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>

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

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