Time: Thu Apr 17 22:24:04 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05268;
	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:56:40 -0700 (MST)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15414;
	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:56:01 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 22:18:14 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Letter to federal judge William D. Browning

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

                                      c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
                                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                                                 ARIZONA REPUBLIC

                                                    July 25, 1996
Mr. William D. Browning
44 East Broadway
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA REPUBLIC

Re:  U.S.A. v. Wallen, Case No. 95-484-WDB


                 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND


Dear Mr. Browning:

     I am  Citizen of  Arizona state,  a Counselor  at Law, and a
part-time student  of comparative  economic history.   I recently
had a  lawful contract  obligation to  attend a  court trial over
which you  presided.   That obligation  arose from a contract for
consideration paid  in lawful money, i.e. silver dollars.  During
that trial,  the question  of your  authority was raised, and you
answered that your authority was the Constitution and laws of the
United States.

     It is  My understanding that the Constitution for the United
States of  America, as  lawfully amended,  contains  a  provision
which prevents  federal officers from impairing the obligation of
contracts.  This provision is in the Constitution as published in
federal depository  libraries, and in the official law books upon
which district courts rely for conclusive evidence of the Law.

     This Constitution  clearly forbids  titles of nobility.  See
Article I,  Section 10,  Clause 1.  It is My contention, based on
diligent research,  that any  license is  construed  by  American
courts to  be a  title of  nobility, which  is forbidden  by this
provision.     However,  no  penalties  were  mentioned  by  this
provision and it is for this reason, I believe, that no penalties
currently attach  to the exercise of licenses issued by the state
and federal  governments.   It was  the lack  of penalties  which
motivated Congress  to cure  this oversight  with a  proposal  to
amend the  Constitution with  penalties for  exercising titles of
nobility.

     My research  has also  uncovered a constitutional amendment,
ratified by  the Union  states in  the year 1819, which penalizes
the  exercise   of  titles  of  nobility  with  a  forfeiture  of
citizenship and  with a disqualification from ever serving in any
public office  in America  (see attached).  This Amendment is the
main reason  why I  am not now a licensed bar member, and have no
intention of  ever becoming  a licensed  bar member, because I do
not want  to forfeit  My Arizona  state Citizenship,  and I would
like to serve in public office some day.


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 1 of 4


     This  Amendment  supersedes  any  state  "practice  of  law"
statutes, pursuant  to the  Supremacy Clause,  to the extent that
those statutes  require the  exercise of  any titles of nobility.
Moreover, with  or without  this Amendment, it is My opinion that
membership in  a bar association would require that I violate not
only My personal code of conduct, but also numerous provisions in
the Constitution  for the  United States  of America, as lawfully
amended, including  but  not  limited  to  the  Sixth  and  Tenth
Amendments, and  other laws  of the  United States, including but
not limited to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

     Such membership  prevents me  from diligently protecting the
fundamental Rights  of My  clients.   My first  loyalty is  to My
Creator, to  Myself, My  Family, the Citizenship of My state, and
then to  My clients  and their fundamental Right to maintain that
very same  loyalty.  Bar membership reverses these priorities and
flatly violates  this loyalty, because it requires loyalty to the
court, to the bar, to public policy contrary to the Constitution,
and lastly  to My  clients, in  that  order.    These  priorities
violate  the   doctrine  of   separation  of   powers  and,  more
importantly, My clients' fundamental Rights.

     Accordingly, I  have the  following important  questions for
you, sir:   Was  the original Thirteenth Amendment a provision in
the Constitution  which you  took an  oath to  support, or was it
not?   Under rules  of equity,  I assert  My fundamental Right to
know what  provisions are  in the  Constitution which you took an
oath to support.  This is matter of your contract with Me.

     If you  have ever  exercised a title of nobility in America,
e.g.  esquire,   lawyer,  attorney,   Honor,  then  the  original
Thirteenth Amendment  is a  constitutional  authority  which  has
disqualified you  from ever  serving in  the  office  of  federal
judge, is it not?  Judges occupy public offices, do they not?

     I am  asking this  question  specifically  because  of  your
decisions to  bar me  from assisting  My  client,  Sheila  Terese
Wallen, at  all times during Her recent criminal trial on charges
of illegal  marijuana possession  with intent to distribute same.
In fact, you ordered me to the back row of the gallery, with U.S.
Marshals standing  between  Me  and  My  client,  preventing  any
communication with My client.

     If  you  have,  in  fact,  taken  an  oath  to  support  the
Constitution,  and  the  administrative  record  does  appear  to
support this  fact, does  that Constitution  not also  contain  a
provision  which  bars  you  from  impairing  the  obligation  of
contracts?   See Contracts  Clause.  I had a lawful contract with
Sheila Terese Wallen, and you impaired that contract.

     My contract  with Sheila  was predicated upon My belief that
your oath  of office  placed you in a valid contract with Me.  By
what specific  lawful authority  do you claim any Right to impair
the obligations of My contract with Sheila Terese Wallen?  If you
are upholding the U.S. Constitution, then My contract with Her is
valid and  enforceable,  under  rules  of  equity,  and  you  are
forbidden from doing anything to impair that contract.


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 2 of 4


     I will  look forward to your timely response to this letter.
If I do not hear from you in writing within ten (10) working days
from the  date of this letter, I will proceed on the basis of the
conclusive presumption that the original Thirteenth Amendment was
not in the Constitution which you took an oath to support.

     I will  stipulate that your oath predates the publication of
recent research  proving that  the original  Thirteenth Amendment
has  been   well  hidden  from  public  knowledge  (i.e.  fraud).
Nevertheless, the  original  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  lawfully
ratified, pursuant  to Article  V.   This ratification  has  been
proven conclusively.

     Therefore, you  are now  in  the  wrong  contract  with  the
American People,  because the Constitution which you took an oath
to support does not contain the original Thirteenth Amendment, as
evidenced by  the Constitution  as it  was published  in  federal
depository libraries, and as it was published in the official law
books upon  which district  courts relied for conclusive evidence
of the Law, on the day you took your original oath of office.

     Furthermore, you  are disqualified from serving as a federal
judge for these and other reasons, because you have exercised one
or more  titles of  nobility or  honor (e.g.  "Honor", "Esquire")
since ratification  of that  Amendment.   The original Thirteenth
Amendment does  not contain  any provisions  for  curing  such  a
disability or  regaining your Citizenship.  Your only defense now
is that  you, too,  were victimized  by fraudulent concealment of
this Amendment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.

     Whether or  not the  original  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  a
provision in  the Constitution which you took an oath to support,
the Contracts  Clause has  been in  the organic U.S. Constitution
since its  original ratification.  You, sir, simply cannot impair
the Right  of Contract, pursuant to an explicit prohibition which
is in that Constitution.

     One last  point:  when exactly did the decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court  become "hearsay,"  without any legal significance?
You ruled  as such  on July 17, 1996, in Sheila's case.  I really
would like to know, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone
who claims  to be  a federal judge with expertise in federal law.
Are these  decisions which  you heard Supreme Court Justices say?
Does that  make them  "hearsay", in  your opinion?   If not, then
what does?   Before  I take  any remedial action on this point, I
must have  your explanation  for what  now appears  to  be  gross
judicial misconduct on your part.

     If you wish to rebut the presumptions which I have presented
to you  in this letter, then please do so.  I would welcome them,
sincerely.   For the record, I am presenting these facts and laws
to you, pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986.

     Thank you  very much  for your  careful consideration, and I
will look  forward to  your timely  response to this CONSTRUCTIVE
NOTICE AND DEMAND, before 10 days transpire.


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 3 of 4


Respectfully yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
all rights reserved without prejudice

copies:   Clerk of Court
          Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
          Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit
          Joelyn Marlowe, Esquire
          U.S. Marshal's office
          Federal Bureau of Investigation


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 4 of 4


                             #  #  #


========================================================================
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