Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« How much influence do you think this International think tank has over what is drafted in our health care bill? | Main | Rand Paul Money Bomb Today! »

Re: FORMAL PETITION TO AMEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 1:06:21 PM
Subject: Re: FORMAL PETITION TO AMEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Many thanks, TJ.

We are now collating these three (3) documents, as a set:

(1)
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.doc

(2)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.doc

(3)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.doc

.htm  =  HTML
.doc  =  Microsoft WORD 2003


We usually print both the .htm and the .doc versions,
and yellow highlight the URL of the .htm version,
so that readers can access the latter's hyperlinks on the Internet.


Americans in other States (not yet covered) may edit this FORMAL PETITION
for your 2 U.S. Senators and 1 U.S. Representative, and your signature:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/chambers4/petition.to.amend.constitution.brownback.kansas.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/chambers4/petition.to.amend.constitution.brownback.kansas.doc

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/chambers4/petition.to.amend.constitution.moore.kansas.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/chambers4/petition.to.amend.constitution.moore.kansas.doc

Please notice that the 2 PETITIONs are not exactly the same
(one says "Thank you, Senator" and the other says "Thank you, Representative").


Thanks!


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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, TJ Chambers <tj.chambers@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter, Florida is not accounted for with Paul's Petition for Amending the Constitution.  Will you Account for your State?


Its very easy to do.

As you said, "If we only had honest and GOD following
people like you running this country---it would be a wonderful place
to live. We need you and 8 others like you, on the supreme court--to
set this country right--I love this country--even tho I was not born
here, but it pains me no end, when I see what is happening to so many
wonderful people--the hardworking--honest Americans,"

People are always looking for a Saviour to get us out of this mess.  Our country is We The People!  If anyone is going to get us out of this, it is All of US not One of Us.  Will you do your part?  

Now is the time to do something and don't stop.  Keep doing something!

---
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

TJ Chambers

Self Sufficiency e-Library, a massive collection of .pdf books with over 3,000 titles like:
Animal Husbandry, Animal Traps and Tanning, Aquaculture, Aquaponics, Around the Home, Building, Business,  Communications, Cooking, Energy and Fuel, Farming and Gardening, Food Preservation, Forestry and Lumber, Medical, Sanitation, Survival, Water, etc etc.

http://www.hourofthetime.shoppingcartsplus.com/hott_self_sufficiency_library.html

Minuteman Special Collection + Survival Series Bundle Pack
This collection of must know material may soon be banned by the socialists in power because the information is so powerful to your independence!

http://www.hourofthetime.shoppingcartsplus.com/catalog/item/2569225/7051244.htm



On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:56 PM, peter jones <pjweather@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm
 
PAUL I read the whole article--both parts--and I want to tell you--you
are something else --I just dowsed that  you have an IQ of close to
150--am i correct?---GOD--If we only had honest and GOD following
people like you running this country---it would be a wonderful place
to live. We need you and 8 others like you, on the supreme court--to
set this country right--I love this country--even tho I was not born
here, but it pains me no end, when I see what is happening to so many
wonderful people--the hardworking--honest Americans, and especially
those older folks who helped build this country. PAUL--a day or two
ago , I called a so called low income IRS help center in Miami,
---which helps people fill out forms--etc.i had a question for them---
which was run by a catholic sponsored law school. I talked to a senior
law professor--I could not believe it--he did not have a clue about
the IRS. He did not know about the federal reserve. He had not even
heard of any controversies-----incredible !!!!!!!!, and very scary.
back to your case--I pray to GOD that you get satisfaction, for your
case. I looked into the Paten process a couple of years ago-- to see
if  I could patent a
weather control device that we use for hurricane control--no
problem--you just have to give them about everything you
have----DUH--as you probably know--it was all redone  a few years
ago---now, as far as patents go--in reality you  have--if you are
lucky--and no one compromises the patent office, about 18 months at
the most--before someone can steal your invention, etc. Forget about
suing them--it might take you years--and will cost you (not you
because you know what you are doing )--a fortune.
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Paul Andrew Mitchell
<supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2007 at 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: FEDERAL PRACTISE AND PROCEDURE -- Jurisdiction and related matters
> To: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
> Cc: john s Williamson <thewellguy@juno.com>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> In that material you attached, see also:
>
> Gallagher & Kutcher,
> "Quis Custodiet Custodes?
> (who is custodian of the custodians?)
> The Case Against Article I Courts,"
> 22 Loyola Law Review 301 (1976)
>
>
> It's the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" which
> got intertwined with this "judge-made" requirement that
> suits against the United States MUST commence
> in a legislative tribunal
> NOT in an Article III constitutional court.
>
> If you want to be educated beyond your peers,
> the horrible decision in Williams v. United States
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=289&invol=553
> is undoubtedly a "classic" place to begin, chiefly
> because their illogical reasoning in that decision
> caused numerous Law Journals to jump all over
> the U.S. Supreme Court right after it was issued.
>
> In my own case against AOL et al., we found an
> admission by another U.S. Supreme Court Justice
> that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was
> originally "judge-made" [sic]:
>
> www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mot.strike.mag.findings.2.htm
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> Accordingly, even the U.S. Supreme Court has committed systematic and fatal errors, to the extent that its Lanham Act opinions originated in federal district courts lacking jurisdiction of the subject matter .
>
> This is also painfully true of U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that Congress cannot amend the Lanham Act to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment .  See the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, 106 Stat. 3567, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(2) (1992);   and the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, 17 U.S.C. 511.
>
> In particular, see Justice Breyer's dissent in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board , 527 U.S. 666 (1999).  This case originated in the United States District Court ("USDC") of New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. presiding (see "Memorandum Opinion" dated December 13, 1996, by Judge Brown).
>
> The dissent by Justice Stevens in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank et al., No. 98-531 (1999) is also quite revealing.  Referring to the holding in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), Justice Stevens wrote, "The full reach of that case's dramatic expansion of the judge-made doctrine of sovereign immunity is unpredictable ...."  [bold emphasis added]  Justice Stevens added, "[T]he defense of sovereign immunity will deprive some patentees of property without due process of law."  [bold emphasis added]  Obviously, judge-made doctrines are incompatible with due process of law .
>
> "[T]he current state of the [case] law leaves the protection afforded to patent and trademark holders dependant on the status of the infringing party.  A public school such as UCLA can sue a private school such as USC for patent infringement, yet USC cannot sue UCLA for the same act."  Senate Report No. 102-280, p. 9 (1992) [brackets and bold emphasis added].
>
> By logical extension of this judge-made doctrine, then, as a Citizen of California Plaintiff can sue a private school such as USC, yet Plaintiff cannot sue UCLA (or UCI) for the same act.   This conclusion necessarily implicates yet another violation of Plaintiff's fundamental Right to equal protection.
>
> Legislative courts create judge-made doctrines!
>
> [end excerpt]
>
> Now, for further research on this key point,
> use Google http://www.google.com
> to search for:
>
>   "judge-made doctrine of sovereign immunity"
>
>
> Evidently, lots of people have cited that phrase in related litigation.
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
> /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
> Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
> Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
> http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
>
> All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
>
> Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
>
> http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
> http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/6/07, daniel martinez <gabino_79606@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Paul,
>> Thanks for your comments. I am reading it carefully and slowly. Thanks again.
>> The best to you for all your help.
>> Dan
>>
>> Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com > wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks, Dan.
>>
>> I can already see some MAJOR PROBLEMS with
>> some of those cases, e.g. one held that
>> "suits against the United States are not within
>> the Article III judicial power".
>> Glasspool v. U.S., 190 F.Supp. 804
>> (D.C. Delaware 1961)
>>
>> Although it may accurately reflect conventional wisdom,
>> that statement is flatly contradicted by the
>> Arising Under Clause, which authorizes
>> the judicial Power of the United States
>> to extend to all controversies to which
>> the United States is a Party.
>>
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#3
>>
>> Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the accepted source for
>> definitions of terms used in the U.S. Constitution,
>> and that Dictionary defines "Party" in the Constitution
>> to embrace both Plaintiffs and Defendants:
>>
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldp1.htm#party
>> ("either plaintiff or defendant")
>>
>> Therefore, this migration to Article I "courts" (an oxymoron,
>> in point of law) whenever the "United States" is a defendant,
>> reveals a systematic conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs
>> of Article III protections in those cases.
>>
>> That phrase is an oxymoron, because Article I does
>> NOT authorize Congress to establish "courts";
>> it authorizes Congress to create "Tribunals"
>> inferior to the Supreme Court:
>>
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:9
>>
>>
>> This same migration also appears to explain why
>> the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA appears
>> as the Party Plaintiff in all federal litigation
>> in recent decades:  by substituting this other
>> entity (now defunct, in fact), DOJ could
>> avoid the requirement that Article III protections
>> be guaranteed whenever the United States
>> is the Party Plaintiff.
>>
>> Here's more PROOF POSITIVE of this outright
>> conspiracy:  search for "Justice Brennan" here
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm
>> and note carefully his three (3) EXCEPTIONS:
>>
>> "In Marathon supra, Justice Brennan for the plurality reasoned that
>> Congress could create legislative courts without Article III protections
>> in only three limited settings:
>> (1) territorial courts,
>> (2) courts martial, and
>> (3) courts deciding disputes involving public rights
>> that Congress created in the first instance
>>
>> "Thus, by treating the 50 States as federal Territories and
>> by creating federal citizenship as a municipal franchise ,
>> Congress could effectively "broadcast" into those States
>> a legislative court that routinely proceeds without Article III protections!
>> See the 1866 Civil Rights Act , 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
>>
>> "In the legislative USDC, those protections are options, not mandates,
>> particularly when the extension statutes supra are also routinely ignored."
>>
>> [end excerpt]
>>
>>
>> More details on this "migration" are here:
>>
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm
>>
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>> /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>> Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
>> Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
>>
>> All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
>> Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
>> http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm
>>
>>
>> daniel martinez <gabino_79606@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Paul I spent the afternoon at the University of New Mexico Library coping these sections involving jurisdiction of these federal courts. I hope this can help the Williamson's
>>
>> Dan
>> ______________________________
__

March 23, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink