Time: Fri Aug 01 21:56:30 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20872;
Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:56:44 -0700 (MST)
id AAA15022; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:51:38 -0400 (EDT)
id AAA02240; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:10:44 -0400 (EDT)
id AA18793; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:09:25 -0400
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: SNET: The Freeman Tentacle (was "Paul Mitchell's letter to Randy
Parsons")
References: <tcppop3.456852@azi.com>
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
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/
>
>
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail