Time: Sun Nov 16 16:21:35 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA10569;
	Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:04:28 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA12413;
	Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:03:31 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd012373; Sun Nov 16 16:03:17 1997
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:03:26 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: PRECEDENSES [sic]
References: <>

I am not the author of the misspelling,
and I chose not to take any liberties by
changing that misspelling in the Subject

In this discussion, we are asserting
the People's fundamental Right to 
sue in a court of law, to enforce the
U.S. Constitution as a contract in
equity.  Congress has blended law and
equity anyway, in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  Perhaps many of you
do not already know this.  Howard Freeman
explains this briefly in his many writings,
e.g. "The Two United States and the Law."

With this approach, we intend to 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
 not lawfully ratified?  YES or NO?"

See the Seventh Amendment for authority.
The term "suits at common law" has not been, 
and CANNOT be, amended by Congress.  See
Eisner v. Macomber for a case authority,
predicated upon the ratification of the
so-called 16th amendment [sic].

We came very close to doing exactly this,
in the grand jury case, but that federal
judge opted to commit over 100 felonies
instead.  See In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
Served on New Life Health Center Company,
now loaded in the Supreme Law Library,
at the URL just below my name here.

We filed a demand for jury trial when the
IRS agent's Appointment Affidavit was
discovered under FOIA, showing that she was a 
"Tax Technician" and not a "Special Agent" ("SA")
after all.  But, there was an oath on that
Appointment Affidavit, which made reference
to the Constitution of the United States.

I don't see what is so difficult about
enforcing the U.S. Constitution in equity,
particularly upon the very people who are
(or should be) sworn to uphold it.  See
4 U.S.C. 101, 5 U.S.C. 3331, and the
Supremacy Clause, for authorities

We first developed this theme in People v. Boxer,
in which we argued:

"It is impossible for Citizens to enforce, 
 and it is impossible for public servants to obey,
 their solemn oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution,
 if the weight of material evidence should prove
 that the exact provisions of that Constitution
 are still in doubt, for any reason."

I think the latter sentence puts it rather succinctly,

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

At 11:38 AM 11/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>"Precendences" is not a word.
>The proper word is PRECENDENTS.
>and which of the following is your interpretation
>of the Tenth Amendment?
>You are the author of both.
>> >> 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.
>> 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
>Question asked about the first description
>> >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.
>> >
>-> 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


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail