Time: Mon Sep 15 04:52:20 1997
	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

>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.
>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

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