October 14, 2000 A.D.

Hi Don,

 

You are not here, so I am reduced to answering your note in this fashion.

 

Yes, I agree that a corporation MUST identify itself in the business world.  That is precisely why we have submitted a FOIA request for the SEC 10-K statements for all corporations in which the United States of America, Inc. is a stockholder.  Did you forget?

 

Yes, the indictment should fall of its own weight, in that it was a fraud upon you, upon the court, and also upon the panel of federal citizens alleged to be a federal grand jury.  I do agree here, yes.

 

Yes, the court also lacks jurisdiction over you, for fraud.

 

With respect to your last paragraph, however, I am very concerned about what you are trying to say.  After I arrived here, I did my best to make you understand that I had prior obligations, chiefly the People’s application for intervention of right in USA v. Gilbertson, maintenance of the Supreme Law Library, and pro bono support of people who send email messages to ask questions which arise from that Library.

 

I am very grateful to you, and Lian, for the hardware and software you bought, and to make it possible for me to use the Internet.  Those purchases have benefited everyone.

 

You may recall all of the email messages which I sent to you from Hawaii, on a rented computer at Zac’s in Kona (charges which I paid out of my own pocket), specifically because you learned about my skill and experience, by reading the Supreme Law Library yourself.  You and I have also expressed interest in developing some kind of business relationship connected with the Supreme Law Library.

 

So, I do not think it entirely accurate to say, or even to imply, that “you didn’t agree to bring me here except for your defense.”  Even if that were the case now, and even if I had ever agreed to such an arrangement, which I have not, it is not fair nor even lawful for you to expect me to work 10 to 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, exclusively on your case, and then to pay me only room, board, and an occasional $40.  My standard rates have always been $75 per hour;  those haven’t ever changed.

 

I have a right, and a duty, to perform my private and personal responsibilities to others, and those “others” now include the People of the United States of America.  So, in a very real sense, you were already my “client” before I came here from Hawaii.  I must, then, budget my time so that other tasks and day‑to‑day projects do not jeopardize my prior commitments to those responsibilities.  I expect that you would do exactly the same with your prior commitments.

 

I cannot, and simply will not, allow anyone to monopolize my time to the point that these other obligations must suffer.

 

If you are attempting to monopolize my time, and I take the last statement in your written note to mean just that, then we do have a very serious disagreement going here, Don.  Let me try to resolve it.

 

It is not right, or even legal, for you even to try such a monopoly.  Like you, I have a fundamental Right to equal pay for equal work, and I also enjoy a fundamental Right to an adequate standard of living.  I enjoy neither of the above, working as I am with you under present circumstances, such as they are.  It would be hypocritical in the extreme to exploit me for the purpose of enforcing your Rights, only to trample on mine.

 

If you cannot afford to pay me what I am worth, and if you have gotten more than a full month’s worth of work out of me to date, including nights and weekends, for little more than food, lodging, and small sums of spending money ($40 here and $20 there), and if this was your intent all along, then you are defrauding me for failing to tell me, up front and in advance, that you couldn’t afford to pay me for all this work.

 

But, I do not believe that fraud was your intent.  You are simply frightened at the moment, and your fright causes you to overlook things you wouldn’t normally overlook.  For this reason, I am inclined to recommend that you seek professional therapy, which I am simply not qualified to give, any more than I am a dentist (which I am not), and any more than you are a professional litigator (which you are not).

 

I am making this recommendation to you, for several reasons, Don:

 

You appear to change your mind quite often.  For example, I began our relationship by clearly and distinctly saying that I wanted to publish all pleadings in the Supreme Law Library, because this is what I have done in every other case on which I have worked.  Your answer was that it was a great idea, particularly if it meant that our work together could help others in America.  Then, you changed your mind.

 

You allowed Mike Ioane to bend your ear many times, and each time you did so, you rushed into the office where I work, with more “noise” from Mike, disrupting my train of thought and putting me in the position of having to draw you back to the sound strategy which you and I had already agreed to develop on your behalf.  Mike clearly has his own agenda, and that agenda does not include teamwork.

 

Over my objections, to which you initially agreed, you have allowed Eric to pressure you into filing what appear to be felony confessions, when you have never given me any reason to believe that you were ever involved in the Irangate scandal, Inslaw, Waco, or similar government conspiracies.

 

I am still proceeding on the basis on my belief that you remain innocent.

 

But, it does now appear that you are either lying to the court with the two boxes of documents Eric shipped to you, many of which  you have never even read, or you really are implicated in some felony conspiracy.  Simply put, you changed your mind, again.

 

Your most recent email message says something entirely different from the last paragraph of your hand-written note, particularly with regard to using this office to support my other obligations.

 

I have already agreed in concept that I should be paying you office rent, to the extent that I use it to do my own work, unrelated to your case.  So, you appear to have changed your mind once again, on this point.

 

I have learned a few things here, but you are failing to mention that I brought with me more than 10 years of research and litigation, which I am now applying for your benefit.

 

For example, I had already helped Gilbertson challenge the standing of the party identified as “United States of America” -– by preparing a FOIA request for all statutes which granted standing, if any, to this entity -- so this is not a new issue for me.  See Gilbertson’s case, as published on the Internet.  My latest pleading to the 8th Circuit can also help you, if you will allow it to help you.

 

When I first brought this second “USA” to your attention, you seemed to understand it, but then you forgot it and you appeared to lose sight of its immense significance.  I believe this happened in part because of the noise makers who have been trying to compete for your attention, rather than to work together with us, as a team.

 

To what end have they done that?

 

I can only guess that it’s pride and ego, neither of which is going to do you, me, or them any good whatsoever.

 

So, if you are going to change your mind about something else, perhaps you should find a way to pay me for all the time I have worked on your behalf, before we go any further.

 

A partial payment would be appreciated, because I ran out of food money today, and you did not take me to dinner last night, or breakfast this morning.

 

My total to date would be at least 40 hours per week since I started working on your case on September 1, 2000, minus expenses which you have paid since then, including but not limited to the original $500 retainer, the air fare and week’s lodging at the Manago Hotel, and food and lodging after my arrival.

 

Also, I do remember telling you that your Whistleblower case would require a second retainer, because it is a separate case.  So, I will ask you to prepare a summary of your total expenses, which we can then subtract from the following total due to me by you:

 

               Quantity    Description                Total

 

               6 weeks     criminal defense:

                           40 hours per week,

                           $75 per hour          $18,000.00

 

               1 case      retainer @ $500.00

           Whistleblower case        500.00

                                                 ----------

                           Subtotal:             $18,500.00

 

                           Minus expenses:

 

                           Total Amount Due:

 

 

Please also know that Joanne was here earlier, to serve us with a 30-day notice to vacate her house.  That would be November 13, 2000, by her calendar.  This puts enormous pressure on me to get paid, so I can pay for a new place to live, in a very inflated housing market ($1,200 minimum per month for a small apartment, plus all deposits).

 

I do not want to continue “living” in your office, Don.  There is no shower here, and you complain about my body odor when I don’t shower.

 

As a gesture of good will, I agree to donate my overtime to your case, and to all other tasks I did that were unrelated to your case.

 

I will look forward to your timely reply.  Thank you, Don.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General