Time: Fri Aug 01 21:11:29 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04666; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:07:44 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA05083; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:05:02 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:04:14 -0700 To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: The Freeman Tentacle (was "Paul Mitchell's letter to Randy Parsons") References: <tcppop3.456852@azi.com> Parsons and company have had plenty of time to rebut the statements I have presented to them, privately. The serious problem that has now developed is that these "warrants," which people were encouraged to tender, have entered the electronic world, where they attach themselves to all kinds of accounts and other records. By the time these electronic dossiers return to their resting place, in the downtown offices of DOJ (federal building in Los Angeles, for example), the property conversion racket inside DOJ has their pick of properties to hit, and force into foreclosure and/or forfeiture. Now, having discovered these interconnections throughout DOJ, particularly by tracing the recent history after Inslaw was raided, it is no surprise that I would be villified for exposing what I know. "Ambulance chasing" sounds like ad hominem argumentation to me, if that. Never mind that I was the one who wrote and financed People v. United States, in Garfield county court, which may have contributed to saving the lives of all 20 prisoners. That case made some very important judicial history, by formally establishing the all important distinction between the United States District Court, and the District Court of the United States. Why is it, then, that LeRoy and his associates failed to avail themselves of the judicial remedies which were being readied for their invocation, in the DCUS? My work on behalf of their defense was inexplicably "interrupted," (I am being kind here), just as it was in the cases of U.S.A. v. Wallen, U.S.A. v. Looker, and State v. Kemp. In Wallen's case, her papers were docketed by Judge Alex Kozinski as a proper Mandamus before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, when, quite suddenly, she was conveniently persuaded to believe a vicious lie that I am some kind of government agent. Looker commissioned over $7,000 worth of pleadings, signed and dated them, and then served them. Now, he has decided to jettison every last one of those pleadings. Kemp's case was shaping up perfectly. I fully expected the federal judiciary to deflect his case back to state court. When that happened, I was entirely ready to pull out the stops and make important case law on Mike's behalf, by invoking the specific reservations which Congress attached to two human Rights treaties which are supreme Law, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Our Habeas Corpus expert was coming on line with this strategy, and all trajectories were being correctly aimed at the Alabama Supreme Court -- one of the few state supreme courts to rule, many years ago, that there are two classes of citizenship. See Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). Now, all this nonsense you people are loading onto the Internet, in vast quantities, is clearly calculated to distract the People of America from the strategic thrust which we have already accomplished -- by simultaneously decoding Titles 26 and 28, we have created an unprecedented array of irrebutable challenges to the insufficiency of federal colorable "authority" [sic] within the several states. The historical links of IRS to Trust #62 in Puerto Rico are only one very important example, but there are many others. Just compare 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and (c): remedies for racketeering ("RICO"). The death knell for the IRS will be full disclosure of the fraudulent contracts which each of the Union states has entered with the IRS; the definitions within these contracts clearly state that IRS is "U.S. Department of the Treasury", but this is a verifiable lie, because you only need to read Title 31 to verify that the IRS is just not in there. Have you noticed how the IRS has removed "Department of the Treasury" from the envelopes they use to mail their out their fraudulent notices? Now, THAT's progress! This leads me to the most important point which I want to make here. There IS a property conversion racket within the Department of Justice, and they are using warrants and sophisticated computer software, based on PROMIS (modified extensively), to assist their premeditated targeting of assets which they force into forfeiture. Until you understand the details of this racket, you will not be able to confirm what I am trying to tell you here. I have worked inside the banking world, and you cannot have this experience without also knowing, full well, how much money the banking industry has invested collectively in very high-powered computer systems, and networks of systems. Are you not surprised, then, to discover that the federal judge assigned to the Inslaw case was bribed to scuttle that case? Which are the largest buildings in the downtown centers of every major metropolitan area in America? Banks!! So, you can flood the Internet with your ad hominems, and your grand hypotheses about ambulance chasers, and other such rubbish, or you can face the facts and get down to work. It hit me right behind the eyes when I sat down at the back table at one of Elizabeth Broderick's weekend seminars. Everyone at that table was speaking Spanish, and nobody understood any English. Imagine their surprise when I stood up 20 minutes later, and addressed the entire room of 500 people for 2 hours, without notes. When I sat back down in the same seat, at the same table, everybody there was looking at the floor; nobody would make any eye contact with me. They were there to discharge their debts -- credit cards, car loans, home loans, IRS bills, you name it. These people were living in third-world ghettos within the Los Angeles metropolitan basin, an area where I spent my entire childhood, and a good part of my early adulthood (M.S. from U.C. Irvine, B.A. from UCLA). Their real properties are ripe for a sophisticated property conversion racket, with Elizabeth Broderick out in front, passing out bogus commercial paper. Her "lien" against the County of Orange was stamped "U S CRIMINAL COURT" [sic], and that so-called "perfected lien" was NOT listed among the secured creditors in Orange County's bankruptcy file. Check it for yourself. I know this, because I dispatched two of her brightest lieutenants to visit the Clerk of the O.C. bankruptcy court, and pull the official list of secured creditors. That was the last I ever saw of those two people. Her front men in Tucson were telling me that her lien had been perfected. She no more "precipitated" that bankruptcy than the Man in the Moon. It was no wonder that, when I started asking questions about these "delicate" subjects, her colleagues loaned me a car with severely tampered front brakes; when that didn't work, they gutted the legal office which her Manager ostensibly tried to assist me in setting up, in Colton. After returning from an important hearing on the grand jury subpoena to the Arizona trust I was also defending, I returned to a Colton condominium which had nothing but carpeting left: two computers, a new Canon laser printer, a multi-function HP OfficeJet, modems, and all the files which I had assembled in two lateral files -- ALL of it was completely missing, and the thief tried to extort its return by placing a $7,000 ransom on all that equipment. His claim was that Broderick's Manager had not paid him; but, this guy wasn't worth a ditch digger, because I watched him fumble with law books at the county law library. It was pathetic. Anyway, I am delighted that the government is throwing the "better" agents at me now, because at least this new wave has a few brains. The only problem they have now is that we have out-flanked them, because we have some immensely far-reaching issues now before the 8th and 2nd Circuit Courts of Appeal. No matter what those courts decide to do with these cases, the truth is going to be told, sooner or later, because the Internet is expanding much faster than Congress can regulate it, or even catch up with it. Just read the mathematical appendix to the first book on PGP. If you need help with the math, get it. If you are in doubt, just expand your key to 1,024 bits; each additional bit doubles the complexity of the decryption task. Our Congress is still trying to figure out the difference between the state zone and the federal zone. They are attorneys, remember? To "attorn" is to supervise the transfer of an estate from the "old lord" to the "new lord"; it is a term from feudal (read "federal") law. This story IS going to be told, sooner than you think. The "United States" is now a criminal enterprise; their modus operandi is perjury and extortion. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 07:28 PM 8/1/97 -0700, you wrote: >First: Regarding the "retainer" that has been mentioned so many times on >this board, I would like to comment. > > "The act of a client by which he engages the services of a lawyer, >counselor, or advisor." > > Now, Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. Without a retainer, there is no >contract. You might say that the retainer is the consummation of a >relationship in which one acts for, or on behalf, of another. > > In my experience, in the absence of a written contract creating the >relationship, the retainer allows the relationship to exist, and creates >a power of attorney to justify that relationship (to contract with >oneself in the name of another). > > Next, an observation -- it appears that you solicit work in a manner >that might best be described as ambulance chasing. > > Further, you have gone public so often with the privileged information >that should be a matter between you and your client, that I wonder what >you might divulge should you ever represent me. I would fear that, >should you become disenchanted with our relationship, for failure to >follow your advise, or timely pay of any (ANY) obligation, perceived or >real, that you would disclose to the world the issue, as perceived by >you. Perhaps, as a "counselor at law", you realize that civil claims are >best resolved in a court, not in a public forum. > > Then there is the matter of the ad hominum nature of your attacks on >Parsons and many others. This sort of attack is the bane of the patriot >community. Attacks on individuals serve the government far more than our >cause. > > Might I suggest a solution? Attorneys at law (I realize that you do >not style yourself as one of these, in name) are known for the greed. >Receiving a fee, regardless of the outcome of a trial is an immoral >disgrace. The Founders, at least those who practiced law, were >prohibited from collecting a fee for a criminal defense. Perhaps there >was an appreciation that an accusation should not result in a financial >burden, and, if convicted, there was legal recourse that imposed the >burden. > > I'm sure that you are unable to sustain yourself under this sort of >circumstance, so, perhaps, an alternative might be in order. >Understanding, through your own admission, that you would prevail in all >of the cases I have read about, a contingency might be in order. When >you prevail in a case, you receive a pre-determined fee for the services >rendered. Of course, you would not be expected to bear any costs. Those, >properly, should be on the accused. Perhaps it would be a struggle for >you to maintain your lifestyle through the course of the first case, >but, should you establish a fee commensurate with your ability >(professed), you should be well funded come the second case, and well >reputed. After all, any business, successful, or otherwise, requires an >initial capital investment. Success, however, is most surely yours. > > A code of conduct might also be in order. The privileged nature of the >relationship must be addressed. We, here, in the world of American >oppression care not the details of disputes between client and >counselor, nor of proclamations of means to achieve acquittal. What we >wish to hear is the means of success, once success has been achieved. >This would leave you considerably more time to devote to your pending >cases, and less frivolous matters on the list. >Respectfully, > > >-- >Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom >"when the government is pointing its guns in the wrong direction!" >mailto:opf@azi.com >mail-list mailto:outpostoffreedom@azi.com [SUBSCRIBE] in <subject> >homepage begins at: http://www.azi.com/opf > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe, email >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: > subscribe ignition-point > or > unsubscribe ignition-point > http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail