Time: Thu Dec 04 12:46:43 1997
To: Jon Roland <jon.roland@the-spa.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Bcc: sls
References: <> 

Objection.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

See Dyett v. Turner (1968) and State v. Phillips,
Utah Supreme Court (1975).

The rule for apportioning Congressional Districts
is not the one found in the so-called 14th amendment
[sic], because it is not the supreme Law of the Land,
not now, not ever!

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 11:27 AM 12/4/97 -0800, you wrote:
>The 14th Amendment does not speak to monopolies, although its equal 
>protection clause might be invoked against legal monopolies. However, it 
>provides no authority to act against naturally-occuring monopolies. Indeed, 
>it provides no authority to act against anything but violations of civil 
>rights by a government agent, excluding such violations by private parties.
>However, no constitutional provision is needed to support the right of a 
>party injured or likely to be injured by a monopoly to sue such monopoly in 
>a class action and seek as redress the breakup of the monopoly. This is the 
>approach to take, lacking constitutional authority to legislate against 
>monopolistic and collusive actvities.
>Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
>916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM         Date: 12/04/97  Time: 11:27:04
>http://www.constitution.org/         mailto:jon.roland@the-spa.com
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
>     majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
>with the message:
>     subscribe ignition-point email@address
>     unsubscribe ignition-point email@address

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail