Time: Fri Aug 22 10:38:47 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA02003;
	Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:14:03 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:13:54 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLF: demand to Morrison & Heckler, Phoenix

>Subject: SLF: demand to Morrison & Heckler
>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>TO:       John Oppedahl, CEO, Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
>          and
>          Frank G. Long, Unregistered Foreign Agent
>          Morrison & Hecker, L.L.P., Attorneys at Law
>          2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
>          Phoenix 85004-1047/tdc
>          ARIZONA STATE
>          tel: (602) 279-1600
>          fax: (602) 240-6925
>FROM:     Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>          Counselor at Law
>DATE:     August 21, 1997
>SUBJECT:  Please Turn Off the Pressure!
>Dear Frank:
>I have  received your fax communication yesterday.  I honestly do
>not agree  with you  when you  say that  it is "essential" that I
>sign your  proposed Settlement  Agreement by  Friday  noon  (i.e.
>tomorrow).   Since I  have not  even read  it, I  am not  in  any
>position to  cite provisions  which justify  such  haste.    Your
>"deadline" is artificial and contrived, at best.
>You are  quite wrong  to conclude  that I  am not  serious  about
>resolving our  "dispute" amicably.    On  the  contrary,  I  have
>already gone  way out  of my way to explain our situation, and to
>take steps  to ensure  that your position is also recognized.  If
>what you say is true (and it is not true), I would not have taken
>the initiative  to begin  editing our  huge database  in honor of
>your request.
>I fail  to see where such excessive pressure tactics are going to
>get you  what you want, unless there is, indeed, some real hidden
>agenda grounding your intentions.
>What are your true and complete intentions, Mr. Long?
>Is it the original Thirteenth Amendment?
>Is it the all important difference between the USDC and the DCUS?
>Are you,  in fact,  colluding with staff of the federal judiciary
>in Phoenix  and/or Tucson,  and with  the Pima  County  Attorneys
>office in  Tucson, to  impede, halt,  obstruct, or compromise the
>services we are obligated to deliver to our clients?
>If you  are, then  you may  be putting  yourself in a position of
>liability for  obstructing justice.  But, as a licensed attorney,
>you don't need me to be telling you these things, do you?
>I can  honestly say  to  you  that  I  have  already  made  major
>commitments to  more than  one client,  to complete their work as
>soon as  possible, and  hopefully before  the end of the business
>day on  Friday (tomorrow).   In light of their paramount needs, I
>worked all  last weekend  on the  editing which  I  have  already
>described to you.  This good faith on my part is, evidently, just
>not enough for you.  This saddens me deeply.
>If you  persist in  pressuring  me  in  the  way  that  you  have
>yesterday, I  would have to regard such pressure as an attempt by
>you deliberately to impede the delivery of essential professional
>services to clients who are facing imminent incarceration, by the
>same hostile  federal judiciary  with  which  you  appear  to  be
>colluding and  conspiring.  Is this only an appearance, Mr. Long,
>or are  you in  fact colluding with the offices of Mr. Richard H.
>Weare in  Phoenix and  Tucson, and  with the  office of  the Pima
>County Attorney in Tucson?
>You do  not have  any right to impair the obligations of my prior
>contracts, in  particular  because  all  licensed  attorneys,  as
>officers of  the courts  in which  they are admitted to practice,
>must be  able to  demonstrate that  they have  taken an  oath  to
>support the  U.S. Constitution.   Have  you?   I have no contract
>with you  or Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., verbal or written, at this
>point in time;  and, furthermore, if you do not immediately begin
>to demonstrate  at least a gram of professional consideration for
>my prior commitments and obligations, I will take your refusal in
>this regard as seriously as possible.
>My clients  have a  fundamental Right to counsel of their choice,
>under the Sixth Amendment, and you now given me cause to conclude
>that you  are more  than willing  to interfere with my priorities
>and obligations  to these  clients.  This is a violation of their
>fundamental right  to effective  assistance of  Counsel  and,  as
>such, it  constitutes probable cause to charge you with violating
>18 U.S.C. 242 -- deprivation of fundamental Rights under color of
>law --  and possibly  also 18 U.S.C. 241 -- conspiracy to deprive
>fundamental Rights.   This  is a fair gentleman's warning to you,
>Mr. Long.
>Since you have failed to demonstrate any specific reason why your
>artificial deadline  warrants a  total upheaval in my crowded and
>pressing  schedule,  I  must  politely  demand  hereby  that  you
>immediately cease  and desist  any further  pressure tactics.   I
>think you know exactly what I am talking about here.  I certainly
>hope that you don't make a habit of such unethical behavior.
>If you  do not  understand exactly  what I am talking about here,
>please advise  in writing,  and I  will elaborate in excruciating
>detail, but  only after my other pressing obligations are met, in
>a timely and professional manner.
>I will look forward to your immediate cooperation in this regard.
>Please fax me evidence of your oath of office, no later than noon
>on Monday  next (August  25, 1997).   That  gives you  the  whole
>weekend to locate it.  If you do not, I will proceed on the basis
>of probable  cause that you are not who you say you are, and that
>you fully  intend to  continue,  and  to  foster,  a  program  of
>intentional  harassment,   misrepresentation,   and   retaliation
>against a  known federal  witness, in deliberate and premeditated
>violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 & 1513.  Again, you have been warned.
>Thank you  for obeying  American Law  never repealed.   I  really
>don't want  to fight  with you,  Mr. Long,  but I will fight if I
>must and if you give me no other alternative.
>Sincerely yours,
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>Counselor at Law and federal witness
>c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
>Tucson 85719/tdc
>ARIZONA STATE (See USPS Publication #221.)
>email:       pmitch@primenet.com (586/Eudora Pro 3.0.3(16):
>             preferred, to conserve all resources)
>phone:       (520) 320-1514 (private line:
>             please get permission to disclose)
>fax machine: (520) 320-1256 (dedicated hard copy:
>             available 24-hours per day or night)
>fax modem:   (520) 320-1513 (switched fax/modem:
>             use when fax machine is busy/no answer)
>website:     http://www.supremelaw.com
>copies:  Better Business Bureau of Phoenix, Arizona
>         State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona
>                             #  #  #

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