Time: Sat Jul 26 08:19:51 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA00486;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:20:14 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA13755;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:17:43 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:17:08 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Mitchell v. Nordbrock: juror/voter registrant challenge

I am forcing the question,
because they are not telling us 
the truth about the USPS.  I know
this to be true, because of what
happened in the Kemp case. 

For example, compare CPI with
the historical changes in postal

Charles, sometimes you jump to 
conclusions, and criticisms,
when they are unwarranted.

I often drop a "zinger" into a 
pleading, as a way of inviting
the other side out of their corner.
If "c/o" is shooting myself in 
the foot, where is the bullet,
and who fired the gun?  I certainly
did not.

I am entitled to know, because
I certainly did not shoot myself
in the foot.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 08:40 AM 7/26/97 -0000, you wrote:
>pmitch@primenet.com said on 7/25/97 6:29 PM:
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
>>Citizen of Arizona state
>>c/o General Delivery at:
>>2509 North Campbell Avenue
>>Tucson, Arizona state
>>In Propria Persona
>>All Rights Reserved
>>Without Prejudice
>Paul, Paul, Paul.
>I have told you numerous times, but you seem to just want
>to ignore my warnings.

Yes, I am ignoring them, because you often
fail to cite any authorities for your 
opinions.  If you are a judge, you have
failed to say so.  You are not Congress, 
are you?  So, your opinions are just that:
opinions -- with no authority whatsoever.

So, I SHOULD ignore them, because they are
just wild geese, and I am no longer interested
in chasing them, no matter whose insignia
they are flying.

>1) Whose care are you in? In other words, WHY are you using

For several reasons, most of which
are discussed above.

The answer to your question would
involve a violation of my fundamental
Right to privacy.

I do hope you are not offended by this

>2) 'general delivery' can ONLY be had at your local main
>post office, NOT AT A STREET ADDRESS. When you do this you

Let's have some litigation about this.
Without authorities, Charles, your
opinion is no better, and no worse,
than anyone else's.  

Do you see what I am saying to you here?

You have a habit of writing what appear
to be "authoritative" statements, but
you rarely back them up.  This renders
them no more than your personal opinions.

As such, they will not fly in a court,
except to constitute exercises of your
First Amendment Rights.

>3) Reserving Rights is a COMMERCIAL venue...if you want to
>EXCEPT your existing rights, thats fine, but reservation
>of rights only applies to rights that were CREATED by virtue
>of some commercial contract/agreement...rights that DID NOT
>EXIST before the contract/agreement. Research these points

I strongly disagree.  I am not citing 
the UCC, and even if I were, there is
a way to explain away the "commercial"
problem you raise here.  See the
commerce clause for initial proof.

For more proof, see the extensive writings
of Howard Freedom, one of which is
available in the Supreme Law School:
"The Two United States and the Law".

>4) 'Without Prejudice' also shams your process

Authority, please?

Again, you cite no authority, just your 
own opinion.  

So, I do strongly disagree.

You are really wasting my time with
such statements, because you do not
support what you are asserting here.

This is not worthy of you, Charles.

I know you can do better.

...there are
>a few state supreme court cites that say that ANY document
>that uses with these words IS NOT ADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE IN

So, let's have the cites, Charles.
Even if they said that, they are
NOT U.S. Supreme Court cases, 
and by reserving all rights, I also
reserve my right to amend each and
every pleading nunc pro tunc, if
the court should find that the
words have the effect you state.

So far, not a single court has 
arrived at the point you make
above, nor have any other opposing
parties ever attempted to rebut these
pleadings with the argument you are
mnaking, so I do believe that my 
experience in state and federal 
courts totally belies the point you
are trying to make here.

I submit Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF
as proof.  The opposing parties have
an obligation to raise these questions,
with authorities, if they are controlling.

You also seem to forget that, if a 
"mistake" is found, it can be easily
corrected nunc pro tunc, under authority
of Haines v. Kerner.  So, even if a mistake
has been made, and I am not convinced that
there has been a mistake, the rules allow
mistakes to be corrected.

So, in the future, please do all of us
the courtesy of citing authorities for
your points.  Without authorities,
you are not contributing anything to
the debate, except your opinion, which 
I would value a whole lot more if it
were backed up.  To illustrate, the Maine
case that you were extolling so frequently
in recent months, completely supports
the Right of Election.  Does that mean
nothing to you?  Are you satisfied to be
nit-picking my pleadings to death, when
you have missed the barn door?

Really, Charles!!!

I reserve my right to define "all rights
reserved" any way I want.

Get my drift?

Substance ALWAYS prevails over form.


/s/ Paul Mitchell

>Now, do what you will...but your use of a street address is
>prima facie evidence of your being a resident and a U.S. citizen.

Authority please.

The "street address" [sic] we are using
is a U.S. Postal Substation, and
there is more than one of those
substations in that particular ZIP code 
and city.  

Again, catch my drift?

In the future, please don't expect me
to respond to your posts, if you fail
to cite appropriate authorities.
In other words, you can EXPECT me to
ignore them, if you fail to do so.

At this stage in the game, I think it 
is only fair that I tell you that,
because my time has become rather
valuable, and nit-picking distractions
are a total waste of my time.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

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