Time: Mon Sep 15 04:32:47 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA09579; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:06:13 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA24290; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:04:16 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:03:59 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Common Law Case Goes to U.S. Supreme Court <snip> > >This case, the only known one of its kind it in our country >today, could set precedent in preserving the 7th Amendment >to the Constitution -- the Right to Trial by Jury in civil >suits at common law. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Please READ AND PASS ON. DISTRIBUTE FAR AND WIDE. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ASKED TO DETERMINE >IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION > >by: Joseph Caterina > Registered Professional Civil Engineer > 202 Kenyon Drive > Peckville, PA 18452 >(717) 489-8741 Phone >(717) 383-7466 Fax > > > Two timely filed Writs of Certiorari were filed in the Clerk's Office > of the Supreme Court of the United States; one Pro Se on the 14th of > April, 1997 and the other on the 15th of April, 1997, the very last > day to file via mail, by Attorney Thomas M. Marsilio of the Kisailus > Law Firm in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. > > At issue, these important Federal Questions of First impression: > >1. Does a Decision of a Common Law Court supersede a conflicting >Order of a Statutory Court of the unified Judicial system of the >Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? 2. Were the Petitioners granted "due >process of Law" by a Common Law Court which protected the Rights of >the Petitioners pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution >of the United States and was same "due process of Law" denied by the >unified Judicial System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as it >relates to the providing of a Trial by Jury in a matter involving the >taking of real property? > > Petitioners allege that the issue of priority of an Order of a Common > Law Court over that of a Court of an alleged Unified Judicial System, > is a case of first impression with this Honorable Court. > > Pursuant to Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution > of the United States, Petitioners contend that they were entitled to > the right to trial by jury relative to the condemnation claim. > Denied this right, Petitioners resorted to an alternate dispute > resolution before a Common Law Jury. > > In commencing this Common Law action, the trial court was placed on > Notice by the filing of Letters Rogatory, the filing of a Memorandum > of Law and Material Facts. Furthermore, their action to Quiet Title > was printed in newspapers of general circulation in Lackawanna > County, Pennsylvania, three (3) times and service of Notice of the > initiation of this action was served on all parties of interest. The > procedure of the Petitioners met all of the Statutory and Common Law > requirements of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relative to actions > to Quiet Title. The Common Law Jury then rendered their final Order > and Judgment and the Quiet Title was confirmed. Notice thereof was > once again served upon Respondents. It is interesting to note that > at no time did any of the Respondents object to the proceedings of > the Common Law Court or Appeal its Decision. > > As stated previously, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania > dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioners for lack of jurisdiction. > Petitioners then Appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania who > declined to entertain this Appeal and on reconsideration took the > same course of action. > > Once again, it must e reiterated that at no time did Respondents or > anyone acting on their behalf ever question, oppose, challenge, > attempt to negate, or even address the validity of the Decision of > the Common Law Court who quieted title to the lands in question in > favor of the Petitioners. Their failure to act constitutes a default > and their taking possession of the lands of the Petitioners further > violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United > States relative to unlawful seizure of property. > > The ploy of dumping a much larger watershed into a small channel in > the name of flood protection wherein neither watershed has had any > history of flooding in over 100 years is the crux of this dispute. > > The Clerk's office of the Supreme Court of the United States sat on > the Writs until17 July 1997 before filing only one Writ. The > Petitioners elected to use Attorney Thomas M. Marsiolio's Writ. The > Case was numbered US Sup Ct. No. 97-102 and is captioned under > "Joseph R. Caterina et al vs. Blakely Borough, et al." > > Anyone interested in preserving their right to trial by Jury in Civil > Matters at Law can file a supporting Writ and or Brief Amicus Curaie > by calling the Clerk's Office (202) 479-3011 for information and > Rules of Court. > >The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet determined if the >case will be heard. > > The Right to Trial by Jury has been almost entirely eliminated in the > existing Statutory Court System wherein the judges administer all > Laws and Statutes usually without Jury and compel the will of the > Legislature through their Statues to supersede the citizen's right to > Trial by Jury with regard to all Civil Matters at Common Law. > > One begins to realize the trickery the government has played upon its > citizens. They have separated the citizen from the jury, and that > "We the People" is really "We the Jury," as it is only the Jury at > Common Law that can override and directly restrain and control the > government and its statutes. This only applies to all Civil Matters > on an individual case by case basis. > > Without Trial by Jury, (not with Judge and a Jury), the Citizen is > always at the mercy of the Judge and basically without rights with > exception to any residual rights that the Legislature through its > Statues may elect to leave you which in most if not all cases, is no > rights at all. Obey the Law or Pay the fine. Don't pay the fine, > now go Directly to Jail! We've all been there at one time or another > in our life. > > Please keep in mind that the right to trial by Jury, (without Judge), > is restricted to all Civil suits at Common Law, where the value in > controversy shall exceed Twenty dollars. The Seventh Amendment > states: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy > shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be > preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined > in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the > common law." > > It was never intended by the Founding Fathers to entrust the > Government with all of the power all of the time - for what > difference would there be in that of a King? It was always subject > to "We the Jury" in suits at Common Law; wherein the King was > restrained by the Common Law (cite Magna Carta 1215 A.D.) and so > equally the Government herein could be restrained by "We the People" > better being "We the Jury." > > Attorney Bill Bailey, talk show radio host in the Boston area, has > taken an interest in the case. His phone number is (617) 884-2461. > Attorney Thomas M. Marsilio can be reached at phone number (717) > 824-9949 or FAX (717) 824-9940. He is with the Kisailus Law Firm, 15 > Darling Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-2510. > > Any interest and legal help will be greatly appreciated as this case > has vast public importance as it directly affects the preservation of > each and every single one of us and our basic right to Trial by Jury > - the basic foundation of our freedom. > > Steve West (800) 715-3582, at Bauchman Printing will send you a copy > of the filed Writ. Enclose $10.00 plus $1.00 shipping and handling. > The Nisi Prius Book Store, P. O. Box 826, Hancock, NY 13783 will ship > a copy of both Writs upon request for $30.00 plus $2.00 shipping and > handling, or $20.00 plus $1.00 shipping and handling for Pro Se Writ > only. > > I love my country. And I love the right of Trial by Jury our > Founding Fathers gave me. For their sake, and for our own, we MUST > PRESERVE IT! > <snip> ======================================================================== 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 3.0.3 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