Custom Search

There is an Ongoing War Against the Constitution

Pul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General

Subject: There is an ongoing War against the Constitution!

To: JoanSharon@aol.com

Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 1:06 PM

> This is so arrogant. What recourse is there is they simply don't answer? Those articles you sent me were very illuminating... about the crookedness of so many lawyers and judges. How could these people stonewall when this is a Constitutional matter?

You haven't seen anything yet!!

There is an ongoing war against the Constitution: NOW YOU KNOW!!

The construction of the Qualification Clause for President is like the single thread that unravels a entire garment:

Correctly constructed, as it should be, it also proves that State Citizens may not vote or serve on juries whether grand juries or trial juries, whether Federal Juries or State juries.

That alone entirely VOIDs any and all election(s) in which State Citizens are barred from voting.

Those who can vote and serve on juries, cannot serve in the House, Senate or White House.

Those who can serve in the House, Senate or White Hous cannot vote or serve on juries.

Yes, despite the Guarantee Clause guaranteeing a Republican Form of Government, the population of federal citizens inhabiting the 50 States is a absolute legislative democracy.

Now you know exactly what they mean by "democracy"!!

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-a.htm (WINNING BRIEF!!)

1. The issues as to whether there are different meanings for the term "United States", and whether there are three different "United States" operating within the same geographical area, and one "United States" operating outside the Constitution over its own territory (in which it has citizens belonging to said "United States"), were settled in 1901 by the Supreme Court in the cases of De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes supra, Justice Harlan dissented as follows:

The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

[Downes supra, page 380, emphasis added]

He went on to say, on page 382:

It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.

[Downes supra, page 382, emphasis added]

2. This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, with [federal] citizens of the "United States" belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (EXHIBIT #4), wherein that Court affirmed, at page 305, that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union, quoting Downes supra and De Lima supra; that, under 4:3:2, the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and the citizens of the "United States" residing therein.

[end excerpt]

HOWEVER, Congress had expressly extended the ENTIRE U.S. CONSTITUTION

into D.C. and into all Federal Territories, in 1871 and 1873, respectively --

30 YEARS EARLIER:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1873

We found a third such "Extension Statute" here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/simons/reply.htm

RELATED RESEARCH NOW REVEALS A THIRD EXTENSION

STATUTE

The chain of evidence leading to statutes codified in Title 48 now compels Appellant to present a key holding of the Third Circuit, in a case again comparing constitutional courts, on the one hand, and territorial courts also known as legislative tribunals, on the other:

... [V]esting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States."

[Parrot v. Government of Virgin Islands]

[230 F.3d 615, 623, hns. 11-12 (3rd

Cir. 2000)]

[bold emphasis added]

In this context, see also the following finding by a Federal district judge presiding upon a territorial court in U.S. v. King, in 1954 before the Territory of Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959:

... [T]he term "district court of the United States" standing alone includes only the constitutional courts.

[United States v. King, 119 F.Supp.

398 (DC/Alaska 1954)]

[bold emphasis added]

The Parrot case cites high Court authorities in Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938) and also in Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S. 546, 551-552 (1989). The decision in Barnard held that the Supreme Court lacked supervisory power over the District Court of the Virgin Islands because that Court was not an Article III Federal district court.

Moreover, the Barnard case also reveals the existence of a third "Extension Statute" as follows:

By extending the Privileges and Immunities Clause to the Virgin Islands, Congress has made the same decision with respect to that Territory. The residency requirements of [Local] Rule 56(b) violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2, of the Constitution, as extended to the Virgin Islands by 48 U.S.C. § 1561.

[Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S. 546,

559 (1989)]

[bold emphasis added]

Appellant now lodges a formal objection to 48 U.S.C. 1561 supra, because Congress has previously extended all guarantees of the U.S. Constitution into all Federal Territories –- even future Federal

Territories –- by Act of 1873 as previously cited and discussed in Appellant's other pleadings now pending before this Court of Appeals.

Paraphrasing the Parrot decision supra, vesting a territorial tribunal like the USDC with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States cannot make the USDC an Article III "District Court of the United States"! See Balzac v. Porto Rico.

This must be true notwithstanding the Statute at Large which effectively "broadcasted" the USDC into all States of the Union on June 25, 1948, but without expressly abolishing the Article III DCUS which had existed inside those several States for at least 159 years prior to that date. See 28 U.S.C. 132, 62 Stat. 895, § 132(a).

When Congress extended the entire U.S. Constitution into D.C. in 1871, and then into all Federal Territories in 1873, even future Federal Territories, and then again into the Virgin Islands (with some qualifications: cf. 48 U.S.C. 1561), a clear pattern was established. That pattern is quite the opposite of any Congressional intent to change the DCUS substantially by eliminating its historic jurisdiction and/or by vesting all DCUS with jurisdiction similar to that vested in territorial tribunals, where Congress enjoys exclusive legislative jurisdiction (read "the federal zone"). The latter intent is also quite the opposite of the clear legislative intent as stated in the Miscellaneous Provisions, i.e. "as continuations of existing law", e.g. the law of court jurisdiction. See 62 Stat. 985, Sec. 2(b).

The historical record therefore proves that Congress never expressed any intent to abolish the DCUS, nor is there any evidence in that record that Congress intended to make the USDC a "District Court of the United States". Appellant is forced to speculate that FDR returned from the Yalta Conference with a secret deal which he shared with Truman, namely: to end WWII, foreign banks agreed to finance th United States, provided that its government agreed to lien on the assets of all American People, in order to repay those massive loans. When FDR died, Truman inherited that "deal" and thus was launched the Bill which later broadcasted the USDC into every State of the Union.

[end excerpt]

Sincerely yours,

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM, <JoanSharon@aol.com> wrote:

This is so arrogant. What recourse is there is they simply don't answer? Those articles you sent me were very illuminating... about the crookedness of so many lawyers and judges. How could these people stonewall when this is a Constitutional matter?

In a message dated 11/2/2008 3:47:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

supremelawfirm@gmail.com writes:

The following was PAST DUE as of

5:00 PM last Friday:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/surrick/nad.affidavit.htm

This FOIA Request is also PAST DUE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/foia.request.usdc.dpa.htm

This is what Surrick's colleagues who DO have proper credentials have ruled concerning the legal consequences of missing credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

Without taking the oath prescribed by law, one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and such an individual is without authority to act and his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.

[French v.

State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

[Brown v.

State, 238 S.W.2d

787]

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell,

B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Criminal

Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

(Home Page)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

(Support Policy)

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

(Client Guidelines)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

(Policy + Guidelines)

Prejudice

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM, <JoanSharon@aol.com> wrote:

This does not bode well for a fair disposition of the birth certificate case. Fascinating articles... thank you!

In a message dated 11/2/2008 11:50:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, supremelawfirm@gmail.com writes:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/sachs/Crooked.Judges.Lawyers.and.Corporate.Power.htm

Four Winds 10 - News