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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Natl. Collective Consciousness Show (THURSDAY) 4-14-2011 | Main | Freedom Watch »

NOTICE OF INTENT to challenge constitutionality of New York State Consolidated Laws, Selection of Jurors: Article XVI, § 510

Subject:
NOTICE OF INTENT to challenge constitutionality of New York State Consolidated Laws,
Selection of Jurors: Article XVI, § 510


Re:
http://www.nyjuror.gov/users/wwwucs/EEInfo_Laws.shtml


§510. Qualifications
In order to qualify as a juror a person must:
1. Be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county.
2. Be not less than eighteen years of age.
3. Not have been convicted of a felony.
4. Be able to understand and communicate in the English language.



Greetings Hon. Attorney General of New York State:

Please be advised of the following NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
in the matter of People v. Mitchell (formerly Wamel Allah),
Kings County IND. #1632/1976 :

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mitchell/Notice.of.Intent.htm  (HTML)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mitchell/Notice.of.Intent.doc  (MS WORD 2003)

We have now received confirmation from USPS Track & Confirm that three (3) originals
of same were delivered today to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Kings County, Brooklyn:  cf.  label serial number #0310 1230 0000 0254 4403
.

For your convenience, the three (3) incorporated documents are
fully hyper-linked to supporting authorities here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm  (and all links at the end)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm


And, the 1866 Civil Rights Act is also archived here in HTML
and in .gif files scanned from the U.S. Statutes at Large,
the latter of which are also valuable for their margin Notes:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/1866.cra.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/14stat27.gif  (e.g. "who are citizens of the United States")
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/14stat28.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/14stat29.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/14stat30.gif


We are providing this NOTICE OF INTENT as a professional courtesy
to your good offices, so as to give you and your staff sufficient time to prepare
all necessary legal research.  In particular, we have already confirmed
several standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which correctly held
that class discrimination in jury selection is unconstitutional EVEN IF
each individual juror is otherwise qualified by statute:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a


[begin excerpt]

     An intentional  discrimination against  a class  of Persons,
solely because  of their  class,  by officers in  charge  of  the
selection  and  summoning  of grand or petit jurors in a criminal
case, is a violation of the fundamental Rights of the Accused.

 

     See  Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950);  Akins v. Texas,
325 U.S. 398 (1945);    Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939).
Such a violation is  not  excused  by the fact  that  the persons
actually  selected   for  jury   service  otherwise  possess  the
necessary qualifications  for jurors  as prescribed  by  statute.
See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460 (1961).

[end excerpt]


There are two (2) classes of citizens in America, not one (1) class:

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


Cassell v. Texas is here on the Internet:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=339&invol=282
Akins v. Texas is here on the Internet:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=325&invol=398

Pierre v. Louisiana is here on the Internet:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=306&invol=354


Thank you very much for your continuing professional consideration.


p.s Please also be advised that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

has held that the Rules of Court allowing "UNPUBLISHED" court decisions
(a/k/a "NOT FOR PUBLICATION") are also unconstitutional:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/anastasoff/99-3917EM.pdf (use Adobe Reader)


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mitchell/Mitchell.v.Conway/page01.gif
("NOT FOR PUBLICATION")


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/foia.request.usdc.dny.htm (see (47) )


Cc:  Kings County District Attorney  <SCHMETJ@brooklynda.org>


--
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

April 14, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink