Time:owner-libertylaw@blake.sharpcomm.com Thu Oct 3 06:17:54 1996
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 07:15:06 -1000
To: Charles Stewart <chuck@teleport.com>
From: liberty@mcn.net (Paul Andrew Mitchell)
Subject: LLAW: Re: Schweitzer Priorities
=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
=======================================================================
>> But, before we can convene such a jury,
>> we stay the WHOLE MATTER, pending final
>> review of our challenge to the Jury Selection
>> and Service Act, for blatantly discriminating
>> against Citizens of the several states who
>> are not also federal citizens. We have
>> already won on this challenge, because the
>> United States has already fallen silent in
>> the face of our facts and law memorandum
>> (Chapter 11 from The Federal Zone).
>
> This is from a case which was already before them? A case in which
>they were obligated to make a decision? What do you mean they fell silent?
The United States failed to respond
to a previous Motion to Stay Proceedings
pending final review of our challenge
to the Jury Selection and Service Act.
>Surely if this was in some case, they rendered a decision. What decision
>resulted from the case in which this memorandum was filed?
William D. Browning in Tucson, Arizona
ruled that an affidavit is hearsay and
that the decisions of the SC have no
legal significance.
>
>> Three
>> federal judges have already jumped out of
>> their chairs upon seeing these briefs.
>> We are prepared to invoke estoppel on them,
>> because they have already had at least 5
>> months to respond formally. They have
>> responded with silence instead.
>
>So they have not rendered any decision in this case? What is the title of
>it?
First one was "In Re: Grand Jury
Subpoena Served on New Life Health
Center," USDC, Tucson, Arizona
Second one is "U.S.A. [sic] v.
Wallen," same court.
Third one is "U.S.A. [sic] v.
Schweitzer et al."
> And above you say that "We have already won" (on the issue of the
>Jury Selection and Serviuce Act being discriminatory). But they have
>retreeted into silence. Why do you believe that silance will not also
>greet your valiant efforts in this instance?
Judges are issuing ridiculous
rulings; United States (Solicitor
General) can't bring himself to
say anything.
Of what value will these
>efforts be if they stonewall you again?
I have not given up hope,
because of U.S. v. Lopez.
>
>> If and when we prevail on the stay motion,
>> we then file a blockbuster Habeas Corpus,
>> to spring the prisoners, pending a SC
>> decision on the constitutionality of the
>> Jury Selection and Service Act.
>
>Ahh, ok I see. You don't need a decision through their stonewalling
>tactics. It serves our purposes as well that thry stonewall. As long as
>they will throw us the bone of springing LeRoy and the others theough the
>Habeous Corpus, correct?
If our only strategy were to spring
LeRoy et al., we would not be charting
the course we are now sailing.
>
>> Also in the wings is another FOIA for
>> proof of the Reservations which Congress
>> attached to its ratification of two
>> international human rights treaties.
>> A key reservation named "localities" as
>> having standing to compel U.S. obedience
>> to these treaties, which include guarantees
>> of effective judicial remedies for violations
>> of fundamental Rights, even if the violations
>> were committed by persons acting in their
>> official capacities. These will be de novo
>> matters, but we are loading our cannons right
>> now as we speak. The government lawyers are
>> in a full-on retreat at present, because we are
>> coming at them with arguments that are
>> compelling in their procedural and substantive
>> correctness. We know this, because one judge
>> embarrassed the entire American Judiciary by
>> ruling that an affidavit is hearsay, and the
>> SC decisions have no legal significance. You
>> know we are winning when you see such garbage
>> spewing from the mouth of a senior federal
>> judge in Arizona. "The law is in my mouth,"
>> says the judge. "The law is in our hearts,"
>> says Paul Mitchell. "And our hearts are
>> ultimately rooted in the truth."
>>
>>
>> I really don't understand. This
>> >seems just as doofy as T-42's.
>>
>> What makes you think DCUS is equity?
>> What makes you think FOIA is equity?
>>
>> Title 42, Section 1983 is obviously
>> for federal citizens, and those other
>> "persons" who are subject to federal
>> jurisdiction. DCUS adjudicates matters
>> arising under the Constitution and laws
>> of the United States, i.e. very broad
>> jurisdiction over all federal questions,
>> including treaty adjudication.
>
>Right. I realized that. I dont believe that I indicated that the DCUS was
>exclusively an equity court as you are apparently assuming from your
>comment a bit above.
I disagree. It is a general
judicial power forum with
original jurisdiction to hear
all matters arising under
the Constitution and laws of
the United States. This means
it can hear law, equity, and
admiralty, imho. As such, we
reserve our right to switch
the court into whatever mode
we need at the moment. Equity
makes sense to compel production
of the exact provisions of the
Constitution(s) which they agreed
to uphold; this is a contract
matter.
In fact your focus on the term "Equity" in the erlier
>lines I find quite off point and distracting. Equity may very well be our
>uppermost enemy, in control of everything in opposition to god's holy
>common law rule.
I disagree. The oath under
Article VI is a contract
which is enforceable as such.
Contract is as old as the
hills.
But that remains to be agreed upon, and for our purposes
>here, I believe it is sufficient just to focus upon the fact that these
>remedys are a part of the "defacto" system which oppresses us and preverts
>the original constitutional intent and which interferres with our ability
>to access common law venue.
The Constitution is de jure.
Any judicial jurisdiction which interferes
>with our ability to access our commonlaw rights is the enemy.
I am not as enamored of the common
law as you are. Your definition of
it may also be more restrictive than
mine. I regard the Constitution
as federal common law, including all
federal laws enacted pursuant to it.
We pivot on the Supremacy Clause, a
Law that is certainly common to all
of Us.
>
> But LeRoy's tapes indicate pretty clearly (to me anyway) that the
>common law jurisdiction is to originate at the county/township level.
Indeed. That is our main
reason for submitting a FOIA
request for the Reservations
which Congress attached to the
two human rights treaties now
on the table. The "localities"
are specifically mentioned as
having standing to compel obedience
by the United States to those
treaties. Again, treaties are
supreme Law pursuant to the
Supremacy Clause. We are expecting
that the United State will, again,
fail to perform its obligations
under these treaties. So, BINGO!
We are back into Our one supreme
Court, and Rehnquist knows this
is coming.
>Thats why they set up justus township. this is the "one supreme Court"
>available in each township/county which has exclusive original
>jurisdiction over the issues arizing within that geographical area.
We will demonstrate that for all
the world to see.
>
> I see no indication that the uppermost jurisdiction is located
>within some court which Renquist has influance over. Renquist is the
>servant of the township/county level commonlaw courts of original
>jurisdiction (if I understood LeRoy correctly, and it sounds right to me).
>I believe this was the original coinstitutional intent, when the king of
>England's soverignty decended down to each of "We the People" as
>individuals.
Beautiful. See above.
>
>
>> FOIA does not suffer from these problems:
>> if the document exists, Citizens have a
>> Right to a certified copy. More importantly,
>> if the document does NOT exist, Citizens have
>> a Right to hear the United States admit this
>> fact. This is an nice end-run around the
>> logical impossibility of proving that something
>> does not exist.
>
> OK. Well maybe I can see where your strategy is making some sence.
>Let me run this by you.
>
> I think that you are usint the FOIA action in an entirely
>separate procreeding. And if not, then at most using it in some minor
>supplemental way which will not indicate that you are traversing into
>their jurisdiction.
We are using it, for starters,
to have an easy way for many
Americans formally to intervene.
First, they file a FOIA request.
Second, they appeal.
Third, they apply for intervention
in the District Court of the
United States.
Fourth, we continue our efforts
to locate and sit a qualified and
competent judge whose compensation
is not being diminished. Finding
one is going to make Patriot headlines:
imagine this: "federal judge pays no
income taxes -- BY LAW".
Your above paragraph indicates that you may be pushing
>forward on the FOIA under a status basically separate from the case which
>is available to "All" Citizens, 14th or not, correct?
Once the case is opened, we are reserving
our option to consolidate all the cases
in that one court. We call it, "Putting
all your wood behind one arrowhead."
> If this is close to accurate, then your strategy does look
>spound, because the info would then be something akin to "public domain
>info" which even us soverigns have a right to, and which should logically
>not be viewed as compromizing our character. Sound right?
Most definitely. That is our
reason for FREEMAIL -- the private
electronic email list. We will be
posting ALL briefs which we are
filing, the moment they are filed.
You couldn't ask for more instanteous
reporting. Like freedom, FREEMAIL
is not free, however.
>
>> > Yea I know it's bringing a lot of horsepower to the team, and I
>> >don't wish for another explination of how much we need it. I just don't
>> >understand why we are being parinoid about using one defacto system and
>> >then embracing another.
>>
>> Can you explain this comment a little
>> more? I am afraid I do not follow you.
>> (Sorry, I am running a sleep deficit
>> right now, which I intend to cure tonight.)
>
> Well the Right Way guys are pretty explicit, and Leroy was
>sounding quite similar in that there are a whole lotta tarbabys out
>there which can suck you into their jurisdiction in a microsecond.
We are literally "removing" ourselves
from these tar babies, first, by showing
them that the U.S.D.C. has absolutely
no criminal jurisdiction. Once we remove
the action into the D.C.U.S., we may
again discover that it ought to be removed
once more into the proper state court,
and so on. We may only want to litigate
the piracy question in the D.C.U.S. (life
in prison). The other probable crimes
against the People properly belong in the
state courts anyway. One big problem we
have to overcome is the public's misperception
about LeRoy's role as respondent, plaintiff,
and chief justice. By law, he cannot preside
on his own case, no way. I thought that was
obvious to everyone, but it apparently is
not.
> It gets doewn to the biblical command to just stay out of their
>courts. Of course there are exceptions when we are drug before their
>courts as Leroy and the others have been, but even when drug before those
>courts, it's a major screwup to be asking them for favors. The only hammer
>we have over them is our original constitutional charter, under which they
>are not suppose to be screwing with us. That's what we need to be in their
>face about, and hitting them with tort actions about, and getting masses
>of people to screem and yell about. brecause that's when gods holy spirit
>is with us.
This is the main reason for
the Intervention of Right which,
by the way, is ready to roll.
Last task is to compress the
5 files and make a .EXE file
with PKZIP's ZIP2EXE program --
piece of cake. Do you want
one when it's ready?
If we go asking them for privelages in their courts, God gets
>real disappinnted in us, because part of the plan is that we must learn to
>be self governing and able to defend ourselkves through our courts against
>their courts. Our courts should be actively charging thosw FBI agents with
>torts of tresspass.
Yes, YES!! Petition to DCUS
for Order to the United States
to Show Cause why its alleged
agents should not be charged
with trespass, piracy, ....
And any judges which aid and abet in those original
>crimes should be added to the tort actions.
Does 1 thru 1000
will embrace all
judicial misconduct
as well. See 28 U.S.C.
372(c). My complaint
against a federal judge
in Tucson just got a
docket number at the
Ninth Circuit. We are
on the inside already.
The staff attorneys there
know what I am up to.
I believe they respect me,
even if they don't agree
with me. I cannot share
their names, however, because
that would compromise the
tenuous professional relationship
I have already built with them.
We need to be building our own
>commonlaw courts at every level. This is the ONLUY way to back the
>defacto's back into the dark hole which they sprang from. This is the ONLY
>Constitutional hammer which they MUST obey. Everything, and I mean
>EVERYTHING under their jurisdiction is slimneball smoke and mirrors
>crapola in which we are gonna loose loose loose. There is only one way to
>do it. It's written in the book and the stars.
The law is a truth
which is knowable.
>
>
> But thats just my oppinion, and my comments way above indicate
>that your present general strategy is not really that bad.
Thank you. Other defendants
("respondents") are already
thrilled. Russell Landers'
voice was noticeably calmer
when he called from Oklahoma
City. Last night, Randy
got a requisition for 5 copies
of everything I have been
writing and submitting over
the past week, all from people
in Yellowstone County Detention
Facility. There is a growing
awareness of our deep understanding
of federal law. Now I want to
reach out to the white collar crowd:
they will be shocked to hear that
DOJ and Klingon are getting massive
kick-backs every time a grand jury
issues an indictment against an
illegal tax protestor.
I don't want to
>undermine your enthusiasism for carrying on your valiant battle in their
>forums.
Without spirit, you are dead.
Who knows maybe those forums can be converted into forums which
>will become accountable to "We the People".
Not a MAYBE here, Charles.
Our biggest hurdle is to
overturn the Jury Selection
and Service Act. Once that
is accomplished, it will be
smooth sailing, I believe.
The state Citizenship movement
is gaining enormous strength,
as it should. See WORTH
magazine for September 1996,
page 110 et seq. This is
obvious empirical evidence
of our growing strength.
Lopez was the big turning
point.
I hope this works for you all
>if that is the couse which you continue to persue. It's just that my
>enthusiasm is in these other directions.
Freedom is a precious thing,
and I am happy to see that
you already have it. Let's
share it with others; they
will be transformed like
Mary Magdalene, mark my words.
>
>
>> >> 10. Additional research is moving forward at a very
>> >> rapid pace, all with the approval of LeRoy.
>> >> We continue to get confirmation from him that
>> >> this line of research is meeting with his approval,
>> >> and keeping his spirits elevated.
>> >>
>> >> That's about it for now. LeRoy does not want to
>> >> get out on some phony deal; he wants the Law to
>> >> prevail. Only time will tell if this strategy will
>> >> produce positive results.
>> >
>> > Can LeRoy accept telephone calls?
>>
>> NO!
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Can you accept telephone calls?
>>
>> Randy Parsons is our Executive
>> Director: he will be happy to
>> speak at length with you.
>>
>> Call (406) 652-7412
>
>
> Hpoe to get a call in sometime. Am pretty busy. My # is
>503-668-5091.
>
> Also, found a long distance company that bills only 10 cents per
>munitue any time of the day. This cut my phone bill in close to half. They
>atre great. 108111 is the prefix to the main number you dial. They dont
>advertise, but they preform real noce.
>
>> Thanks for all the interest, Charles.
>
> We will hang together or we will hang separately, bro...
I am opposed to capital punishment.
Remember how Jesus treated Mary
Magdalene? That is the power we
ultimately want to wield. "And
you will do everything I have done,
and more," the King of Kings. Beats
head bashing, any day.
>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>Charles Stewart . . .
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail