Time: Fri Jun 13 13:00:02 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24851;
Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:23:06 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:22:00 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: all systems are GO and PERFECT
Cc: <romans@gate.net>
References: <3.0.2.16.19970613074957.1ecf5472@mailhost.primenet.com>
At 12:50 PM 6/13/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Great! Smooth is where it's at.
>
>Yes, I've read the brief. Truly a masterpiece, as you said.
>
>The question that haunts me is the court's ability to ignore jurisdiction.
I know exactly what you mean. If it's any consolation,
when we lost an appeal to the SC in a case challenging
judicial immunity, I looked very hard at how to prevent
that kind of thing from ever happening again, at least in
any case I worked on. I first realized that we needed
to break the presumption that the "judge" is really
a judge, by law. Then, there would be no immunity,
until the "judge" proved s/he is a judge.
The answer that came to me was to use FOIA to compel
production of the Oath of Office. Until such time
as that Oath is produced, litigants are entitled,
under the Tenth Amendment, to proceed on the basis
of the rebuttable presumption that the Oath was
never consummated. Lack of oath is a lawful ground
for ouster by Quo Warranto, so it would be a simple
thing to move a FOIA suit into a full-blown Quo Warranto
action. The key is to petition the Court for FOIA
relief, AND ALL OTHER RELIEF WHICH THE COURT DEEMS
JUST AND PROPER. That should keep the door open
to a petition for leave to institute Quo Warranto
proceedings, right in the same case.
Moreover, our backup is the estoppel rule. If the
FOIA suit reaches the point at which they DO produce
a certified Oath of Office, we plan to move the
court to strike same, on grounds of estoppel under
Carmine v. Bowen, and fraud under U.S. v. Tweel.
Finally, if we lose the strike motion, then we compel
production of the exact provisions of the U.S.
Constitution which were embraced by that Oath of
Office, by switching the court into equity and
suing out the provisions in equity, including
declaratory relief from a competent and qualified
jury concerning same.
Jury Question #1: Do the facts as presented to
this jury support a legal conclusion that the
14th amendment was never lawfully ratified?
Yes or No?
Jury Question #2: change #1 to read "16th".
Jury Question #3: change #1 to read "13th", etc.
When we did this in the Grand Jury case, DOJ
went crazy and sent in the FBI to scuttle the case.
So, I must be right about this, or they would not
have risked felonies to prevent this approach from
proceeding any further. After that scuttle, they
sent an agent into my living room, to threaten
my life. I guess they thought I would be scared off;
this actually convinced me more than anything else
that I was right over the target (where the flak is
always the most intense).
As a measure of how successful this new strategy
has been, please note that it was the GOVERNMENT
who was stressing to Mr. Rosenbaum that he had
been sued by the Defendant he was about to sentence,
in a COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
thus nullifying the sentencing hearing, and subsequent
USDC hearing on the MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL
(just 2 days later).
This whole mess then came up in the MOTION FOR REHEARING
EN BANC, which is now properly before the 8th Circuit.
We are two weeks into a normal 4-week wait on such a Motion.
This Motion is requesting rehearing of a separate
MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL, which the 8th denied.
Hence, the En Banc motion.
Pray for Us. This could break the log jam, if anything
will. There is just too much law on our side for them
to ignore all of the many arguments we have already made,
and now placed squarely before the 8th Circuit.
I think the JSSA challenge is going to be the B-I-G one.
This one is going all the way -- I feel it in my soul.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School, David Dodge
>The same thing is happening in the Alaska case I mentioned to you. The
>judge there said something to the effect that "we'll address that issue at
>a later date, but for now we must move on".
>
>Since that's essentially the subject of the brief, I don't expect you to
>answer. Seems we're all waiting for this answer.
>
>Good work. Keep it up.
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail