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

« Nullification - The rightful remedy - TV show | Main | 1 Million Snowden Documents Allegedly Cracked By Russia & China »

Private Attorney General's initial COMMENTS Re: Myrland's new case | Mr. Myrland will not have the last laugh

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: Donald Grahn <jd.consultants@live.com>
cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM
subject: My prediction: Mr. Myrland will not have the last laugh.
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
 
... and so, we should let him have the stage all to himself,
and when he's finished fragging others who are otherwise
in a position
 to assist, support and supplement his own research, 
maybe then he'll understand that this is not a personality contest
in which we are engaged here.

Because I also detect gnawing symptoms of cognitive dissonance
in Mr. Myrland, I would not and do not expect that he will spend
ANY time on WINNING BRIEFS that were filed and served
by Mr. and Mrs. John and Lois Knox:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-a.htm
(I personally confirmed this docket, when I visited
the USDC in San Antonio, Texas, summer of 1998)


... and by me in this IRS "summons" enforcement case:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/oppososc.htm
(U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker quietly dismissed that case)


... and by the late Tommy Cryer in these WINNING briefs:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/cryer/
(case dismissed:  NO LIABILITY STATUTE FOR SUBTITLE A)
 
 
At this juncture, it doesn't really matter how many
people choose to ignore COMPLETELY the latter 3 briefs:
ignoring them will NOT make them go away or 
disappear from the history books.

For that matter, even more Federal and State Court
decisions are being located, holding that we have
two (2) classes of citizenship in America:

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


And so, the self-appointed experts in this field
really owe us a full and unvarnished explanation
of the meaning of "U.S. Individual".  

WHY?

Answer:  because THAT'S THE TITLE OF IRS FORM 1040,
that's why!!!


p.s.  I didn't write this Treasury Decision:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-c.htm


I didn't write this letter:

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif


I didn't admit, as Congress did here, that
a "special definition of 'State'" was used
in the Acts of Congress admitting Alaska
and Hawaii into the Union:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-b.htm



In closing, please confirm for yourself that IRC Section 83

falls within subtitle A:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/83



Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)
 
__
 
from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: Donald T Grahn <jd.consultants@live.com>
cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM
subject: Private Attorney General's initial COMMENTS Re: Myrland's new case
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
 
http://takefromcaesar.us/files/zzff.pdf


UNITED STATES,   Yes, this is a Proper Party under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (United States as defendant):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,  cf. "by and through its Department of Treasury"
(minor point:  should be DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY per 31 U.S.C. 301:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/301
 
MAJOR POINT:  there is a second "Department of the Treasury" in San Juan, Puerto Rico;
see 27 CFR 26.11:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/27/27cfr26.11.htm#revenueagent
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/diaz-saldana/diaz-saldana.htm#secretary

and 
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,  is NOT a "bureau thereof":  see organic statutes in 31 U.S.C.:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-I/chapter-3/subchapter-I
(IRS is NOT listed as a service, bureau, office or other subdivision in those organic statutes)


and IRS is not an "agency" for purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act:  5 USC 551:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/551  (1)(C)

IRS is now what was left over of "The Untouchables" after Alcohol Prohibition
was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment:  see U.S. v. Constantine for authority

and 
IRS C.I.D. Agent GREG M. FLYNN, where are Mr. Flynn's credentials, please?
This allegation assumes facts not in evidence:  "employed by Defendant UNITED STATES"

We specifically DENY that Mr. Flynn is duly employed by the United States (federal government).

Mr. Myrland appears to be stipulating proven falsehoods.
 
IRS personnel are NOT required to execute U.S. OPM Standard Form 61
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS;  U.S. DOJ have no powers of attorney
legally to represent IRS personnel in Federal Courts:
we litigated that question here:
EVEN IF Mr. Flynn did execute SF-61, the blank electronic form at OPM's website
Without a valid OMB control number, that Form can
and should be ignored with total impunity:
see Public Protection Clause at 44 USC 3512 here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3512

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of 
complete defense, bar, or otherwise 
at any time during the agency administrative process 
or judicial action applicable thereto
.
 

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Donald T Grahn <jd.consultants@live.com> wrote:
http://takefromcaesar.us/files/zzff.pdf


Pastor Don

Donald T Grahn - on FB & YT

Celebrating 10 + years of producing truth-telling TV on www.SeattleCommunityMedia.org Ch.77  / 23
w/ live-streaming and on-demand 24/7   3 shows per week 10 AM & PM Tues, Weds & Thurs.
& 11:30 PM Sundays for 3 hours!

  1.  Tues.  Call 4 Investigation, - 10 AM & PM & 1:30 AM Mon.   
Link:  http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/10434/list-shows


            2.   Weds:  
            All-Ways Pursuing Truth,   Documentaries    10 PM  & 10 AM Saturdays & 11:30 PM Sunday nites.  
Link:   http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/7578/list-shows

      
       3.   Thurs:  Truth vs. NEW$, Inc.       10 AM & 10 PM Thurs. & 12:30 AM Mondays.   
Link:  http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/10422/list-shows
 
 

___

Chapter 7 is titled "Judicial Review":

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-7


Please note well the similarity to 5 USC 551:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/701


(b) For the purpose of this chapter— 
(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does notinclude
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States;
 
___
 
It appears that Congress has waived sovereign immunity
at 5 USC 702.

5 USC 702 authorizes judicial review of "agency" action:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/702


A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.



We just saw that "agency" does NOT include the
governments of the Federal Territories!


Another, more subtle problem is that standing decisions
of the U.S. Supreme Court have held that a legislative tribunal
is required whenever the "United States" is a defendant,
requiring a formal WAIVER of sovereign immunity by Congress.

On this point, see also:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm  (citing Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933))

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/289/553.html


However, the Williams decision was later repudiated for one very significant error:  this Court had decided that “Party” in the Arising Under Clause referred only to the “United States” as plaintiff, and not to the “United States” as defendant.  In the latter situation,statutes waiving sovereign immunity required legislative courts!  Bouvier’s defines “Party” to embrace both plaintiffs and defendants.
 
___
 
Question:  are any Federal "robes" appointed to preside
upon the District Court of the United States,
District of South Dakota at Rapid City?

http://takefromcaesar.us/files/zzff.pdf

I seriously doubt it!


And, if so, are they paying taxes on their judicial compensation?

C.J. Rehnquist once said "there's been a change in doctrine" [sic]:
 
 
/s/ Paul


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

 
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:
It appears that Congress has waived sovereign immunity
at 5 USC 702.
 

___

Conclusions (forced upon us by standing case law):

The DCUS does not currently have original jurisdiction
when the United States is a named Party Defendant,
notwithstanding the definition of "Party" in Bouvier's
Law Dictionary (1856).
 
A legislative tribunal is required when the United States
is a named Party Defendant, and the USDC is such a
legislative tribunal.  The DCUS is a constitutional court
created pursuant to Article III, not a legislative tribunal
created pursuant to Article I or Article IV.


p.s.  I didn't create this mess:  the U.S. Supreme Court did!

See:
NATIONAL MUT. INS. CO. OF DIST. OF COL. V. TIDEWATER TRANSFER CO. (1949)  <--- NOTE THIS DATE, AFTER June 25, 1948)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/337/582.html

"Furthermore, we cannot impute to Congress an intent now or in the future 
to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts 
for the purpose of emasculating the former."


 
BUT, that is EXACTLY what happened after June 25, 1948.

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm

Academic Treatises:

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, 

has summarized the overall problem quite nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name.  While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

 

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]
 

/s/ Paul


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:
Before you bother to dive into Williams v. United States,
please appreciate that it was promptly HAMMERED
in Law Review articles (or so I am told).

If "Party" in Article III embraces both plaintiff and defendant,
then Article III extends to controversies to which the
United States (federal government) is a Party Defendant.

See Bouvier's definition of "Party" here:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldp1.htm#party

PARTY, practice, contracts. When applied to practice, by party is understood 
either the plaintiff or defendant
.


Here's Williams v. United States (if you are so inclined :)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/289/553.html

[begin quote]
This is a controversy to which the United States may be regarded as a party. It is one therefore to which the judicial power of the United States extends. It is, of course, under that clause, a matter of indifference whether the United States is a party plaintiff or defendant. It could not fairly be adjudged that the judicial power of the United States extends to those cases in which the United States is a party plaintiff, and does not extend to those cases in which it is a party defendant. ...'While the United States as a government may not be sued without its consent, yet with its consent it may be sued, and the judicial power of the United States extends to such a controversy.'

See, also, Kansas v. United States, supra, at page 342 of 204 U.S., 27 S.Ct. 388.

This conception of the application of the judicial article [III] of the Constitution, which at first glance seems plausible, will be found upon examination and consideration to be entirely fallacious.

[end excerpt]

___

On .pdf Page 37 of 377. Mr. Myrland invokes the INSIDE option
under 28 U.S.C. 1746, without citing which option he is invoking
i.e. 1746(1) or 1746(2).

We explained the all-important difference between the two options
here:

http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q16


Note also that 28 U.S.C. 1746 was enacted by Congress
with the intent to eliminate the need for a Notary Public:

that is the main reason why Form 1040 does not need to be notarized:

the perjury jurat on that Form is also the INSIDE option!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746


(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.


"its territories, possessions, or commonwealths" also requires the inference 
that "United States" is a singular entity, i.e. the Federal government.
 
 

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

 
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

June 13, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.