Time: Thu Nov 27 16:38:42 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA24690
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:33:29 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03256;
	Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:32:54 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd003218; Thu Nov 27 16:32:47 1997
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:32:52 -0800
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: Notice of Removal and of Related Procedural Remedies

Because the Sixth Amendment is the supreme Law 
of the Land in each and every state of the Union.

The state constitutions are required to give it
this status, or those constitutions are not
Republican in Form.  See Hauenstein v. Lynham,
100 U.S. 483 (1880).  This case is particularly
apropos human rights treaties, which were enacted
to reinforce the fundamental rights of Citizens.

The right to have the assistance of Counsel for
the defense is a fundamental Right.  Period.

There IS no 14th amendment, and Dyett v. Turner
proves it.  So, you are wagging your tongue at
the fickle wind, to persist in citing it in
any fashion as authority for anything whatsoever.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause controls here.

If you must disagree with every single thing I do,
then I am thereby convinced that you are being 
paid to disrupt my participation on the Internet.

You are doing a very lousy job.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 06:14 PM 11/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>In a message dated 97-11-27 08:07:22 EST, you write:
><<      Defendant hereby  offers to prove that the Tucson City Court
> [sic] is  also arraigning  criminal defendants via closed-circuit
> television cameras  without the  assistance of  Counsel  for  the
> defense, in direct, premeditated, and systematic violation of the
> Sixth Amendment  in the  Constitution for  the United  States  of
> America, as  lawfully amended.   See  Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
> 458, 468 (1938), in chief. >>
>A paradox for the supremeloser:
>How could the State of Arizona violate the Sixth Amendment unless the
>Fourteenth Amendment is valid and causes Sixth Amendment prohibitions to
>apply against state governments?
>Oops.  That would mean that he's basing his claim on something he believes to
>be untrue.
>For freedom,
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: NMMJR@aol.com

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