Time: Tue Jul 01 08:40:05 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA10600;
	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:38:45 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA02251;
	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:38:40 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 08:36:59 -0700
To: Natdr@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Oaths

Thanks for your kind words here.

Article VI, Clause 3, controls,
pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

If state officials are operating under
color of federal municipal law, then
they can be held to 5 U.S.C. 3331;
BUT, this is a massive violation of the
Tenth Amendment.  See 31 CFR 51.2 and
52.2 for proof.

The way to smoke them out, is to submit
a FOIA request for their required Oath
of Office.  If they answer the FOIA,
they are subject to federal municipal
law.  If they say they are NOT subject
to FOIA, then they must proceed under
de jure state law.  The union states are
not territories of the "United States", 
subject to 1:8:17 or 4:3:2, pursuant to  
the Tenth Amendment.

All state constitutions must recognize
the U.S. Constitution as the supreme
Law of the Land, else they are not
Republican in Form.  I have court cites
which held that the U.S. Constitution
is also the supreme Law in each Union state.

See the Guarantee Clause for more authority.

Also, see the Preamble for the correct way
to cite the "Constitution for the United
States of America" [sic].  "United" has an
upper-case "U" therein.

We modify it to read as follows:

  The Constitution for the United States of America,
  as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution")

in ALL our court pleadings.


/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com



At 11:06 AM 7/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>     God Bless you, direct and protect you. It seems like an increasing
>number of public employess who are receiving enrichment from the states have
>neglected to file proper oaths and dates of expiration of office. Three of
>the last five judges oaths, filed with the Secretary of State ,I have read do
>not conform to the provisions in the Constitution   of the State of
>California, Art XX, sec. (3). Four did not contain the date of expiration of
>office. This is a violation of the Council on Judicial Ethics, Cannon 2 (a)
>and State Government Codes 1360.
>     The new unconsitutional oaths have changed the wording. They now swear
>no alliegience to the Constitution of the State of California. They do swear
>to the Constitution of the United States. I wonder if this is the same as the
>Constitution for the united States of America??? Hmmmm? More sedition through
>syntax?
>Be Well,
>Natdr. 


========================================================================
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