Constitutional Questions in re: GJ Subpoena to NLHC
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
(all rights reserved)
Introduction by Bill Van Mastrigt
Challenge to the jurisdiction of the court may also be effected
by challenging the constitutionality of the process, rather than
implicating the involvement of admiralty jurisdiction and
challenging it directly. After all, we are talking strictly in
terms of constitutional issues. Anything less than that is
really not relevant and may even be damaging to one's cause.
Though at some point the latter method may yield fruit, it will
be nigh impossible to get any court to admit it is operating
under the cloak of a foreign jurisdiction.
The object for success is target acquisition and holding, i.e.,
identifying the major issue, remaining on point, never deviating
from that point and never allowing the court to deviate from that
point. BillvM
We have already put the following challenges on the table, in
formal pleadings submitted to the Clerk, to the judge, and to the
Grand Jury, in addition to serving copies of everything on the
Postmaster, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the IRS,
the local Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a supervisory judge on the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to wit:
1. grand jury selection statutes are unconstitutional for
excluding Citizens of the freely associated compact states
who are not also citizens of the United States, citing State
v. Fowler and Gardina v. Board of Registrars (confer in "The
Federal Zone"); 28 U.S.C. 297; voter registration
affidavits.
2. "illegal tax protestor" statutes, regulations, rules,
policies, practices, and procedures are unconstitutional for
violating the First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech
and to petition government for redress of grievances.
3. fundamental Right to choose Representatives every two years
has been infringed by voter registration affidavits
requiring a statement that affiant is a "U.S. Citizen"
before being eligible to vote, see Article 1, Section 2,
Clause 1.
4. Downes v. Bidwell is unconstitutional holding per Harlan's
eloquent and prescient dissent, on grounds that two classes
of geographic jurisdiction deny equal protection, also
citing Hooven and Allison v. Evatt (1945).
5. FOIA exemption for Judiciary is unconstitutional for
violating intent and proper construction of the original
13th Amendment, barring licensed attorneys from serving in
state and federal offices, see 5 U.S.C. 551, 13th Amendment.
6. "Internal Revenue Service" is an illegal trust #62 domiciled
in Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol
Administration which was declared unconstitutional in 1935
7. Petitioner has been denied his fundamental Right to a trial
by jury to obtain declaratory relief under FRCP Rules 38 and
39 as to:
(a) whether or not the Company and its General Manager are
guilty of contempt of Court in the instant case, given
the entirety of evidence now on file in the instant
case;
(b) whether or not certain named and unnamed individuals in
the "Internal Revenue Service", the "Department of the
Treasury", and/or the United States Department of
Justice have participated in a conspiracy of multiple
crimes, including but not limited to fraud, mail fraud,
obstruction of justice, jury tampering, perjury,
extortion, barratry, and contempt of court, in order to
destroy the Company's business and to destroy the
reputations of its officers, co-workers and Trustee(s);
(c) whether or not evidence is sufficient to sustain legal
conclusions that the so-called Fourteenth, Sixteenth,
and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution for the
United States of America, as lawfully amended, were
never properly approved and adopted, and that the
original Thirteenth Amendment was properly approved and
adopted, according to the provisions of Article V of
said Constitution;
(d) whether or not certain named individuals associated
with the instant case have proper credentials to be
exercising the powers and authorities of the office(s)
they claim to occupy and, if not, whether or not
official action should be initiated to oust them from
said offices by the Attorney General of Arizona state
by filing a petition with a court of competent
jurisdiction for a Writ of Quo Warranto against all
such individuals;
(e) whether or not the pleadings filed by Counsel
separately, and by Counsel and Dr. Burns together,
should be stricken from the official record of the
instant case, in light of the material evidence which
they contain of gross prosecutorial and gross judicial
misconduct, including but not limited to fraud, mail
fraud, jury tampering, obstruction of justice, contempt
of court, barratry, perjury, and practice of law from
the bench, all in violation of applicable statutes in
Titles 18 and 28, and in light of the fundamental Law
in these united States of America.
8. Petitioner is entitled by Right to a declaratory judgment as
to whether or not the credentials of Evangelina A. Cardenas
now in evidence do exhibit proper authority to act as a
Special Agent for the "Internal Revenue Service" and that
her Oath of Office now in evidence did bind her to support
and defend a version of the U.S. Constitution which was, at
the time when Ms. Cardenas executed said Oath, incorrectly
published in federal depository libraries and in the
official law books upon which this Court has relied for
conclusive evidence of the Law, then as now.
9. District Court ousted itself of jurisdiction when it denied
Dr. Burns the effective assistance of his Counsel of Choice,
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state,
Federal Witness, and Vice President for Legal Affairs of New
Life Health Center Company, an Unincorporated Business Trust
domiciled in the Arizona Republic.
10. The "United States of America" have no standing to bring the
instant action in the first instance, because the District
Court has a subject matter jurisdiction which is
circumscribed by legislative grants of power, none of which
evidence any grant to the several Union States to bring said
action, and none of which states has brought said action,
because their respective Attorneys General have filed
absolutely no pleadings in this case. The "United States"
is a singular noun with a meaning which is distinct, and
different, from the plural noun "United States of America."
11. The authorizations required at IRC 7401 have not been
entered into the record, because the AUSA has failed to
produce evidence of his oath of office, delegation of
authority, license to practice law in the State of Arizona,
and fidelity bond, and because the agent of the "Internal
Revenue Service" has never been a "SA" (Special Agent),
which nomenclature appears on the original grand jury
subpoena, as evidenced by her Appointment Affidavit which
was provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act
request and appeal properly submitted to said IRS agent.
12. We have reserved our Right to attack the validity of 7401,
in the first instance, because it falls within subtitle F,
and the provisions of subtitle F shall not take effect until
the day after the date of enactment of the Title (26
U.S.C.). See IRC 7851(a)(6)(A). Title 26, as such, has
never been enacted into law and is only prima facie evidence
of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC").
13. We have reserved our fundamental Right to attack 7851 for
being void for vagueness, because it refers to itself and,
as such, creates confusion even among People educated in the
construction and meaning of federal law; the members of a
grand and trial jury should be excused if they cannot
understand this statute, because they are required to know
and understand plain English, and 7851 is plain English,
unlike many other statutes within the IRC.
14. The Trust enjoys the same Rights, Privileges and Immunities
as all Citizens in the several States, because it was formed
by their fundamental Right to enter and exit contracts,
under the Tenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities
clause.
15. The fundamental Right to enjoy Counsel of Choice is
infringed by the Arizona Supreme Court rule restricting non-
bar members from pleading, because provisions in the
Administrative Procedures Act allow non-licensed Counsel to
represent clients before administrative agencies of the
United States, and the Supremacy Clause overrides
conflicting state laws on this point; application of this
holding should be extended to the judiciary also to maintain
equal protection of the laws, and to maintain separation of
powers, both of which are principles upon which the
Constitution was founded.
There is more. That's all I can recall from memory.
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena