Time: Sat Aug 16 23:42:32 1997 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 23:42:10 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] Subject: SLL:CC:PVPCCJC.ZIP Cc: [address in toolbar] compressed with -ex option (use extra compression) and encoded with BinHex (I can also encode with MIME and Uuencode) /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com Legend: SLL = Supreme Law Library CC = Court Cases PVPCCJC = People v. Pima County Consolidated Justice Court .DIR = DOS directory suffix (user convention) Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\PVPCCJC.zip" ======================================================================== 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 toolbar] : 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.]From ???@??? Sun Aug 17 09:18:57 1997 by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15360; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:16:39 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:15:24 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Of the People, by the People, for the People" (fwd) <snip> > >WEDNESDAY ON THE WEB >08/15/97 By Kim Weissman > > OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR > THE PEOPLE: > > > > Consider the following hypothetical: It is the summer of the year >2000. The presidential election is fast > approaching. President Clinton goes on national television and >announces that, as a result of some > pending "crisis" -- perhaps new "evidence" of global warming, and a >Senate which refused to ratify the > greenhouse gas reduction treaty back in 1997 -- he has decided to >temporarily postpone the > presidential election due to the National Emergency. > > Pursuant to Executive Orders being formulated, the Constitution and >the Bill of Rights will be > temporarily suspended until new restrictive mandates on the >production of greenhouse gasses are fully > implemented. Vice President Gore will lead the "bipartisan" task >force charged with drawing up those > mandates, which will be imposed pursuant to Executive Order since >the Congress will also be > temporarily disbanded, having already demonstrated their inability >to deal with the crisis by rejecting > the aforesaid treaty. To insure compliance with the new mandates >which are being implemented so as > to assure our children a safe and secure world in which to grow up, >Martial Law will be imposed. > > Under this hypothetical scenario, what would be the reaction of >most of our national news media? What > would the reaction be from a large portion of our citizens? The >hopeful among us (or naive) expect that > the great majority of citizens would raise their voices in >righteous indignation at such a scenario as > outlined above. But would they? > > Haven't we been experiencing, in slow motion, just such a >usurpation of power and destruction of > Liberty for decades, with barely a murmur of discontent? Haven't we >even welcomed the destruction of > our Liberty, in the name of saving the environment, preserving our >natural resources, controlling crime, > assuring our health, stabilizing our economy, implementing >fairness, and a host of other useless > excuses for what in actuality amounts to creeping totalitarianism? > > Item: The majority of voters in California recently decided to >make racial preferences illegal. A > single federal judge decided that such an exercise of popular >will was unconstitutional, deciding in > effect that the Constitution requires discrimination. Where >was the great mass of citizens raising > their voices in righteous indignation? > Item: Citizens in states across the nation have decided, >through popular referenda, to limit the > terms of their representatives in state and federal >legislatures. State and federal judges have > uniformly decided that such exercises of popular will must not >be permitted, and have struck > down such term limits laws. Where is the great mass of >citizens raising their voices in righteous > indignation? > Item: The Constitution provides that treaties negotiated with >foreign nations are subject to > ratification by the United States Senate. To avoid the >inconvenient need to obtain the consent of > the putative representatives of the governed to such >international agreements, our current > president has begun to simply rename those agreements which he >negotiates with foreign > nations. They are no longer "treaties," -- they are "political >agreements, "memorandums of > understanding,", "founding acts," and "global initiatives;" >thereby eliminating the need for > Senate ratification. Once these agreements are in place, the >president tells us that of course > these are treaties, and as such, according to the >Constitution, they must take precedence over > state and federal laws enacted by the mere elected >representatives of the people. Where is the > great mass of citizens raising their voices in righteous >indignation? > Item: The Constitution designates one segment of our national >government as the only group > empowered to enact laws to govern the nation, the Congress. >This is proper, because if the > governed do not like the laws enacted by Congress, the People >have the ability to remove the > offending legislators from office at the next election. Thus >does the Constitution provide for > control by the People over the laws which govern them. The >Congress, however, has established > an alphabet soup of regulatory bodies and granted them rule >making authority, rules which have > the full force and effect of law. What recourse is left to the >People when they object to the laws > which the myriad bureaucrats, which infest government, enact >daily? > > The fundamental flaw with this method of governance is that the >People are no longer able to exert > control over the rule makers, that control is vested in the >Congress instead. When the Army Corps of > Engineers or the Environmental Protection Agency decide to >confiscate private property in the name of > "wetland" protection, when the term "wetland" is nowhere to be >found in Congressional legislation, > and the Congress refuses to overrule the bureaucrats, who in >Congress can be held accountable? > Which Congressmen should be removed from office in the next >election because of the actions of the > bureaucrats? Where is the great mass of citizens raising their >voices in righteous indignation? > > Item: The regulatory agencies aren't the only source of >unconstitutional legislative authority. > Consider Executive Orders of the President, an exercise of >Presidential Power nowhere > designated in the Constitution. > > But Executive Orders, as substitutes for the Constitutionally >designated legislative process, have been > used by presidents for so long that the People and the Congress no >longer even question them. > Executive Orders totally bypass Congressional legislative authority >and place unilateral legislative > power in the hands of the President. A Presidential Executive Order >becomes law simply by publication > in the Federal Registry. Where is the great mass of citizens >raising their voices in righteous > indignation? > > Item: Innocent citizens were killed near Waco, Texas in 1993. >Attorney General Reno accepted > responsibility for the numerous improper actions by law >enforcement agents which contributed to > those deaths. The Clinton White House violated the >Constitutional rights of private citizens, and > made inappropriate political use of the FBI, when it >improperly gathered hundreds of confidential > files on political opponents. The White House displayed >contempt of its constitutional > responsibilities, resorted to cover-up, made frivolous claims >of executive privilege, and abused > its powers and the rights of citizens, to reward political >cronies in the Travel Office employee > firings. The FBI presented misleading testimony and flawed >evidence tailored to convict criminal > defendants, in various cases emanating from the FBI >laboratory. To date, no senior officials of > any of the departments involved have been held accountable for >any of these abuses of power. > Where is the great mass of citizens raising their voices in >righteous indignation? > > All of the elected members of our national government take a solemn >oath upon entering office, to > preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United >States. As the above examples > demonstrate, along with many more which could be detailed, the >elected members of our government > violate their oaths of office almost daily. Yet they remain in >office. Where is the great mass of citizens > raising their voices in righteous indignation? Thanks to a >dysfunctional educational system and a > Supreme Court which has expanded, contracted, ignored, and >otherwise blurred the rights and > limitations contained in the Constitution, the unfortunate reality >is that far too many citizens of this > nation no longer have a clear understanding of their Constitution, >or any concept of their rights under, > or the limitations imposed on their government by, that document. > > Examine all the newly created "rights" which people claim, which >have sprung up like weeds over the > years: to be fed, to a job, to housing, to health care, to an >education. Some people go even further, > claiming that animals, and even rocks and trees, have rights. > > From where do all these newly minted "rights" spring? From a >"living" Constitution, of course. > > Even worse, most citizens relegate the interpretation of their >Constitution to unelected members of the > very government which that Constitution is supposed to restrain. We >have been convinced that we, the > People, are not competent to understand what the words of the >Constitution mean, that we are too > stupid to read it, to research it, and to decide for ourselves what >those words mean; and that we must > rely on unelected federal judges to tell us what the plain words of >that document really mean. Thus we > have a Supreme Court which tells us that the Congress may spend >money for any purpose which can be > defined as contributing to the general welfare of the nation. The >basic idea has therefore taken hold > with most people that the federal government can do anything it >want to do, just as long as enough > people agree, and the concept of accountability of our servants in >government for their improper and > abusive actions has virtually disappeared. > > We have a Supreme Court which discovers rights lurking in the >Constitution which two centuries of > previous Supreme Courts somehow failed to notice. We have a Supreme >Court which, until recently, > has allowed the Congress to regulate virtually any local activity >which someone claims may affect > interstate commerce, regardless of how absurd that claim may be. >The Tenth Amendment, which > specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States >by the Constitution, nor prohibited by > it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to >the people," has been called a nullity by > the Supreme Court; in other words, it is irrelevant, mere words >which don't mean anything > > Contrast that expansive view of government power which has taken >root during this century, with the > words of Thomas Jefferson, who was concerned that just such a >problem might arise: "Congress has > not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only >those specifically enumerated." > > The danger of abrogating our fundamental rights and >responsibilities as citizens becomes evident when > the history of our founding is reviewed: the People fought a war >for independence, then selected > delegates to come together and form a new government for their new >nation. Those delegates of the > People created a document, a Constitution, which created that >government. That document simply said: > > 'We created this government. We control it. These are the powers >over us which we, the People, grant > to this government. These powers and no more. And to make doubly >sure of our Freedom, we attach a > list of our fundamental rights which this government may not >impair.' Now, two centuries later, we have > made the potentially fatal mistake of saying to that government, >'We will give to you the authority to > tell us what powers you have over us. We will allow the government >to define its own limits.' > > This is the perfect prescription for tyranny. > > For a government which has the power to define its own limits, in >fact has no limits. And a Constitution > which is a "living" Constitution, which "grows" to meet evolving >standards, is no Constitution at all. > > As Jefferson admonished: > > "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us >carry ourselves back to the time when > the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in >the debates, and instead of trying what > meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, >conform to the probable one in which it > was passed." > > There is an old story about the proper method for cooking a frog. > > If you throw a live frog into a pot of boiling water, the story >goes, it will instantly jump out. If, however, > you throw the frog into a pot of cold water, it will merrily swim >about. Then you can gradually turn up > the heat until, before long, it is cooked and ready to be eaten. >The scenario outlined in the first > paragraph above would probably cause the citizens of this nation to >react much as the frog thrown into > boiling water. However, the elites in our government have been >using the cold water method for > decades, and we are still merrily swimming around as the water >approaches boiling. Are we cooked > yet? ======================================================================== 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