Time: Sat Mar 22 15:26:09 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04338;
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 12:08:35 -0700 (MST)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA02529;
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 12:08:00 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 15:15:08 -0800
To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Intent of Law is the Law
"A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved
by historical acceptance and present convenience."
[U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983)]
"It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or
protected right in violation of the Constitution by long
use, even when that span of time covers our entire national
existence and indeed predates it."
[Waltz v. Tax Commission of New York City]
[397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)]
... and even when the span of time is artificially, and
indefinitely, enlarged beyond the exigencies that most
surely accompany a legitimate "emergency." The ambulance
comes; the ambulance goes; the children go back to
playing. This is the cycle of life. We do not rub the
children's noses into the ashes of a by-gone era. The
children are free to explore those ashes on their own,
in due time, and as their own interests should motivate
them, or not motivate them. It has taken me almost 50
years to develop an innate interest in American history.
Now, it is almost all that I do with my waking hours.
I will not tolerate some maniac urging me to drink again
from a well of blackness and despair. These surely are
terms reserved for the "powers emergencies bring." Let
us wave goodbye to the ambulance, and get back to the
business of living, and building a great nation, for all.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
In my mind, the PRINCIPLES upon which these two decisions
were based effectively destroy any vested or protected
"right" which might rely upon an indefinitely long
emergency for some sort of pseudo-authority; of course,
such is no authority at all.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 12:57 PM 3/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>*Jus Dare*
>Intent of Law is Law
>
>Paul, yes, please do send the substantiating cases to me. At least
>the cites. Thanks,
>
>Dave
>
>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: perpetual emergencies are null and void, by definition
>
>A perpetual "emergency" is a fraud and a ruse,
>and if we continue to "defend" it, as if it
>has one single ounce of validity, I think we
>seriously risk becoming apologists for treason,
>because warring on the several States is defined
>as such in the U.S. Constitution. It was never
>the intent of the Framers to define an emergency
>in anything other than temporary terms. The intent
>of the law is the law. So, there is no substance
>to a gold fringe, or "Executive Orders," or ANY
>of that de facto garbage, if it violates the
>principles of the U.S. Constitution, and I have
>the court cases which say just that. They were
>carefully cited in People v. Boxer, and she fell
>silent. I will be happy to share them with everyone
>here, upon polite requests.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>>*Jus Dare*
>>The Least Surcease
>
><snip>
>>> 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.
>>
>>except in the situations as defined in the Constitution under
>>Article I, section 9, clause 2 which states:
>>
>> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
>> not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or
>> invasion the public safety may require it.
>>
><snip>
>>
>>> Education is a very tedious and time-consuming
>>> chore, but it must be done to prevent bloodshed.
>>
>>Amen, and amen.
><snip>
>>
>>This is standard procedure for the supreme court when any
>>question relating to immunity or rights under the
>>constitution are brought before it. And under the standing
>>law, they don't have to tell you why.
>>
><snip>.
>>
>>The state courts take benefit of all the monies collected by
>>the fed. Why would they be willing to cut their own throats?
>>It is a question that begs answering.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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