Time: Sat Jul 05 18:52:57 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA13898;
	Sat, 5 Jul 1997 18:51:44 -0700 (MST)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01539;
	Sat, 5 Jul 1997 18:51:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 18:51:29 -0700
To: "Chris Meissen" <cmeissen@townsqr.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
References: <>

I disagree, and I believe I have already
explained the authorities for same.
Once she enters Arizona, she is subject
to Arizona law.  This is jus soli --
the law of soil.  The U.S. Constitution
and treaties enacted pursuant to it,
are as much the supreme Law of Arizona
as they are of any other soil under
the American flag.  It is NOT equivalent
to arresting her in Somalia, because 
Somalia is not a Union state.  There is
a world of difference between Arizona
(a Union state) and Somalia (not a Union state).
The Citizen's Arrest authority in Arizona law
is very clear, in my opinion.  I have probable
cause to charge her with murder in the first
degree of innocent children and, after you
see Rules of Engagement, you might consider
yourself eligible for this political action
as well.  Perhaps I should add that federal 
employees are bound by state law, as much as
the rest of us, as long as they are situated
inside the state zone.  The federal zone is
another story, because state law does not
operate inside that zone (by definition).

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 08:45 PM 7/5/97 -0600, you wrote:
>My doubts as to the feasibility of an Arizona resident effecting a 
>citizen's arrest on Janet Reno for the murders of the Branch Davidians 
>are based upon the fact that the crime occurred in the State of Texas, 
>not the State of Arizona.  Under the treaties you mention, arresting 
>her in Arizona would be the equivalent of arresting her in Somalia for 
>crimes committed in the United States.  I fail to see how Arizonans 
>have jurisdiction over the crime.
>-- Chris Meissen
>> Date:          Sat, 05 Jul 1997 13:36:08 -0700
>> 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
>> http://www.supremelaw.com
>> 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 
>> here.
>> /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 
>> >instance.
>> >
>> >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
>> > ***************************************************************
>> >
>> >
>-- Chris Meissen
> --------------------------------------------------------
>"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety.
>Having made it very difficult for States and localities
>to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with
>no choice but to protect themselves as best they can,
>they now try to take our guns away.  In fact they blame us
>and our guns for crime.  This is so wrong that it cannot be
>an honest mistake."
>                 --former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

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 3.0.3 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