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

« More Re: Congress returns to DC Monday | Main | Sovereignty / Re: reporter seeking interview »

Private Attorney General's Comments re: What Really Happened's re-posting: "Sullivan Vs United States - Judge ADMITS 16th Amendment failed ratification"

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: 
Private Attorney General's Comments re: WRH's re-posting: 
"Sullivan Vs United States - Judge ADMITS 16th Amendment failed ratification"


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/SullivanVUSA.pdf

"... judge James C. Fox ... stated quite clearly in the court record for Sullivan Vs United States that the 16th Amendment, on examination, failed ratification.



Greetings Michael Rivero:

We've archived the key page from that TRANSCRIPT here:

http://supremelaw.org/decs/sullivan/
http://supremelaw.org/decs/sullivan/SullivanVUSA_Page_23.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/decs/sullivan/sullivan.v.usa.transcript/

THE COURT:  ... 
I THINK IF YOU WENT BACK AND EXAMINED THAT [RATIFICATION] 
CAREFULLY, YOU WOULD FIND THAT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF STATES 
NEVER RATIFIED THAT AMENDMENT
.

MR. SULLIVAN:  TRUE STATEMENT.


However, I argue that we also err by taking the latter admission
out of its full context.  By that, I mean to direct your attention now
to the statement which James C. Fox made immediately after
the admission above, to wit
:

THE COURT:  
AND NONETHELESS, I THINK IT'S FAIR
TO SAY THAT IT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND I DON'T THINK ANY COURT WOULD EVER ... WOULD SET IT ASIDE.


For now, let's ignore the vain attempt by Mr. Fox to claim
special knowledge of the future, which also happens to be
a rather well developed tactic inculcated in Lie School 
graduates across the Board and all across the Nation.


I digress.

I point to Mr. Fox's obvious contradiction as further PROOF
that the Federal Judiciary are corrupt, and possibly so corrupt
that we cannot and should not expect any rational decisions
to be forthcoming from that pack of liars -- certainly not while the latter
contradiction is duly offered as evidence of their "rational" abilities,
such as they are presently and persist into the foreseeable future.


(Heck, if Fox can foresee the future, so can we!)
Here's why:  After openly admitting that the so-called
Sixteenth Amendment did not satisfy the requirements
imposed by Article V in the U.S. Constitution, 
Mr. Fox turns right around and tries to say that
"it is part of the Constitution of the United States" [sic].

Pray tell us, Mr. Fox, how a proposed amendment can
fail to receive the approval of three-fourths of the
States' Legislatures, and still become a part of the
U.S. Constitution?


http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q6


Wait, I already answered that question for myself,

when I discovered this shocking decision by
the Utah Supreme Court in Dyett v. Turner:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett

Namely, send in Federal troops to invade with guns and bullets, 
whenever a State's Legislature exercises its Right to
vote NO on another such legal abomination!

For myself, I have NEVER in my entire life
witnessed such a gross and deviant contradiction --
separated by no more that 2 intervening words
uttered by a Proper Party attending that hearing.



The contradictions don't stop there, either!

Now, go back and re-read that TRANSCRIPT
in light of what you just witnessed above.

p.s.  In the final analysis, a ratified Sixteenth Amendment
would have been a "power" much like an electrical outlet:

until and unless Congress USES that power, like plugging
in a vacuum cleaner and hitting the ON switch, 
the power just sits there doing nothing.

And, that is why we migrated our analysis to the
Internal Revenue Code
 -- where the rubber meets the road:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Now, that's a giant vacuum cleaner
if there ever was one!


HINT:  "internal" means MUNICIPAL!  Film at 11.
-- 
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

September 10, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink