Time: Fri Aug 08 15:46:59 1997
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA21297;
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:16:17 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 13:15:11 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Habeas Corpus - FORMS
Cc: Dale Robertson <habeascorpus@hotmail.com>
Many thanks to Dale Robertson for
being so generous here with necessary
forms for the THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. We are all
indebted to you, Dale, for your
kindness and consideration to share
these files with Us here.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
attachments
<snip>
>
>TO: LLAW - COUNSELLORS ALL - & 275 OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS
>FROM: DALE ROBERTSON
>SUBJECT: HABEAS CORPUS
>DATE: FRIDAY, 8 AUG 97 @ 13:00 CDT
>
>Recently the list has been in lively discussion of the Great Writ of
>Habeas Corpus - or - as I prefer to refer to it as THE MOST
>EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
>
>Some members have been inquiring as to format and content of a typical
>habeas action. I have had the privilege to write and employ a few of
>these writs of habeas corpus over the last 20 years or so and I am happy
>to submit to the list a sample of a recent writ (one of some 15 this
>year so far) which was successfully deployed earlier this year in
>Dallas, Texas.
>
>However, I have added comment about the attached files containing the
>actual pleading form used, and I would like to impose on the reader of
>this somewhat loquacious post some added editorial/explanatory
>commentary at this time.
>
>There has been much comment on this list as to the wisdom of using
>common law or statutory law (or other) procedure in employing habeas
>actions to relieve someone of a restraint on their liberty. Because of
>my experience and its seeming exclusive and successful employment in the
>State of Texas of the statutory habeas procedures, I am from that
>experience alone biased toward the statutory choice of procedure. It
>works - a bunch of folks got out of jail - - OK? This is by no means
>any expression of disparagement toward the common law.
>
>I am quick to say that because Texas is one of the few states in which
>the right of the common law writ has been very carefully preserved at
>the constitutional level. Further, Texas is the only state in which the
>writ of habeas corpus has been elevated to constitutional prerogative
>and at the same time empowered with such boilerplate enduring language
>which was and is intended to NEVER allow the suspension of the writ
>under any circumstance. As most of you know, the US const. Art. 1/9/2
>states that the writ shall not be suspended except in the case of
>rebellion or invasion or until the president or congress says so. As you
>will recall, President Lincoln conceded to his Generals in the Civil War
>the suspension of the writ by executive order - arising from the civil
>disturbances of the civilian population of Baltimore Maryland sniping at
>and generally firing on Union troops marching south to the raging
>conflicts of the civil war in 1861/2. And, I add, the local police
>refused to enforce Union instigated process against its citizens who
>fired on Union Troops.
>
>As noted, and as is generally known, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was
>suspended by President Lincoln during the civil war. Chief Justice
>Roger Tanney, in the case of Ex parte Merryman (See: Ex parte Merryman,
>17 Fed. Cas. No.9, 487, p.144 (1861)) strongly excepted suspension of
>Habeas Corpus by a sitting president and concluded that only the
>congress had the power of suspension under Article I Section 9, Clause 2
>of the federal constitution. The ruling, in Merryman, of the Supreme
>Court was apparently ignored by the President and the military during
>the civil war. Congress later, and belatedly, "authorized" the already
>presidential suspension of the writ in 1863. After 1863, and acting on
>congressional authorization, the military was permitted to "temporarily"
>hold people who were to be turned over to and adjudicated by the civil
>courts. After the assassination of President Lincoln, and in the case
>of Ex parte Milligan (See: Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18
>L.Ed. 281 (1866)) the United States Supreme Court granted the writ and
>once again established that only Congress had the power to suspend the
>Writ of Habeas Corpus and that the military had no jurisdiction over
>the trial of civilians in the post civil war South.
>
>It was in this tyrannical climate that Post Civil War reconstruction
>imposed its despotism on the farm and ranch folk of Texas. And when the
>Grangers-led convention in Austin Texas met to form their Post
>Reconstruction constitution they were in a decidedly anti-government
>mood.
>
>Let me remind the reader that Texas took back from the Union
>reconstructionist the state government by force of arms in The
>Coke-Davis affair. Coke-Davis affair refers to an armed confrontation
>between the lawfully elected Governor Coke and the Presidentially
>appointed reconstruction governor Davis. This event took place in the
>Capitol of the State of Texas at Austin Texas in 1874. The Austin
>Rifles, (so called after Stephen F. Austin, Commander of the San Antonio
>Garrison and Texas Hero who died at the Alamo in the spring of 1836) A
>company of Armed Texans imposed its will, authorized by the voters of
>the people of the state of Texas who had lawfully voted Coke over Davis
>as Governor of the state marched into the Capitol with, arms at ready,
>and forced Davis to vacate his office - literally. Davis was insistent
>that he was going to hang onto his reconstruction appointment as
>governor - but the people of Texas had a different preference it seems.
>And the Austin Rifles (The Texas armed Militia) was there to enforce the
>will of the people of Texas. When Davis pleaded for immediate
>reinforcements from then President U.S. Grant and from the War
>Department, he was advised via telegram that none would be sent. Absent
>the ability and in the fact of the voters overwhelming vote against him
>and in the face of the Austin Rifles overwhelming force of arms against
>him - literally at his door. Davis was on the second floor of the
>Capitol and the Texas Rifles had taken up offensive positions on the
>First floor. Texans took back their state government from the Union &
>Federal reconstruction government by force of arms. The Austin Rifles
>imposed on Federal Troops and Reconstruction Governor Davis, as was then
>reinforced by Uniformed and heavily armed Union troops as they squared
>off against the Austin Rifles inside the actual capital building of
>Texas at Austin Texas.
>
>Now the subject here is habeas corpus - but I paint this picture for the
>readers so as to let you know the attitude of Texans at the time when in
>post reconstruction Texas in 1876 they met in Constitutional Convention
>to Draft the Constitution that is still alive today. They were
>interested in the rights of citizens as opposed to the power of
>government and they were bell bent to write a constitution that
>reflected that experience and attitude.
>
>The anti government sentiment of the day did not want any semblance of
>suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. They had seen enough of that
>during the Civil was with their own eyes to last more than a lifetime.
>Had I time and ability here I would go on at length and reprint some of
>the actual debate on the floor of the convention. It is glorious and
>revealing as their strong and enduring anti-government commitments. In
>this atmosphere, the convention proceeded to do its work and when the
>issue of habeas corpus came to the floor they were hell bent on seeing
>to it that language was enshrined into the constitution which never
>(spell that N E V E R - - E V E R - - U N D E R A N Y C O
>N D I T I O N) that the great writ of habeas corpus would be subject to
>or actually suspended on the soil of Texas. Folks this is moving stuff
>here. It was and is still today totally unprecedented in any other
>English derivative system of law anywhere in the world..
>
>It was further in this atmosphere that the statutes of Texas were
>codified which are today virtually identical language to that enacted in
>late 1870's pursuant to the stringent constitution language as to habeas
>corpus. I, acting as a citizen, am empowered by express statutory
>authority to demand and get a writ of habeas corpus from any district
>judge in the county in which one is restrained of his liberty. That is
>I, me, a non attorney, unlicensed, and acting individually for myself or
>even a third party am empowered expressly by statute to obtain the Great
>Writ. Now, citizens in other states simply do not have this power aided
>by such sweeping state constitutional statutory language backed up by
>constitutional support as I have described here.
>
>So it is in this light that I proceed from time to time in drafting,
>signing, submitting, actually proceeding and frequently obtaining writs
>of habeas corpus from Texas Courts in all manner of cases arising from
>Traffic offenses - to contempt’s - to post judgment relief on cases
>which are by their nature post trial and appeal and in which the
>incarcerated awaits his ultimate and only remaining measure of relief
>via the Most Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus.
>
>Now finally, I say again, that I have nothing against the common law
>writ procedure at all. Its just that in the state of Texas that the
>statutory authority goes beyond the common law authority and grants
>powers and procedure which in the full sweep of common law history is
>unknown. And of course the common law writ of habeas corpus is alive
>and well in the state of Texas - I have never done one - but - I know
>that it is alive and well and awaits its employ when and as it may come
>to be needed. For authority on that point let me quote from statutory
>authority on point as follows:
>
>Quoted from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:
>
>"Article 1.27: COMMON LAW GOVERNS - "If this code fails to provide a
>rule of procedure in any particular state of case which may arise, the
>rules of the common law shall be applied and govern."
>
>So, it is the this circumstance that I choose to bask in the brilliance
>of the statutory authority voted into existence by the Granger led
>constitutional conventioneers in this state some 121 years ago in 1876.
>Others, in other states, may not be so blessed. Any they have my
>sympathy - but I choose to employ the statutory scheme for the reasons
>cited above.
>
>Lastly, let me make my final accolade/apology for the habeas corpus
>statutes in the state of Texas. Common sense would seem to dictate that
>when you ask for something from a person or body that you try to
>maintain some modicum of civility so as to curry favor - or - at least
>so as to avoid actual disfavor. Common sense - Yes? Well - it seem to me
>to be so! Accordingly, since my goal is to get the body back on the
>street and out of jail and since the court has the monopoly on power to
>do so - I must appeal to the court to assist me in my reaching goal. And
>I really don't want to piss him (da judge) off in the process - thank
>you. In fact I want to speak to him in language to which he is familiar
>- I want to rely on the constitution and statutes to which he has sworn
>- he will remember doing so - because I will ever so diplomatically
>remind him of it - "its called an oath of office, Judge". Further, I
>want to speak to the judge of the "DUTY" to which the statutes impose by
>express language on him. And to do so with such persuasion, force and
>experience that he is left with no possible alternative but disobedience
>to his oath except to grant the writ of habeas corpus which I
>request/demand. Now, I am not always successful - but much of the time I
>am successful.
>
>Attached is a example in which I was able to retrieve a 76 year young
>Christian School Teacher from the clutches of a deranged and demented
>County Judge's order of Contempt by appealing to the greater wisdom and
>sense of duty of a Criminal District Judge proceeding summarily and
>entirely in chambers on 10 February 97.
>
>In this light I am please to again submit the attached documents to
>those who have expressed interest in the Most Extraordinary Writ of
>Habeas Corpus:
>
>See Attached files as to the several documents I employ to obtain the
>writ and relief on it. I encourage you to plagiarize any or all of these
>documents.
>
>Constitutionally,
>
>Dale Robertson
>habeascorpus@hotmail.com
>
>Attachments to this e-mail in MS Word 7.0
>- - - If you are unable to extract the files - let me know via return
>e-mail and I'll repost in text e-mail format only.
>
>=============================================
>============================================
>Habeas Corpus.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>--====================987654321_0==_
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="APPLEAVE.doc"
>
>
>
>--====================987654321_0==_
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ORDER_GRANTING_LEAVE.doc"
>
>
>
>--====================987654321_0==_
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="_APPWRIT.doc"
>
>
>
>--====================987654321_0==_
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="DISCHG.doc"
>
>
>
>--====================987654321_0==_
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Order_Granting_Writ.doc"
>
>
>
>--====================987654321_0==_
>
>--====================987654321_0==_--
>
>
Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\APPLEAVE.doc"
Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\ORDER_G6"
Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\_APPWRIT.doc"
Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\DISCHG.doc"
Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\Order_G7"
========================================================================
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.]From ???@??? Fri Aug 08 15:47:53 1997
by pocari-sweat.jprc.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA20471;
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:41:56 -0400
To: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: Re: need confirmation
References: <3.0.3.16.19970808151431.40772156@pop5.ibm.net>
From: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
Date: 08 Aug 1997 16:41:55 -0400
Message-ID: <vxkd8no2yr0.fsf@pocari-sweat.jprc.com>
> When you have time, please confirm that the two pleadings, and the
> several FOIA requests, have been filed, and mailed.
Done, with clerk's timestamp at 3:03. FOIA Cc's to U.S. Attorneys
Thieman and Smolar were hand-delivered to their office in the same
building immediately following. All remaining papers were sent via
mail about 10 minutes later; the post office is part of the same
building. I sent R. Scott Clarke's copy certified, just 'cuz I'm a
paranoid so-and-so. All others, including yours, were sent via normal
mail. Less than $10 total postage.
Oh, it was observed in background chatter among the postal workers
there, that normal mail delivery times are suffering during the UPS
strike, 'cuz load has increased on USPS overnight support as people
shift there from their usual UPS habits. I don't know what
ramifications this may have, either on the m.o. I sent you Wednesday,
or how fast these other items sent today will reach destination.
The clerk said the court required only 1 copy of everything, oddly
enough. I went in with 2, but ended up with an extra stamped copy for
myself. Oh, yeah, they stamped the _back_ of the _last_ page (with my
signature on proof of service), rather than the front, which I thought
was odd, but didn't question.
I got 4 copies stamped: Yours, mine, Clarke's, and the court's. The
rest will have postal stamps on the envelopes, of course. (Yours and
Clarke's will have both.)
Last minor difficulty: The postal worker required me to look up postal
zones for all items (I used large manila envelopes for everything) in
order to compute postage. I used their zone lookup books and added
"xxxxx/TDC" to all. The `C' was particularly relevant since she
wouldn't deal with it until I had done the lookups.
Complete list of what was sent to whom:
Court, Clarke, Chafin, IRS General Counsel, you, me
1 copy of "the works" (complete motion and notice)
AG Disclosure
3 credential FOIAs (Clarke, Thieman, Smolar)
Thieman
1 Cc'd credential FOIA (himself)
Smolar
1 Cc'd credential FOIA (herself)
CIR Disclosure
1 Agreement FOIA
District Director
1 Cc'd Agreement FOIA
IRS Disclosure
2 credential FOIAs (Chafin, Rader)
Wendy Rader
1 Cc'd Agreement FOIA
1 Cc'd credential FOIA (herself)
Clarke and Chafin got their Cc'd FOIAs as part of the "works"
package.
A total of exactly 100 signatures written, BTW... I made 10 copies of
the works. 2 signatures/motion, 8 signatures/notice. My arm still
hurts. And by the time I was done, it doesn't look a whole lot like
my usual signature.
more fun than is probably
legal in Provo, Utah,
--karl
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail