Time: Sat Aug 30 17:35:09 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28955;
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:29:25 -0700 (MST)
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05235;
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:27:39 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:26:02 -0700
To: ocs@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Councillors At Law vs. Lawyers/Attorneys
References: <3.0.3.16.19970830101652.3d8fbf22@pop.primenet.com>
Have you seen the definition of "Counsellor at Law"
in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)?
We have a comprehensive brief on this subject,
which we scanned and then embellished, from
some materials which a client gave to me
last year. The problem stems, in part,
from the meaning of "represent", which breaks
down to "re-present". Only someone else can
"re-present" you, because only you can "present"
yourself. The Sixth Amendment is the key
authority, because people who "present" themselves
are, of course, entitled by fundamental Right to
have assistance of Counsel. This means that you
have the Right to turn to your Counsel, at any time,
and obtain counsel, even if it takes a long time
to get that counsel. Courts are for deliberating,
and they have been very successful at "rushing"
litigants, in order to defeat the positive effects
of proceeding slowly and deliberately. I told a
federal judge in California once that it was impossible
for me to appear by my "representative", because I had
never authorized anyone else to appear in my place,
and it was patently impossible for me to "re-present"
myself, because such could only be done by someone else!
For this reason, his ORDER was impossible to obey.
Lex non cogit impossibilia. For reasons which he
never explained, he dismissed the case, quietly,
I might add. The pleading I submitted will soon be
in the Supreme Law Library.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 04:20 PM 8/30/97 PST, you wrote:
>Hi Paul;
>
>Got a question for you. On one of the lists I subscribe to, one guy brought
>up the point that _only_ those representing themselves could take advantage
>of the fifth Amendment Right not to incriminate themselves, and that those
>represented by an Attorney could not, citing U.S. vs. JOHNSON 76 F Supp 538:
>
>"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive
>resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his Rights, nor to one
>indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained
>only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor.
>It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerant claimant in person."
>
>The original poster maintained that representing oneself was the only sure
>way to retain ones Rights, and another person brought up the point about
>"having a fool for a client", and "Councillors not being a traditional
>role", in Court. I maintained that they _were_ a traditional role, but that
>the reason they weren't seen more often probably had to do more with the
>rules concerning fees charged and who got to keep the big bucks than any
>other reason.
>
>Can you shed any light on this?
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! *****
>____________________________________________________________________________
>An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep
>weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your
>hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder
>on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
========================================================================
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