Time: Sat Jun 14 19:58:01 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA19812;
Sat, 14 Jun 1997 19:57:59 -0700 (MST)
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA12599;
Sat, 14 Jun 1997 19:57:47 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 19:55:18 -0700
To: mihra@styx.cerbernet.co.uk (Roger Bunn)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: OKC had jury problems
At 02:54 AM 6/15/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>Dear Clients,
>
>Me too?
Of course!
>
>
>>I would like to poll all of you on a
>>proposal that has tenaciously stayed
>>in my head for 72 hours and running.
>
>Your concentration span is to be admired.
>
>>On the theory that McVeigh is really
>>working the other side of the fence,
>
>Specifics?
The theory is that McVeigh is BATF.
The Pentagon expert proved that there
were charges drilled in the bearing
columns. Radiate your research
outwards from that point of origin.
>
>
>>I would like to prepare a formal proposal
>>to Oklahoma state Representative Charles
>>Key, as follows:
>
>>Federal jury selection is fatally flawed
>>because of the class discrimination which
>>is evident in 28 U.S.C. 1865.
>
>
>You mean they all were for capital punishment or they all came
>from a certain class? You dont have class juries do you? "Selection"
>is a real threat. Please explain "flawed" in this context.
Visit the Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
and read "Juries in Check around the Nation"
and "State Citizens Cannot Vote." This will
give you the background you need.
>
>
>>The flaw exists for selection of federal
>>grand and petit (trial) juries.
>>
>>McVeigh was indicted by such a flawed grand
>>jury, and he was convicted by such a flawed
>>trial jury. Therefore, his conviction is
>>null and void.
>>
>
>>The Oklahoma state special grand jury has
>>been approved by the state Supreme Court.
>>
>>The People would intervene in McVeigh's
>>appeal, requesting an indefinite stay of
>>proceedings, pending the outcome of the
>>JSSA challenge now before the 8th Circuit.
>
>You've lost me with jargonism
"Intervention of Right" is a procedure under
American jurisprudence, allowing a third party
to join the action. In this case, the third
party would be the "People of the United
States of America," the Plaintiffs in the
Billings federal case in which I am the
private attorney general.
>
>
>>I would bring the Request for Intervention,
>>as a private attorney general.
>
>For?
McVeigh was indicted and convicted by federal
juries that were not legal bodies. The People
have a vested interest in fixing the problem
with the Jury Selection and Service Act,
Title 28, United States Code, section 1865,
because it conflicts directly with section 1861.
Think of the first and last years of the American
Civil War, and you will remember the section
numbers. You can view these laws right on
the Internet: use Alta Vista to search for
"United States Code", then go to Title 28,
then sections 1861 and 1865. It's all right
there, in plain English.
>
>>Along with this stay request, the People
>>would request judicial notice of the
>>state grand jury proceeding in Oklahoma.
A "stay" is a temporary suspension, or halt,
in the proceedings, until something else is
settled, finally, usually by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
>>
>
>judicial notice?
>What does that mean?
If a separate law suit is proceeding,
the court may not know about it, and
would not need to do anything about it anyway,
unless a litigant brings it to the attention
of the court, formally, and asks the court to
do something about the implications of a
decision, one way or the other, in that other
court.
For example, we have a major challenge to the
Jury Selection and Service Act now before the
8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis,
Missouri state. If this case is decided in
favor of the defendant/appellant, then it will
have the side-effect of overturning McVeigh's
indictment and conviction too, because he was
born within one of the several states of the
Union, if I am not mistaken.
>
>
>>If the Oklahoma jury selection procedure
>>is similarly flawed, then their state
>>law should be challenged, and corrected,
>>at once, so that they can proceed with their
>>investigation.
>
>
>So what are you "looking for" in a jury?
Impartiality, and a body drawn at random.
Imagine if American juries only selected
women as candidates! That would be an
unconstitutional discrimination based on
"class", a gender-based class.
>Why?
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled,
several times, that such class discrimination
causes the jury to be an illegal body. Many of these
cases arose from civil rights cases, in which
some 150 juries in a row were all white,
within a district which had a mixture of
blacks and whites. The blacks were being
discriminated against "as a class." So,
any "class" discrimination, even if not racial,
is still unconstitutional, according to the
U.S. Supreme Court decisions we have located.
As it turns out, if you are qualified under the
U.S. Constitution to serve in our Congress,
then you are NOT qualified to serve on a
federal grand or petit jury. THAT's how serious
the flaw is. See Article I, Section 2, Clause 2,
and Article I, Section 3, Clause 3.
"Citizen of the United States" in those provisions
means "Citizen of ONE OF the States United."
>
>>Rep. Key would be on the leading edge of
>>this movement, particularly if the Oklahoma
>>state law(s) need amending.
>
>I would support Charles right down the line,
>but Whew.... the timing of this?
It would take someone with a firm grasp of
American law, both federal and state, to
create some order out of this chaos. The
leading case is U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, which
I wrote. The OPENING BRIEF was mailed on
Wednesday, so it is technically filed,
several days ahead of the deadline. This
means that the 8th Circuit will HAVE to rule
on it. They are only one level below the
U.S. Supreme Court, so the stakes have now
become rather large, to put it mildly.
>
>>This would be a wedge into exposing federal
>>manipulation of federal grand juries,
>
>As? Specifics? lotsa questions as to "how"...this would
>expose and the result of such an exposure.
See "The Kick-Back Racket" in the Supreme Law
Library. U.S. Attorneys are getting rewarded
for obtaining "politically correct" indictments --
$25,000 to the Attorneys, $35,000 to Clinton.
This violates 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq. -- the
Anti-Kickback Act of 1986; the penalty is stiff
for accepting kick-backs like this. The
Constitution also forbids the President from
accepting any additional emolument during
his term in office; so, we are talking
high treason here, at least. The "authority"
for these "performance rewards" was repealed
in 1993: see the Performance Management and
Recognition System Termination Act of 1993.
>
> and also
>>federal trial juries as well, a la "The Kick-
>>Back Racket" and other related themes.
>
>Every trial in the US compromised?
Most federal criminal trials are being
brought in federal courts which have
NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION whatsoever.
See "Karma and the Federal Courts"
in the Supreme Law Library.
All high level trials
>never come to court? The ratio?
DOJ is warring on the American People,
while their employees are entrained in
a massive criminal conspiracy themselves.
Violating any fundamental Rights is a
felony violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 241 and 242.
We are talking "conspiracy" with a
small "c" here! :)
>Dept of Justice vendetta tactics against the People?
Yes. I call it an extortion racket.
The "United States" is an organized
criminal extortion racket, and they
are using the courts and juries to
perpetrate this racket. Couple this
with the perjury and property conversion
rackets now rampant within the Department
of Justice, and you have a field day
as a private attorney general.
>MOVE? Abu-Jamal? Cabazon? PROMIS? Casolaro?
Yes, Casolaro broke the Inslaw scan, in which
the Department of Justice stole some very
sophisticated record matching, database, and
bank telecommunications software, and then
bribed a federal judge to block the inevitable
law suit which resulted. Talk to the president
of Inslaw; he can brief you. DOJ is using
a successor to PROMIS to track commercial liens
and other commercial paper through the banking
system; as those records travel through the
Internet, they pick up lots of "leads" to
other assets, e.g. bank accounts, credit
card accounts, etc. Piece-a-cake for a
good computer programmer (I have 26 years in
advanced computer systems development).
>Bush? Shackley? Wackenhut? Skull and Bones?
Yes. The banking syndicate is behind it all --
Brussels, London, Amsterdam, Hong Kong --
mostly European families; New York City too,
of course -- International Monetary Fund and
their cohorts. Powerful computers are really
C-H-E-A-P now. I just bought 16 megabytes of
RAM for $100. In 1980, we had to pay $45,000
for a one megabyte upgrade to a super minicomputer.
That CPU was one million instructions per second.
Now, Digital Equipment is up to 500 million
instructions per second, with their Alpha chip.
That may even be low, because the latest CPU's
are doing more than one instruction per
clock cycle. The alpha is cycling at 500 MHz!
>
>>I would like to get your feedback on this
>>proposal. This idea has the potential to
>>thrust jury selection into the limelight,
>>and buy time for the Oklahoma state grand
>>jury to get their act together.
>
>I heard that a jury (may have been possible to provide) its own
>lawyer to the foreman, that would clarify issues?
Yes. They are called "runaway juries," because
they oust the prosecutor and take over everything
they can get their hands on, including private
counsel. They have that power, under our
Tenth Amendment, because juries predated the
Declaration of Independence; their roots are
in British common law, remember?
>
>Paul,
>I would like to see an investigation not a trial in oklahoma
>and an appeal to the international community to assist
>tracking down strassmeir and friends and seal'em up once
>and for all.
Then you must interview Rep. Key, and fill him
in. I will be trying to reach him by telephone
next week.
Roger, if that OKC federal building had been FILLED
with fertilizer, it still would not have melted
structural steel that way; such an intense
explosion, which blew OUTWARDS, had to have been
detonated inside the building, at the base of
those I-beams; they were decapitated right at
their bases, and then all that weight came crashing
down on top of them. My active hypothesis is that
C-4 was drilled into the I-beams, and then pressure
detonators were affixed to the outsides of the
beams. The fertilizer bomb was the trigger --
it generated enough pressure to detonate the C-4.
Makes perfect sense.
>
>Anything that would serve those ends, i would buy.
>
>with my ten cents.
>
>Rr
Many thanks, Roger. You can help us, because
the American press are bought and sold down the
river. Be careful with this story, because you
may experience real heat yourself. BBC has its
limits, as we both know. Also, watch your back,
and be careful with whom you share this stuff.
This is explosive stuff in more ways than one.
>
>>I am standing by. Hmmmm Me too.........
>
>Policy Office
>Music Industry Human Rights Association
>
>email mihra@styx.cerbernet.co.uk
>
>Founded in respect of UN50, MIHRA INTERNATIONAL
>represents all areas of music, its industry and its cultural
>and economic activities.
>
>
>
========================================================================
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