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

« Ayo H. Kimathi's OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are COUNTERFEITS: no OMB control number, no paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 | Main | Private Attorney General THANKS retired Sheriff Jim Schwiesow for writing "GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ROBS THE PEOPLE OF PERSONAL RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES" »

Private Attorney General in USA responds to essay "MY TRIBUTE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.," by Johnathan W. Emord (1/20/2014)

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:35 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:


Greetings Mr. Emord,

I really do believe that it is high time to put heart-warming sentiments
and widespread psychological propaganda in their proper places,
and to confront instead several fundamental issues which appeared to 
fly way over Dr. King's head, or enter his head on one side and
exit the other side without even being noticed.

The obvious persistence of political correctness has finally
gone far enough, in my humble opinion.
 
Of all people, you should already understand the well documented and
crucial differences that now exist between "civil rights", on the one hand,
and Fundamental Rights, on the other hand.  In this context, please see
Miranda v. Arizona (re: rights secured by the Constitution).
 
In our research, we found one horrific high Court precedent which tried to hold
that Congress could create Federal courts withOUT Article III guarantees
in 3 "limited" settings:

(1)  courts martial
(2)  territorial courts
(3)  courts deciding disputes involving public rights that Congress created.

See Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).


There is plenty of authority for the proposition that "civil rights" are now
typically defined by Federal Courts as public rights that Congress created, and
as such those "public rights" are not deserving of any Article III protections
-- according to Marathon supra.
 
That is clearly one very dishonest way of saying that "civil rights",
as understood by the entire Federal Judiciary, are no longer mandates
upon the Federal Courts, but are now options to be enforced or not enforced
at the arbitrary whims of terribly biased judicial personnel, many of whom
have now either failed or refused to produce any of the credentials that are
required of all such personnel.  See 5 U.S.C. 3331, in this context.

I can give you another painful example that we discovered 
at 48 U.S.C. 1561, where Congress vainly attempted to extend a
subset of the Bill of Rights to the Virgin Islands.   Only problem was
that Congress had already extended the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution
into all Federal Territories, even future Federal Territories, in the
year 1873:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1873
http://supremelaw.org/stat/18/18stat333.gif  (Sec. 1891)

Maybe they just forgot?  What do you think?
 
This theme is so pregnant with far-reaching legal and historical significance,
I invite you to witness for yourself why the statute at 42 U.S.C. 1983
is decidedly Federal MUNICIPAL law, while the statute at 42 U.S.C. 1985 
is decidedly Federal NATIONAL law.  Compare Wadleigh v. Newhall
with Gillespie v. Civiletti.


Yep!  Sometimes the courts get it right, and sometimes they don't.
 
 
Now, if you are willing to take your shoes off and plant your
bare feet squarely on solid ground, the rubber meets the road
when we prove to all concerned that the term "U.S. Individual"
-- on IRS Forms 1040 -- applies ONLY to federal citizens and 
resident aliens.  It does NOT apply to Citizens of ONE OF 
the 50 States of the Union.   See, for example, 26 CFR 1.1-1
and the identical definition of "individual" at 5 U.S.C. 552a.

Yes, indeed, the courts which have ruled on this crucial distinction
have upheld the existence of two (2) classes of citizens in America
NOT one (1) class.  Here, please read these cases for yourself:

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


So, what is it with you ATTORNeys, anyhow?  You hype the ancient rhyme
that we've all had to hear repeated from first grade in grammar school onwards,
namely, that Abraham Lincoln knew what he was doing when he launched into
a political attack of the Supreme Court's long decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford,
and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was some kind of savior to all black Americans --
all the while King persisted in perpetuating their second-class status 
by fomenting a "civil rights" movement and persuading lots of blacks
to follow his "leadership" on this point?

What's wrong with this picture, I ask you?

Answer:  As a result of the high Court's correct holdings in Dred Scott v. Sandford,
Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in that decision solely by 
means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body
.  But, that's exactly what
Congress attempted to do when it enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

However, "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."

-- Eisner v. Macomber.  

If I had NOT just cited those proper Parties correctly,
would you have opposed that statement for any reason?


How's THAT for a good taste of Fundamental Law in America?


For the rest of that sordid story, please read on ...

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm



When exactly may we expect any of this nonsense and horse manure 
to cease and desist, once and for all, I ask you?


Inquiring minds would like to know.
 

-- 
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

January 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink