Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

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

« Ron Paul news and info. | Main | Paying for your morning joe with cash a potential terror says FBI »

Private Attorney General responds to Van Irion's essay: "Georgia Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <>
Date: Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Subject: Private Attorney General responds to Van Irion's fine essay: "Georgia Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation"
Cc:, SupremeLaw <>

Greetings Van Irion,

Your essay above is very well written: in particular, your clear explanation
of the distinction between precedent and dicta is timely and valuable.

On the question of precedent, you might find this treatise very valuable:

However, I must take issue with your assumption
that the so-called 14th amendment was properly ratified.

Here, please review Dyett v. Turner:  (27 < 28 !!)

Thus, in our studied opinion, the past and present legal consequences
of such bad legislation should be put in its proper place, and disregarded:
it now has relevance only to demonstrate how two (2) distinct classes are clearly
embodied in Section 1 of that failed "amendment";  notably a second privileges
and immunities clause
was entirely unnecessary if freed blacks had been granted
State Citizenship straightaway!

Here's the bottom line:
The crux of the matter turns on whether the 1866 Civil Rights Act
did amend the Constitution:  of course, it did not, and could not:

Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in the Dred Scott decision
solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body.

If any of its provisions are deemed unjust,
there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself
by which it may be amended;
but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now
as it was understood at the time of its adoption.

Here, see also Eisner v. Macomber:

"Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate and
within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

Mario Apuzzo also attempted to dissect Malihi's bad ruling,
but Mr. Apuzzo is demonstrably brainwashed:

If the nation is ever going to overcome the mountain of lies
that are systematically, intentionally and most unfortunately overwhelming
some basic, simple truths in this matter, your ability to think and write
clearly should be applied to elucidate the entire historical context.

I know you can do it!

When that happens, the solution will become quite obvious,
even if painfully so.

Thank you:  my office is on your side, all appearances to the contrary

In more ways than one, the paramount issue now is courage,
not simply a bad interpretation of evidence rules.

If the Utah Supreme Court could issue a ruling like Dyett v. Turner,
the legal community in America can now face up to a proper contemporary
application of Glass v. The Sloop Betsey:

"We do not make law by force, or by fraud."

Truer words were never spoken!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

February 8, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink