Time: Wed Sep 03 16:52:07 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA15561;
	Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:51:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 16:59:54 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: SLS: MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION

Dear Clients,

Karl Kleinpaste and I have an update to 
share with you, at URL:

  http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/govt/lawsuit/


Go to the latest document in Karl's on-line docket:

  MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION, filed 9/3/97


Her is a summary of the argument:


Mr. Clarke, alleging to be the U.S. Attorney representing
all named defendants, has not produced credentials.

Therefore:

1.  He does not occupy the office of United States Attorney;

2.  As a result of 1, he cannot represent Defendant United States;

3.  Even if he had proven he lawfully occupies the office
    of the United States Attorney, said office has never
    been granted Power of Attorney to represent Defendant IRS,
    by Act of Congress;

4.  Similarly, even if he had proven he occupies said office,
    it has never been granted Power of Attorney to represent
    private litigants like Defendant Chafin;

5.  IRS is not a department, bureau, or organization within
    the United States Department of the Treasury, so the
    statutes which Clarke has cited, grant no Power of Attorney
    to the office of United States Attorney to represent IRS.


Therefore, none of the named defendants, including the
United States, the Internal Revenue Service, and Mr. Chafin,
has yet made ANY proper appearances, setting the stage for 
a default judgment.  

However, Plaintiff Kleinpaste is now insisting that a
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS is proper, pending discovery of
documents requested under the FOIA, or formal admission
that the requested documents do not, in fact, exist.

Failure to take the requisite oath of office is grounds
for ouster via Quo Warranto;  see Gilbertson's OPENING
BRIEF for a thorough exposition of this legal history.
Silence also activates estoppel by acquiescence, pursuant
to Carmine v. Bowen.

Plaintiff Kleinpaste has now provided the USDC with ample legal 
justification for permitting a FOIA suit to proceed in the DCUS,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), and the transfer statute
at 28 U.S.C. 1631.

Hang on to your hats!

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com

copy:  Supreme Law School

========================================================================
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 toolbar]        : 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