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