the dual court / dual government
>>system more  apparent than  in tax  matters.   At
>>common law, titled individuals (but not the king)
>>are bound  by an  oath of allegiance, in order to
>>be entitled.   Thus,  income tax  forms  must  be
>>signed only  by persons  under oath,  persons who
>>are  subject   to  the  "penalties  of  perjury".
>>Signing such a form is a confession that you hold
>>title.  The form is to be signed by a "citizen of
>>the United  States" or  a "resident of the United
>>States" (singular  sense here).   Hence, a signed
>>tax form  is always  introduced as evidence, in a
>>"criminal" tax  prosecution,  to  show  that  the
>>defendant has  claimed a title.  Signed tax forms
>>need not  be notarized,  because they  conform to
>>affirmations made  "inside  the  United  States".
>>For  proof,  see  28  U.S.C.  1746(2),  and  then
>>compare its companion at subsection 1746(1).
>>     Perhaps you  have heard  that tax deductions
>>are granted  by the  "grace" of the United States
>>(feudal) government.   It's  true.   Grace  is  a
>>favor, a privilege.  Kings dispense grace;  kings
>>deny grace.   What  is given  in  grace,  may  be
>>denied.   The IRS will often deny tax deductions.
>>Search as  we may,  it is  impossible to discover
>>where it  is in  the U.S.  Constitution that  the
>>federal government  is authorized  to dispense or
>>deny any "grace".
>>     But, the  government of the United States of
>>America does  not dispense  or deny  grace;   the
>>United States  Government does.  It dispenses and
>>denies grace  to its  subjects -- the citizens of
>>the United States.  This king wears no crown, for
>>it has  no head.  It cannot be killed.  It cannot
>>be harmed.   It  cannot even  be sued,  unless it
>>first "grants" its own permission to be sued.  It
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 7 of 8
>>is hardly  the same  government which We demanded
>>would always  allow Us to petition for redress of
>>grievances, an  unalienable Right  guaranteed  by
>>the Petition Clause of the First Amendment!
>>     This government-king  has existed  for  over
>>100 years.  At first, it was quite innocuous, for
>>it had  very few  subjects.  But, when it tricked
>>Us, the People, into signing away our birthrights
>>via reams  of forms,  its power  became  immense.
>>Today, this  government by  title is  so powerful
>>that the  original, constitutional  government of
>>the United  States of  America became lost in its
>>     There are  still two  governments.  One asks
>>that you  should serve  it;  the other only seeks
>>to serve  you.   The  government  of  title  will
>>entice  you   with   promises   of   grants   and
>>enTITLEments:   welfare,  social  security,  low-
>>interest loans,  grants of  exemption, grants  of
>>deduction.   But, it  can give  you nothing.   It
>>exists only  by your  authority.   It cannot give
>>you anything  that you  did not  already possess.
>>Try as it might to deceive you, it exists by your
>>grace -- not the other way around!
>>     Do Us  both a  favor:   withdraw your grace;
>>deny your  grace.   Be a  Citizen of  one of  the
>>United States  of America  again.  Stop trying to
>>serve two  masters;   you can't  do it.  The Holy
>>Bible says  so, and  it is  the Word  of the Most
>>High.   Stop pretending  that you  are subject to
>>the  jurisdiction   of  the  United  States,  and
>>announce that you are subject to the jurisdiction
>>of the  Most High,  and only  the Most High.  You
>>won't be,  unless you  choose to  be.   Even  the
>>greatest earthly  king is  only  a  king  by  the
>>consent of  his subjects.   Make yourself subject
>>only to  the King of kings.  Stop being a subject
>>of anyone else, or anything else.
>>     Be a free man!
>>     Refuse to  claim that  you are a "citizen of
>>the United  States".   This term is identical to,
>>and should  be replaced  by,  the  term  "federal
>>citizen", because  the latter  term  is  entirely
>>unique and  cannot be  confused  with  any  other
>>legal term.   Confer  at "Federal citizenship" in
>>Black's  Law   Dictionary,  Sixth  Edition  (with
>>pronunciations).   As a  Citizen of  one  of  the
>>United  States   of   America,   you   may   deny
>>jurisdiction to  titled courts.   Be  aware  that
>>this latter  term, also known as "state Citizen",
>>is  not   defined  in   Black's  Law  Dictionary,
>>however.   And, by  all means,  stop calling this
>>king by its title, the United States Government.
>>        Sedition by Syntax:  Page 8 of 8
>>                   #  #  #
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal 
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. 
>>tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 
>>email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library 
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its 
>>             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal 
>>             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o 
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We 
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns 
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional 
>>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>

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