Time: Sat Aug 02 06:48:45 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA02042; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 06:46:47 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA03652; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 06:45:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 06:44:54 -0700 To: Timothy Lee Richardson <timr@efn.org> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Gary Hunt, FBI Informant References: <tcppop3.456852@azi.com> <3.0.3.16.19970801210414.2d3718c0@pop.primenet.com> Hi Tim, I thought so. The 3CC crowd tried to get me to ride to Kansas City with him. I told the organizer that he had failed to provide for my security, and after 3 attempts, I stopped trying to explain it to him. Then, Hunt told me he was coming to Tucson to visit his relative, and he wanted directions to the train station. I did not respond to this request. On the theory that he would not be able to sustain his cover, I played it very cool and just did what I have been doing for many years now. Finally, Hunt couldn't take it any more, and he played his hand. It was fairly easy this time, actually. Thanks for the confirmation. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 12:37 AM 8/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >Paul -- >Gary Hunt -- known FBI informant... albeit one of the "better ones" as >you mention in your post. > > >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> 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/ >> > >> > > > > >-- > "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what > laws are constitutional, and what not,... would make the judiciary > a despotic branch." Thomas Jefferson > > "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed > and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks > that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has > nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about > more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no > chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of > better men than himself." Anonymous. Seen on a poster at a gun > show. > > timr@efn.org > (541) 895-4417 - Voice > (541) 895-4681 - FAX > > > > ======================================================================== 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