Time: Sat Jul 05 13:37:10 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA02180;
	Sat, 5 Jul 1997 13:36:44 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23926;
	Sat, 5 Jul 1997 13:36:10 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 13:36:08 -0700
To: "Chris Meissen" <cmeissen@townsqr.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]

One more thing: I failed to mention a very
important feature of these two human rights
treaties.  In the event that the United States
(federal government) should fail to perform
its affirmative obligations under these treaties,
Congress expressly reserved to the localities
legal standing to sue the United States to 
compel its obedience to same.  These reservations
were attached to the treaties, as special U.S.
riders which were not attached by other nations,
because of our unique governmental system here.

States of the Union are "localities," as that
term was intended in the reservations.  So, 
state courts DO have jurisdiction over such
a Citizen's arrest, particularly since murder
by someone alleging to be a federal officer,
but failing to produce certified evidence of same,
is a felony.  In Arizona, the arresting Citizen
does not need to be an eyewitness to the felony.
Once the suspect enters the territorial jurisdiction
of the state, the suspect is subject to the 
jurisdiction of that state, pursuant to the 
Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the explicit
grant of standing to the state in actions to compel 
U.S. obedience to same.

I hope this helps.  You need to know about these
reservations, because they are not normally 
published with the treaties proper.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

See the Privileges and Immunities Clause,
at Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1.

Reno is also claiming federal authority,
so all kinds of federal laws can be brought
against her, such as 18 U.S.C. 242 and 241.

Moreover, all federal judges are currently
paying taxes on their pay, in violation of
Article III, Section 1, so the state judicial
authorities are now superior, under two
international human rights treaties --
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.

If you don't have them, I can supply them 

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 12:03 PM 7/5/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Thanks for the chuckle, Tim. 
> While I wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Mitchell's attitude and intent, and 
>his post certainly reads more lucidly than Linda Thompson's exhortation 
>to the militia to arrest Congress a few years ago,  I have to question 
>his legal jurisdiction.  He plainly states that he is a citizen of 
>Arizona and informs Ms. Reno of his intent to arrest her should she 
>enter the boundaries of said State.  But, the crimes for which he 
>intends to charge her were committed in Texas.  Absent a warrant from 
>the State of Texas, can a citizen of another state execute a citizen's 
>arrest?  Even should he do so, would the State of Texas prosecute?  
>There is certainly no jurisdiction for any Arizona court in this 
>Still, it was a pleasant diversion.
>> ===== Forwarded Message, OK?  I DID NOT write this, Got That? :") ======
>>    Date: 	Tue, 01 Jul 1997 19:18:43 -0700
>>    From: 	Paul Andrew Mitchell <pmitch@primenet.com
>> Subject:	SLF: Notice of Intent to Execute Citizen's Arrest
>> c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
>> Tucson [zip code exempt]
>> Ms. Janet Reno
>> c/o 10th and Constitution, N.W.
>> Washington [zip code exempt]
>> Dear Ms. Reno:
>> The evidence that is now available to the American People at large is
>> rather conclusive for implicating you directly in the premeditated
>> murder of innocent children during the planned destruction of the Branch
>> Davidian complex in Waco, Texas state.
>> As the private attorney general proceeding on behalf of the People ofthe
>> United States of America versus the United States et alii, it is My duty
>> to inform you of Our specific intent to execute a proper Citizen's
>> Arrest upon your body, should you at any time in the future choose to
>> travel within the well defined borders of Arizona state.  We intend to
>> charge you with murder in the first degree.
>> The pertinent Arizona Revised Statutes make it abundantly clear that
>> Citizens of Arizona state can exercise Their Right to execute such an
>> arrest, if and when They believe that probable cause exists to justify
>> detention, and prosecution, of the suspect in question.  I leave it to
>> your capable staff to bring these statutes to your deliberate and
>> immediate attention.
>> I remind you also that you have failed to produce a certified copy of
>> the solemn Oath of Office which is required of all federal executive
>> employees by 5 U.S.C. 3331, and by Article VI, Clause 3, in the
>> Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. See
>> Respublica v. Wray, 2 Yeates 429 (1799).
>> Wherefore, pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
>> Miranda v. Arizona, you are hereby informed in advance that you have the
>> Right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney. Anything you
>> say or do from this point forward can and will be held against you in a
>> competent Court of Law.
>> May the Lord Most High have abundant mercy on your soul, Janet.
>> Respectfully submitted,
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>> Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and private attorney general
>> on behalf of the People of the United States of America
>> ========================================================================
> -- Chris Meissen
> ****************************************************************
>    "False is the idea of utility that would take fire from men
>    because it burns, and water because one may drown in it;
>    that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.  The laws
>    that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
>    They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor
>    determined to commit crimes." -- Cesare Beccaria
> ***************************************************************


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail