Time: Wed Feb 05 17:02:30 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23930;
Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:14:50 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:01:08 -0800
To: <minutemn@pcl.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Supplement to Refusal
Cc: pmitch@primenet.com
SUPPLEMENT TO REFUSAL
FOR CAUSE:
28 U.S.C. 2284;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights;
Supremacy Clause
COMES NOW ... to supplement Defendant's previously
submitted NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE, filed
on [mm/dd/yy] in the instant case, for the
following substantive reasons:
1. The ORDER by Senior United States District
Judge James H. Hancock, dated January 24, 1997,
erred by determining that a three judge court
is not required. Specifically, said ORDER
stated as follows:
This court is fully satisfied that a three
judge court is not required.
Judge Hancock is in error, because Section 2284 of
Title 28, United States Code, specifically authorizes
a three judge panel to adjudicate the apportionment
of congressional districts, to wit:
(a) A district court of three judges shall be
convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress,
or _when an action is filed challenging the
constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional
districts_ or the apportionment of any statewide
legislative body. [emphasis added] _abc_ means underline
Defendant has previously challenged the constitutionality
of the apportionment of all congressional districts,
because all Union states are currently requiring voter
registrants to certify, under penalty of perjury, that
they are all federal citizens. Defendant is a Citizen of
Alabama state who is not also a federal citizen, by Right
of Election. See Tenth Amendment. Accordingly, the
apportionment of congressional districts is being skewed,
as a matter of law, by this unconstitutional discrimination
against Citizens of the several states who are not also
federal citizens (read "citizens of the United States").
2. Said Citizens of Alabama state are presently barred from
registering to vote, which bar constitutes an unconstitutional
deprivation of the fundamental Right to choose their
Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Moreover, the federal Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA")
exhibits obvious class discrimination against said Citizens also,
by barring them from serving on federal grand and petit
(read "trial") juries. See Defendant's previously filed
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and associated VERIFIED STATEMENT,
which detail overwhelming evidence that the JSSA exhibits prohibited
class discrimination.
3. Accordingly, the combination of Union state voter registration
practices, and the obvious class discrimination exhibited by
the JSSA, results in depriving Defendant of all voices He
might otherwise have in the management of His state and
federal goverments. As such, the class discrimination against
Citizens of the several Union states constitutes a clear
deprivation of the Petition Clause in the First Amendment
to the Constitution for the United States of America, as
lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution"). Defendant cannot vote,
cannot serve on a federal grand jury, and cannot serve
on a federal trial jury. Defendant is effectively rendered
a "White Nigger" by the combination of current federal and
state practices.
4. As a Principal of these governments, Defendant hereby
complains of systematic violations of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Said treaties guarantee effective judicial
remedies for violations of fundamental Rights, notwithstanding
that the violations were committed by persons acting in their
official government capacities. Said treaties also guarantee
competent judicial forums to adjudicate matters which arise
under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
Federal judges who compensation is currently being diminished
by federal income taxes are barred by law from presiding on
this honorable Court. See Article III, Section 1, and
Evans v. Gore [cite omitted].
5. Furthermore, Congress has explicitly reserved to "localities"
legal standing to compel United States (federal government)
obedience to these treaties, in the event that the federal
government should fail to perform its obligations under said
treaties, which are both rendered supreme Law, pursuant to
the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Defendant
submits that county courts within Alabama state fall within
the legislative meaning of "locality" as that term was utilized
by Congress in the explicit reservations which Congress attached
to said treaties.
Executed on: mm/dd/yy
Respectfully submitted,
William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris etc.
Please acknowledge receipt to Paul Mitchell.
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com
Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail