Time: Sat Nov 01 06:26:54 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA25962;
	Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:25:37 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA23881;
	Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:24:14 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd023867; Sat Nov  1 06:24:11 1997
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 06:24:46 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Judges and Admiralty (fwd)

>I cannot comment on the validity of the ideas expressed here, but 
>they appear to work for the writer.  Also, the suggested reading 
>sounds of value.  HT
>Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:16:35 -0700
>From: Thomas Markson <rsrchsoc@ionet.net>
>Subject: Judges and Admiralty
>Hello Charles,
>	Don't tell the judges they are not Article III.  We have had 
>every one of the U.S. judges here in Arizona state on the record that 
>they are Article III judges.
>	Here is how the judge problem was handled here in Arizona.  It 
>was a civil case about 10 years ago.  One of the old timer judges who 
>retired later and is probably dead, tried to say that the Constitution 
>did not apply in a particular case.  The Defendant, popped back at the 
>judge that if the Constitution did not apply, then his office was 
>vacant, because his very appointment was subject to the existence of the 
>Constitution.  He was also told that at that point the Court lacked 
>subject matter jurisdiction and that if the judge attempted to assert 
>jurisdiction under the circumstances, that he might subject himself to 
>suit in a state court.  One thing you should know, you must be prepared 
>to immediately file, no later than the next day, the lawsuit in state 
>court if the judge does not back down.
>	From that day forward, that judge was never a problem.  After a 
>couple of years of discovery and heated cross motions for summary 
>judgment that both parties lost, the government and the defendant 
>stipulated to dismissal and the case went nowhere.
>	Just before the Judge retired the Defendant ran into that judge 
>in the halls at the courthouse.  The judge remembered the guy and 
>thanked him for reminding him of "his place" as the judge put it.
>	We haven't had the same problem with any of the judges in cases 
>I have been involved with since that time.  As I told Chuck Stewart a 
>couple of days ago, I am not an attorney and I am not admitted to 
>practice law, but I do assist a lot of people.  I go into court with the 
>people as their "clerk."  We don't make a big deal out of it.  I just go 
>sit with the person.  The last couple of times I appeared in court I 
>have been addressed by the judge on how the party I am working with is 
>doing and what we plan to do.  The judge tried to ask the party, but 
>the party got flustered and had a difficult time explaining himself.  
>It happens even to me.  He reallized at that point that he was going to 
>get a quicker answer from me so that is when he talked to me directly 
>the first time.
>	What I have discovered over the years, is we have a job to 
>education.  Many of the judges want to help.  As long as we know the law 
>we are dealing with and do not go off into left field, the judges listen 
>and respect what is being said.  Sometimes they rule for us sometimes 
>against us.  Be assertive but not biligerent and the judge will 
>recognize the difference.
>	As far as admiralty involving international debt, it still has 
>to be plead in order for the judge to proceed.  He can proceed in 
>admiralty without notice, but even Rule 9(h) requires that the pleadings 
>on their face reveal that the facts alleged can permit it to proceed in 
>admiralty.  That is why most of the people I work with are Plaintiffs 
>and not Defendants.  It is the Plaintiff that calls the law into court. 
>So always make sure when you plead your case that admiralty facts do not 
>become a factor in the judges consideration or that those facts are not 
>brought to light.  It can be done.  One thing I always avoid doing when 
>I go into a federal court, I do not carry FRN's since they are evidence 
>of the U.S. Government's international debt.
>	You also state that the State's have lost their sovereignty.  
>They haven't lost it, the State legislatures simply do not no how to 
>exercise it.  It's still there, it just begun to attrophy from lack of 
>	Over the last few days, I have been putting the challenge out to 
>a few people to read three items.  I know Bill Bradley has received the 
>info.  I don't remember if I sent it to Chuck Stewart.  If I didn't 
>Chuck here it is.
>	They are "The Constitution of the United States, A Critical 
>Discussion of its Genesis, Development and Interpretation" by John 
>Randolph Tucker.  The Library of Congress No. is KF 4550.T8.  If you 
>can't find it in the local law library, I suggest you go to your public 
>library and get it through inter-library loan.  Do not be fooled by the 
>title, it covers more than just the Constitution.  It is also a slow 
>read, but it is extremely informative on solutions to a decaying 
>political structure.
>	Item number two is a law review article.  It is entitled 
>"Amplifying the Tenth Amendment" by John MacMullen.  It is in Vol. 31 of 
>the Arizona Law Review, Page 915.  Again do not be fooled by the Title. 
> It covers more than just the 10th Amendment.
>	Item number three is a U.S. Supreme Court Decision.  "Butler v. 
>U.S., 297 US 1 (1936).
>	I can guarantee that after you read these three things, and 
>combine it with the facts that you already know, you will know the 
>problem and hopefully you will figure out the fix.  If you can't figure 
>out the fix, if you just tell me in an E-mail where the problem is, I 
>will describe the fix.
>	I have stopped telling people the problem at this juncture 
>because they don't believe me and then they do not go out and read the 
>three things I just named above.  However, everyone that has taken me up 
>on the challenge has at least figured out the problem and about a third 
>actually figure out the fix.  The one thing I do give a hint to is that 
>the problem and the fix are both political.
>	I hope you will take the time.  It won't be wasted.
>Yours in Liberty,
>Thomas Markson

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail