◆ SpookStack

| ATTORNEY AT LAW a) PO. ® i) BROOKHAVEN, June 18, 1957 Mr. Hoover-Pace 2 3. "In the case of Pennsylvania V. Nelson, decided April 2, 1956, revorted in 350 U. S. 497, Justices cf the Supreme Court Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas and Clark legislated, held and adjudged, contrary to the Constitution and the plain intendment of the applicable Act of Congress and in violation of Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, specifically recognizing the power and right of the States to vrosecute for treason, felony or other crine, that the State of Pennsylvania could not prosecute the defendant Communist for sedition under state law, and nullified all state laws against treason and sedition, which had been enacted by Legislatures under express constitutional reservations and within their inherent police powers to impose regulations for the security, peace and good order in the State, and thereby said Justices unlawfully used their official positions to give aid and comfort to the enemy in viclation of Article III, Section 3, Article IV, Section 2, and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment." 4. "In the case entitled, Slochower V. Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, decided April 9, 1956, reported in 350 U. &. 551, Justices Clark, Warren, Black, Dougles and Frankfur- ter held that the City of New York had violated the Constitution of the United States by the swmrary discharge cf a public employee who had refused to answer questions relative to his communistic activities and ciaimed the benefit of the fifth amendment to the constitution in so doing. 5. “In Quinn Vs. United States, 349 U. 8. 155, Emspak Vs. United States, 349 U. 8. 190, and Bart Ys. United States, 349 U. S, 219, Chief Justice Warren, Justices Black, Frankfurter douglas and Clark held that the Congress of the United States in the exercise of investigative powers is powerless to obtain information from Commun- ists who claim the privilege against self-incrimination as set forth in the Fifth Amendment, aithough such Fifth Amendment privilege was specifically limited to “criminal cases" in the First Congress for the reason that traitors had claimed the privilege against self-incrimi- nation before congressional committees of the Continental Congress during the American Revolution (See American Bar Association Journal Vol. 42, p 509, 589 et seq.). In so holding said Justices, under color of their high offices, harrassed the Congress and in the words of dissenting Justice Harlan added, “Another means for interference and delay in investigations and trials, without adding to the protection of the constitutional right of freedom from self-incrimination.", the effect of said decisions by said Justices was to amend the 5th Amend- ment by striking therefrom the words "in any eriminal case," thus depriving the Coneress of a power specifically reserved to it for the purpose of exposing treason. The only efficient purpose of said