Time: Wed Jul 23 12:57:50 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA09321
for [address in tool bar]; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:57:28 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24214;
Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:57:09 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:56:36 -0700
To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Got the paperwork [corrected]!!
Cc: [address in tool bar]
Karl,
These are cumulative messages,
so you will see all prior messages
in each succeeding one.
They want to prohibit you from
obtaining the discovery you have
requested. When you attempt
standard discovery, they can
stop same, under FRCP Rule 26(c);
however, under FOIA, you do not
have to demonstrate relevance or
materiality, and FOIA requests
are not subject to discovery rules.
If the document(s) exist(s), you
have a right to them.
So, let's get some FOIA requests going,
quickly, and demand mandatory
judicial notice of same, pursuant
to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules
of Evidence; "mandatory" means that
the court has no discretion, short of
a Motion to Strike by the other party(s).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
Karl,
Another quick set of FOIA requests
would be to request the official
credentials of every government
employee who has touched the case.
I would begin with the DOJ attorneys
who have filed pleadings, whether
or not they have signed them.
This will invoke the DCUS, and
sue out the oaths of office, which
make explicit reference to the
Constitution of the United States.
Add to those the IRS agent(s),
especially the one you sued.
They are all subject to the FOIA.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
Karl,
Correction to what follows:
I failed to see your DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL,
so some of what I have written below is
in error (but not much). Given that you
have already demanded a jury trial, we
can move the court right away for an
indefinite stay of proceedings. Sorry
about this oversight of mine: I was
reading too fast, in order to accomplish
a lot for you in a short period of time.
Haste makes waste! My thinking, in short,
was that you cannot get declaratory relief,
with or without a jury, when the subject
matter is 2201; so, we need to find a
declaration which the jury can make for you,
without violating the bar in 2201 against
declaratory relief in tax matters.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
Karl,
I got the package. When do you leave?
I want to do several things right away:
1. get your permission to use $25 of the retainer
to send you Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF; DOJ has,
evidently, fallen silent and defaulted upon their
deadline to file a REPLY BRIEF; we are trying to
confirm this right now; if they have defaulted,
this is EXTREMELY significant, because their
silence means consent, at this stage in that case.
2. get your permission to print and deliver to you,
at your vacation site, some of the pleadings which
we filed in U.S.A. [sic] v. Knudson. This will
allow you to understand your options at this stage.
3. persuade you to consider setting a jury trial as
one of your several goals; this will allow your
goals to mesh with ours, because we have attacked
the Jury Selection and Service Act on behalf of
all state Citizens. The procedure would be to
demand a jury trial (something which you failed <---- ERROR HERE
to do in your original complaint); see FRCP Rule 38 <---- ERROR HERE
for the rule about waiver of that Right. <---- ERROR HERE
4. however, tempering #3 is the fact that we have found
the statute which grants authority to the U.S. Supreme
Court to promulgate rules for the USDC (the court you
are in), but said statute does not mention the DCUS
(the court you want to be in). So, begin by reading
"Karma and the Federal Courts" in the Supreme Law Library
at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com, and you will see
exactly what I mean.
5. get you to consider filing some key FOIA requests, the
answers to which we already know (you will learn this
from Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF). The first FOIA request
which they fail to answer (because they CAN'T!) will invoke
the DCUS, the court in which you want to be in the first
place.
6. Your complaint failed to specify the statute which grants
subject matter jurisdiction to the USDC; your complaint
is fatally defective for this reason, until remedied
timely. I have not reviewed any briefs by the Defendants
in your case. The subject matter jurisdiction of the USDC
is strictly dictated by grants of authority by Congress --
no Act of Congress, no subject matter jurisdiction. The
Knudson briefs show you how to determine whether or not
subject matter jurisdiction exists in the first instance.
7. We are developing a nationwide strategy to challenge the
Jury Selection and Service Act in all federal Circuit
Courts of Appeal. In light of this goal of the Supreme
Law Firm, we are looking for cases like yours which can
be steered onto a similar course. Pennsylvania is the
Third Circuit, and we do not have a JSSA challenge
pending in the Third Circuit as yet; your case would
be an excellent opportunity to bring this challenge,
but you and I would need to negotiate a "mesh" of our
respective strategies. If you will consent to working
towards a mesh, we can donate some time to helping your
case along in that direction, but we cannot do all the
work pro bono. So, we need to strike a bargain in this
regard.
8. 28 U.S.C. 2201 (Declaratory Judgments Act) bars federal
courts from issuing declaratory relief when the subject
matter is federal income taxes; you may have compromised
your procedural remedies by requesting, or implying,
any such relief. Under 2201, given that citizenship is
a political status which you can freely choose (federal
or state citizenship), the court is precluded from issuing
any declaratory relief on this subject matter either,
due to the fundamental nature of the First Amendment and
the Right of Election. So, you will never get lawful relief
from any federal court, if this is what you are trying to
do. A simple declaration, under penalty of perjury, should
suffice, as long as you are willing to run the risk of a
perjury charge. Do you understand this?
9. Your original complaint also failed to request an award of
actual damages. Without actual damages, there can be no
consequential damages, because nothing causes nothing.
Similarly, "punitive" damages are a moot question if there
have been no actual damages. Lastly, in civil cases, it is
more proper to request "exemplary damages" instead of
"punitive" damages, but this is a semantic error which
you can correct with a clerical update motion.
10. I would do this immediately: NOTICE the court that you have
erred by requesting relief from the wrong federal court;
incorporate the Gilbertson OPENING BRIEF via Mandatory
Judicial Notice (Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence);
file your FOIA request, and then request a STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
pending discovery of documents requested under FOIA; then,
NOTICE the court of your intent to compel discovery of the
documents requested under FOIA, but in the District Court
of the United States ("DCUS"), NOT the USDC, and of your
intent to get declaratory relief from a competent and
qualified jury in the DCUS. Once this foundation is set,
then you can stay the DCUS proceeding, pending final review
of the JSSA challenge, which you will file timely. This
will set the stage for the Third Circuit to rule on the
JSSA challenge, and our goals will be meshing perfectly.
I got all that from your original Complaint, but remember that
I have not read anything else. I wanted to give you the best
return on your partial retainer.
Please let me know where I can send you overnight delivery,
while you are on vacation.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message asap,
even if you don't say anything else except: "Got it!"
Thanks, Karl. I will look forward to working with you.
My office telephone is:
(520) 320-1514 (answering machine)
fax is:
(520) 320-1256
(24-hour dedicated thermal paper fax machine)
I am standing by.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 12:57 PM 7/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>FYI, today (as I am about to leave town), I have mail from the court,
>observing that defendants have filed motion to dismiss with supporting
>brief, and as a result I have until August 8 to respond.
>
>Materials were sent your way via UPS next-day, about an hour ago. You
>should receive the package by 10:30am.
>
>--karl
>
>
========================================================================
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