Time: Sun Nov 16 03:34:16 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA05698;
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:32:55 -0700 (MST)
id FAA23677; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:27:41 -0500 (EST)
id FAA23672; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:27:38 -0500 (EST)
id AA03333; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:27:37 -0500
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA13900;
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:27:15 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:27:39 -0800
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SNET: SLF: PRECEDENSES
References: <3.0.3.16.19971113131806.3b17de02@pop.primenet.com>
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
The solution is quite simple:
compel the various versions of the
U.S. Constitution into evidence,
and convene a common law jury to
issue declaratory relief on the
following question:
"Do the facts support a legal conclusion
that the so-called 14th amendment was
never lawfully ratified?" YES or NO?
See the Seventh Amendment for authority.
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the
People, and to the several states,
all Rights not enumerated and
otherwise delegated to the federal
government. Since the People are
the authors of the Constitution,
juries are the bodies which have final
authority to reconcile conflicting
versions of the U.S. Constitution.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: SLS
At 12:02 PM 11/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>> The appeal is in limbo, because I ran out
>> of funds to prosecute it. See the
>> Supreme Law Library for details.
>
>How is the appeal in limbo ?
>You mean it was scheduled to be heard and you told
>them you had no funds to proceed. And so the appeals
>court told the clerk to hold it indefinitely until
>you got the funds to proceed?
>
>And it's just there in limbo, subject to no procedural
>deadline, waiting indefinitely until you get the funds?
>
>Please disclose how you were able to do that.
>I'd like to file an appeal that pends indefinitely.
>The opposing party would be thrilled.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Is this true ?
>I thought the Tenth Amendment protected
>rights not addressed by other amendments
>in the Bill of Rights. I may be wrong,
>but I always thought the Fifth Amendment
>was part of the Bill of Rights and that
>the right to due process is specifically
>protected.
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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])
>>
>
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: pomi <pom@clark.net>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
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
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail