Editor's note:

A fully linked version of this file
can be found at Internet URL:

   http://supremelaw.com/press/rels/jurychal.htm


The following version of this file
is being maintained for redundancy.

Payson, Arizona

The founders of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- have just issued a ground-breaking formal challenge to the process of selecting grand and trial juries everywhere in America.

Paul Mitchell, one of the co-founders, has recently documented a serious flaw in the laws enacted by Congress to select jurors for grand and trial jury service. These laws are found in Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1861 and 1865, the federal Jury Selection and Service Act.

On the one hand, Congress has said that all citizens should have the opportunity to serve on both kinds of juries (section 1861). On the other hand, Congress has also said that jury candidates must be federal citizens (section 1865). Citizens of the several Union states are not mentioned in these Acts of Congress, and the omission was intentional.

Grand juries are convened to consider probable cause for issuing indictments, or formal charges, against people suspected of criminal behavior. Trial juries are convened to try those people and to determine their guilt or innocence. Both kinds of juries are now assembled entirely from voter registration lists, which consist of federal citizens only. In many states, it is a felony to falsify information on a voter registration affidavit.

Ever since the Civil War, Congress has been pushing hard, through force and fraud, to get all Americans into a second, inferior class of citizenship known as federal citizenship. This class did not exist in the law before the Civil War.

Prior to that war, there was only one class of citizenship, a class which today is called state Citizenship. This is the class that is mentioned in the qualifications for serving in the Congress and the White House. The term "United States" in those provisions means "states United", and the "C" in Citizen is a capital "C", not a lower-case "c" as in the case of federal citizens.

Unfortunately for Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, several times, that class discrimination in the selection of grand or trial jurors is a ground for proving that a jury is not a legal body. This means that any jury which exhibits class discrimination cannot issue lawful indictments, nor can it issue lawful verdicts. There are two "classes" of citizens in America.

In fact, several courts have already ruled that one can be a state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, regardless of the Civil War and its ugly aftermath.

"We are prepared to stipulate that federal citizens have no standing to challenge the obvious conflict between these two statutes," says Paul Mitchell, the author of several court briefs which are racing through the Internet at present. "But, when it comes to Sovereign state Citizens, the class discrimination is unmistakable, and unconstitutional."

At an introductory lecture last week in Mesa, Arizona, members of the audience were enthralled by the prospect that government indictments against state Citizens will soon be thrown out. "The correct procedural move is to petition the court for a dismissal, or a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of the challenge," explained Mitchell. A stay is a procedural "freeze" on any further hearings, until the controversy is settled.

Final resolution means that the matter will be finally decided by the United States Supreme Court, probably after two or more federal appeals courts decide the matter with opposite results. This will almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme Court.

Sample briefs can be obtained from the Supreme Law Firm by contacting co-founder Paul Mitchell at email pmitch@primenet.com. With minor changes, the two briefs can be adapted to any state or federal prosecution, no matter at what step in the proceedings. Mitchell is even prepared to utilize their logic in habeas corpus petitions, in order to release state Citizens from federal prisons. Their indictments and convictions were decided by juries that were not legal bodies.