Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: Molon Labe
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 6:48 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: Molon Labe
Thank you for this:
However, Williams v. United States is NOT a well respected
U.S. Supreme Court authority:
The view, therefore, that, when congressional consent has been given to the maintenance of suits against the [289 U.S. 553, 578] United States, it ipso facto becomes a matter of indifference whether the United States is a party plaintiff or defendant, because the judicial power as defined in article 3 immediately and automatically extends to such suits, must be rejected.
We elaborated further here:
Thus, when the "United States" is a Party -- defined in Bouvier's to mean
either a plaintiff or a defendant -- THEN the judicial Power of the United States
shall arise in all such cases:
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend ...
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
And, that in turn is one of the reasons why "United States"
no longer originates civil or criminal proceedings in Federal Courts:
if it did, THEN the judicial power of the United States would
be invoked in all such cases, necessarily:
This is one of the many ways in which the Federal Judiciary was
"morphed" from constitutional courts to legislative tribunals.
Nevertheless, the word "shall" above has a mandatory, imperative meaning.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
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)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Dean Kennedy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: