Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Private Attorney General responds to Fox News video: Shepard Smith Rages on Colleague for Defending BP

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZ5LCNmvFQ&feature=player_embedded#! Greetings Mr. Smith: As much as I enjoy and often agree with Andrew Napolitano, in the
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 27, 2010
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZ5LCNmvFQ&feature=player_embedded#!


      Greetings Mr. Smith:

      As much as I enjoy and often agree with Andrew Napolitano,
      in the video segment above, he makes a very critical legal error.

      The "United States" (Federal government) can be sued and should be sued.

      Here's why:

      (1)  the Arising Under Clause in the U.S. Constitution
      expressly identifies the "United States" as a possible Party
      to a lawsuit to which the judicial Power of the United States
      can extend:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#3:2:1

      "The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party"


      The latter Law is so clear that it really cannot be misunderstood
      even by high school students. 

      Mr. Napolitano knows or SHOULD know this Law,
      particularly because he claims to have been a "Judge" --
      namely, one who is BY LAW required to support that Law!


      (2)  the meaning of "Party" in that Clause has been defined
      for a very long time to mean either Plaintiff or Defendant:

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

      Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the final authority for the
      meaning of terms used in the Constitution, because it was
      published closest in time to the ratification of that Constitution.


      (3)  because of an historical pattern of deliberate subterfuge
      directed at the guarantees elaborated in that Constitution,
      the U.S. Supreme Court has steadily evolved a specious
      "doctrine" that the Federal Government can only be sued
      if and when Congress grants permission to sue in carefully limited
      situations;  see Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933):

      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/289/553.html

      While we're on this subject, the Williams decision has been
      roundly pounded into the ground by numerous law journals --
      it was THAT bad!


      (4)  that Williams decision was later repudiated for one very significant error: 
      the Supreme Court had decided that “Party” in the Arising Under Clause (see 3:2:1 above)
      referred only to the “United States” as plaintiff,  and not to the “United States” as defendant. 
      In the latter situations, statutes waiving sovereign immunity required legislative courts!

      "Sovereign immunity" -- now there's a legal mouthful!!

      This specious "doctrine" is frankly RIDICULOUS in the extreme,
      chiefly because the Arising Under Clause is OBVIOUSLY a part
      of Article III, which authorizes constitutional courts in the first instance!
      Legislative tribunals are authorized by Article I, NOT by Article III:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:9
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm
      (new judge ORDERED all parties to settle that
      antitrust case
      against Microsoft
      , after our 2 pleadings were filed)


      (5)  the latter discovery is further proof that the U.S. Supreme Court
      has joined hands with the Congress of the United States in fraudulently "morphing"
      our Federal Judiciary from constitutional courts to legislative tribunals:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
      http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm


      (6)  making matters much worse, Congress has already enacted
      a criminal statute which makes it a serious FELONY Federal offense
      to conspire to infringe ANY fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
      U.S. Constitution: 18 U.S.C. 241;  courts of competent jurisdiction
      are also guaranteed by 2 Human Rights Treaties, particularly
      the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which
      the primary focus is courts of competent jurisdiction:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/covenant.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/reservations.htm
      (even local governments can invoke that Covenant!)


      Perhaps Mr. Napolitano can tell us exactly why both of
      those 2 Human Rights Treaties never seem to get litigated
      in any State or Federal Courts anywhere in the USA?

      I'm listening!  He should know why, shouldn't he?


      There you have it:  first, the U.S. Supreme Court defines "Party"
      to mean ONLY PLAINTIFFS.  Then, the U.S. Supreme Court
      establishes a DOCTRINE that lawsuits initiated against the
      Federal Government must be litigated in legislative tribunals,
      NOT in constitutional courts.


      Sorry, Mr. Napolitano, but you are categorically in error
      on this important point, as I have now proven conclusively
      above.


      --
      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




      --


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.