Time: Thu Nov 13 13:29:22 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05375;
	Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:28:23 -0700 (MST)
	id PAA18398; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:25:51 -0500 (EST)
	id PAA18372; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:25:44 -0500 (EST)
	id AA24605; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:25:41 -0500
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26100;
	Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:18:26 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd026065; Thu Nov 13 13:18:14 1997
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:18:06 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])
Subject: SNET: SLF: PRECEDENSES


->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List

People v. United States was specifically
engineered to invoke an Article III 
federal court, because the court of
original jurisdiction to litigate FOIA
requests is the DCUS, not the USDC.
That was the whole issue in that case,
and I believe I drove Judge Shanstrom
into the ground with my logic.  The
appeal is in limbo, because I ran out
of funds to prosecute it.  See the
Supreme Law Library for details.

Bear in mind, the Tenth Amendment reserves
a Citizen's fundamental Right, under the
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,
to "switch" a court of law into equity,
for purposes of enforcing a contract.
We have already reserved the People's 
fundamental Right to do so, for purposes
of compelling admission of the various
versions of the U.S. Constitution which
are now extant.  We did that in Looker's
case, and he ended up allowing his jailers
to persuade him to shred every single
pleading.  At least, they are now preserved
in the Supreme Law Library, while Looker must
contemplate his navel, for having stiffed
me for over $7,000 in legal fees.

And, Thanks!

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



At 09:26 AM 11/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On 12 Nov 97 at 3:59, by way of Paul Andrew Mitchel wrote:
>
>TA> That is the reason why I did what I did,
>TA> because I have been planning this move for more
>TA> than 7 years.  The very same approach can be 
>TA> used to put the original 13th Amendment on the
>TA> table, and the 16th and 17th Amendments as
>TA> well (the latter of which we were never
>TA> lawfully ratified).
>
>I really enjoy reading your pleadings and complaints! I'm 
>thankful you're active in re-establishing a lawful constitution. 
>I hope you're careful to get a court of law in which to argue 
>your case, and not a court of equity. Are you going to arrange 
>for an independent tribunal as you planned in the Kemp case? 
>Obviously none of the judges now sitting in courts are Article 
>III judges, and most likely would not look with favor upon your 
>controversy!
>
>I can't wait until (the original) amendment 13 comes up for 
>'review'!
>
>God bless you for all your efforts!
>
>_________________________
>
>/s/ Terry Anderson
>Renton, Washington state
>teasr@zipcon.net
>
>

-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])


      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail