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 rates. 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. > >YOU ARE SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT. > >1) Whose care are you in? In other words, WHY are you using >'c/o'?? 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 answer. > >2) 'general delivery' can ONLY be had at your local main >post office, NOT AT A STREET ADDRESS. When you do this you >are SHAMMING YOUR PROCESS. 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 >PLEASE. 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 >ANY COURT, NOR IS ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS. 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. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com > >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 http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== 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