Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: Molon Labe

----- Forwarded Message -----
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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N0PzkpTZ50o#!

However, Williams v. United States is NOT a well respected
U.S. Supreme Court authority:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=289&invol=553

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:

Witness how this Court has addressed this matter in the past:

 

... the limitation fundamentally implicit in the constitutional separation of the powers, namely, that a power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.

 

[Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933)]

[italics in original, bold emphasis added]

 

However, the Williams decision was later repudiated for one very significant error:  this Court had decided that “Party” in the Arising Under Clause referred only to the “United States” as plaintiff, and not to the “United States” as defendant.  In the latter situation, statutes waiving sovereign immunity required legislative courts!  Bouvier’s defines “Party” to embrace both plaintiffs and defendants.

[end excerpt]


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:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldp1.htm#party

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#3:2:1

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.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
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)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Dean Kennedy <jeffmint@proaxis.com> wrote:


http://www.molon.us/


From Dean