Time: Wed Mar 12 05:33:35 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA09824;
	Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:29:37 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:50:56 -0800
To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: [jus-dare] Citizen's Court?

Dear Friends,

I have always believed that the pen
is mightier than the sword.  I have
experienced this in my own life.
Although I understand and appreciate
how many others have abandoned 
judicial remedies, I for one have 
not done so.  

One remedy which I have been urging
on everyone is to look carefully at
the Reservations which Congress
attached to two human rights treaties.
They reserve to the "localities" standing
to compel United States obedience to 
those treaties, in the event that it 
should abrogate them.  

Now, due process of law is a fundamental
guarantee which is recognized by both
of those treaties.  If the United States
(federal courts) systematically abrogate
due process or law, then the states,
at the very least, have legal standing,
under the Supremacy Clause, to compel 
U.S. obedience to those treaties.

In a purely procedural sense, this means
removing federal cases back into the 
state courts, to adjudicate matters 
under the state constitutions and 
pertinent state laws.  Although this
approach is certainly a long shot, in part
because it not yet been tried, I am 
not yet willing to go to "war" without
having exhausted this judicial remedy.

Education is a very tedious and time-consuming
chore, but it must be done to prevent bloodshed.

I have submitted formal FOIA requests for the
Reservations in question, and the State 
Department responded by pointing me to the
nearest federal depository library.  

Well, that's a start.  I have already witnessed
the Reservations in question, and they were 
already put on the table in a challenge to
judicial immunity which I helped litigate before
the U.S. Supreme Court last year.  Unfortunately,
it was a Title 42 suit, and the Supreme Court
declined to hear the case.  Judicial immunity
was upheld by their decision not to hear our
challenge to it.  I would like to bring the
same arguments, only this time I would bring the
case as a state Citizen.  If the Supreme Court
refused to hear it, I would remove the matter
back to the state courts, under the rubric 
described above.  It is certainly worth the
old college try.

If you ask me point blank, I believe we have
effectively neutralized the entire federal 
judiciary as it is, for having proven that they
are all paying taxes on their pay, in violation
of Article III, Section 1.  This means that we
cannot get relief from any federal courts anyway, 
so why bother?  All the action should now be at
the state court level, imho, unless we can persuade
just one federal judge to rescind his (her) W-4, 
or obey a superior ORDER to do the same.

Just take a look at what is happening in Oklahoma.
Federal grand jury botches the job, for several 
reasons.  Victims' families organize to convene
a special state grand jury, and the Oklahoma 
state courts are upholding the petition.  Now, 
THAT is progress, if you ask me.  We must choose
our battles, and then stand our ground.  We won't
win anything if we don't!

/s/ Paul Mitchell



At 06:36 PM 3/11/97 +0000, you wrote:
> 
>*Jus Dare*
>Citizen's Court?
>
>[Paul answers the *Jus Dare* questions from the post, "De Facto 
>Government?" by William Gordon, Kay. Paul included the entire text of 
>that post, but since you all received it, and since Paul's message 
>stands on its own, I snipped it. My big questions, Paul, are: "What 
>constitutions? What do the citizens qua citizens do when the supreme 
>law is overturned by the Spider Court? In other words, *whose law* 
>will determine the legitimacy of the courts, and *whose courts* will 
>decree the law?
>
>When the source and authority of the constitutions are held, by law, 
>under the exclusive lamp of the Spider Court, what recourse -- short 
>of a counter coup -- does the body of citizens have when the court 
>is perverse? I recognize their power, but no longer acknowledge their 
>legitimate authority.
>
>Let the trumpets sound.  Let the drum beat begin!  - Dave]
>
>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Can Citizens hold court?
>
>
>This message is overlooking the obvious,
>I am afraid.  Citizens cannot set up a
>soap box on the corner, and hold "court."
>
>The courts must be convened pursuant to
>law, and those laws issue from the 
>constitutions (state and federal) and
>the legislatures (state and federal).
>
>It is called "due process of law," 
>and that process is one which is 
>governed by law, not by the whims of
>individual people who hold no office.
>
>If you want to challenge the legality
>of one or more of those legislatures,
>that is a different question entirely.
>
>Courts must have authority, and Citizens
>qua Citizens do not have such authority,
>unless it is properly delegated to them
>in elected or appointed judicial offices.
>
>In that capacity, they are Judges, not
>Citizens.  So, the flow of "authority"
>begins with the Citizens, flows into
>the constitutions, out of the constitutions
>into courts or into legislatures which 
>create laws which govern those courts.
>
>The constitutions are your common ground.
>
>If you leave out the constitutions, then,
>sure, you can make a case that Citizens
>can hold court, but leaving out the 
>constitutions is precisely the thing about
>which we are complaining so much lately,
>isn't it?
>
>If you deprive someone else of due process of law,
>you are actually in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242,
>for starters.  If someone is "helping" you do
>this, then you may also be in violation of
>18 U.S.C. 241.  If you are doing these things
>inside a Union state, there are state laws
>which prohibit the same conduct.  So, if you want
>to prevail in court, and make good precedent,
>be sure, above all else, that you afford your
>opposition due process of law, otherwise your
>victory is an empty one.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>======================================================================
>== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal
>witness email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on
>Intel 586 CPU web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law
>school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is
>free speech,  at its best
>             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal
>             zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class 
>             w/o this
>======================================================================
>==
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                              *JUS DARE*
>                   c/o Dave Delany's Freedom House
>                    PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>                               ========
>      Sponsored by Mike Goldman and By.Net (http://Names.By.Net)
>                               ========
>                 Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court
>            *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>
>     To subscribe or unsubscribe to *Jus Dare*, send a message to
>                   jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>       In the BODY, put the text "ADD" or "DELETE" respectively.
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail