Time:owner-libertylaw@blake.sharpcomm.com Thu Oct 3 09:20:06 1996
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 10:17:22 -1000
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: liberty@mcn.net (Paul Andrew Mitchell)
Subject: Re: LLAW: David Miller Pleadings (?)
=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
=======================================================================
The following is music to my ears.
Now we can actually broach the subject
of 42 U.S.C. 1983 with respect to
federal citizens and persons subject
to the jurisdiction of the "United States."
I say the 14th amendment's privileges and
immunities clause is proof that Congress
had to create a parallel set of Rights
for a second class of citizens. If
the 14th had not contemplated a second
class, then the organic privileges and
immunities clause would have sufficed.
See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 (4:2:1).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>For what it's worth, David Miller has stepped into some pretty amazing
>territories. Yet, his arrogance and unwillingness to perfect his documents
>is ruining his work. Michael Scott; Ioane of the San Jose, California has
>taken Miller's material and had it thoroughly researched AND perfected the
>documents.
>
>Michael does not give his material away to anyone. He, along with his
>advisors and associates, are of the opinion that any documents which are
>supposed to be used in court cases should not be simply given to someone.
>This is due to the fact that if those materials are used incorrectly, they
>can lead a loss in federal court which would then require almost
>surmountable damage control.
>
>What Michael does is hold round table discussions for people who have cases.
>He charges $50 a head to attend and helps the individuals to decide a course
>of action, teaches them what they should do (prior to court) and then offers
>to assist them should their case require court work.
>
>Michael is NOT a licensed attorney and is in no way dispensing with legal
>advice. Anyone who wishes to attend a round table discussion can contact me
>by e-mail for the location nearest you. Or if you'd like Michael to hold a
>round table in your area, let me know and I will make the arrangements.
>
>John Michael
>
>
>>In a message dated 96-08-26 23:02:29 EDT, you write:
>>
>><< Question: I recently received a series of
>> similar pleadings which were evidently
>> written by Mr. David Miller, a man who
>> is evidently quite expert in federal court
>> procedure. The problem I am having is
>> that these pleadings are riddled with
>> spelling, grammatical, and citation errors,
>> making them almost impossible to read.
>> In fact, I gave up, because the errors
>> were getting so much in my way, that
>> I could make very little sense out of
>> what was trying to be said. Is it possible
>> that I was given the wrong set of pleadings?
>> I don't mean to be belligerent here, but
>> I do not consider these pleadings to be
>> up to the minimal standard for first grade
>> English grammar and spelling, much less
>> satisfactory for federal court, where the
>> officers and employees have college
>> degrees. Can anybody help me here?
>> You will never see a decision from the
>> U.S. Supreme Court which isn't published
>> in near perfect English. That is why their
>> Clerk circulates drafts and invites editorial
>> comments before final publication. I think
>> that this is a terrific practice which should
>> be continued.
>>>>
>>
>>I have used the Favid Miller method of pleading in one of my cases. The
>>opposition counsel rebutted with comments like "unintelligible", "gibberish",
>>"seems to reffer to...", as well as other comments along the same vain.
>>
>>David Miller does not use aj
>>
>>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail