Time: Sat Oct 11 12:00:40 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08465; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:00:36 -0700 (MST) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02681; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:56:37 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:55:51 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "A Profusion of Confusion," by Dale Robertson (fwd) Dear Clients and Friends, As you may already know, Dale Robertson is one of the most respected Habeas Corpus practitioners in the nation. I have had the very good fortune of working with him, very closely in the case of State v. Kemp, soon to be loaded in the Supreme Law Library. In what follows, Dale "cuts loose" on two cases which he has been following. Please treat yourself to Dale's typically brilliant insights into the fate of Americans under a tyrannical, and demonstrably corrupt, judicial system, now plaguing all of Us. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com copy: Supreme Law School >From: "Dale Robertson" <habeascorpus@hotmail.com> >To: pmitch@primenet.com >Subject: Re: 9th Circuit >Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:45:00 PDT > >Paul: > >Your ask: >p.s. May I forward your learned essay to all >clients of the Supreme Law School? > >You may & thank you! > >Dale Robertson [essay now follows] From: "Dale Robertson" <habeascorpus@hotmail.com> Subject: SUSAN MCDOUGAL & RUSSELL BINGMAN Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:30:01 PDT Ex parte Russell Robert Bingman, Proposed An Update - A Profusion of Confusion It is now 02:06 AM on Saturday 11 Oct 97, and I have just finished watching the evening rerun of the one hour Larry King interview of Susan McDougal at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. Susan McDougal was accompanied by her attorney Mark Garragus who has taken her case pro bono. In summary of the interview, Susan McDougal glows with principle exuding from the pores of her personality. A strength of conviction grounded in simple principle which is truly beyond any hope of compromise by any device of treachery devised by Special Prostitutor Kenneth Starr who reportedly has offered her freedom in exchange for her perjured testimony against Bill Clinton. Her declared position is simply that its wrong and I won’t do it. So - - she languishes in jail and awaits much further punishment simply as a shining beacon to the beauty of truth and principle prevailing over the depravity of those into whose power she has fallen. I have learned much from this interview. First I learned a bit about the person Susan McDougal. I have learned that she is there for contempt for refusing to testify before the Grand Jury. I have learned that Special Prostitutor Kenneth Starr will apparently stop at nothing to achieve his goal of obtaining even tainted and illicit evidence against Bill Clinton and in the Watergate matter in general. Maybe Bill Clinton deserves it; Maybe Hilarious Clinton deserves no less - - but - - Susan McDougal isn’t playing Kenneth Starr’s game and he’s not happy about that. So be it. Susan McDougal is weathering her personal crises in good form. I also learned that the Sheriff of Los Angeles has refused to obey a judges order that she be released on recognizance due to the extreme conditions which are being imposed on Susan McDougal during the course of her stay in jail. And if your wondering, it is on this point that there is the relevance of this message to the Bingman case. During the course of the interview, not once during the one hour interview did I hear any mention of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Of course the Writ of habeas corpus has the ability to force the executive branch (ie: the sheriff) to demonstrate the propriety of the present restraint on Susan McDougal’s liberty and to force it to be done in a court of law. However, resultant from some undisclosed hearing, a California judge in Los Angeles County ordered the release of Susan McDougal and the order was specifically disobeyed by the local Sheriff. To me this is an astonishing revelation to have been made on national television - not that it isn't true because it is true - but simply because it was made on national television during a program which is watched by millions of folks around the country and even the world. Larry King enjoys a huge following! Why is not the Sheriff in judicial hot water? Why is he not in contempt and in jail. Why is the sheriff not charged with obstruction of justice. It says a lot about the judicial system in California and it confirms what Russell Bingman has been saying all along and what several other have reported to us prior to Russell’s writings on that despicable subject. It seems that in Los Angeles county, it is the Sheriff who is the last word on liberty and that the judiciary has been suspended or at least placed in a position of subordination to the Executive Branch, ie: the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Of course, the implication to be drawn from all of this is that the same perversion is true throughout all of California. I believed it before, now we have an actual case in point to bolster the claim which make a powerful statement. And no ordinary case it is. I believe that the Susan McDougal case will have profound implications for years to come - it can properly be seem as the personification of a miscarriage of justice. Where the very power reposed in the instruments of government which are calculated and designed to protect us all are being used to pervert the very foundations of justice and to achieve an illicit result by threats and deprivation of liberty on arguably innocent individuals. The real question here is where is the judicial review via the Most Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus????? Why has not her attorney forced the issue. Is he working for her or someone else while enjoying the disquis as working for her pro bono? My only remaining reservation in all this is that I cannot understand that if Susan McDougal has nothing injurious or illicit to hide then why is she remaining silent. And if she chooses to remain silent the more profound question is why is she not exercising her fifth amendment right against self incrimination which is an absolute bar to prosecution or punishment for an exercise of protective silence - - except in the case where immunity from prosecution is properly imposed by the government on the witness who like McDougal suffers contempt of the grand jury in the face of her stone silence as opposed to her imposition of a constitutional objection inserted between the propounded questions and the judicially compelled would be answers. This remains a question in my mind - but may well be explained in light of evidence and facts which time and circumstance could not be aired on national television. I will for the moment give her the benefit of any present doubt. Back to the Bingman case. I am seemingly hopelessly perplexed by the milieu which confronts me in this case. I am now convinced that under no circumstance do I have any intention of filing any writ in the State of California or in the Federal Courts within the State of California. This interview, coupled with the events described above and in light of the seemingly defiant posture of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in its disobedience of the rule of law as established by the supreme court (I seem to recall that the 9th circuit court was reversed 26 out of the last 27 cases which have been reviewed by the United States Supreme Court on errors of law) leaves me with no doubt that any effort of habeas corpus in California is a complete fruitless waste of time. Now that leaves some other states. And as has recently been suggested Houston is not the place - unless it can properly be represented that Russell Bingman is located within that jurisdiction. I cannot at this time say that - so Houston is out. While I don't know where Russell Bingman is - and I don't want to know where he is - seemingly and paradoxically I must know if I am to be capable of filing a proper writ so as to invoke the proper jurisdiction of a some court in the United States. Some other jurisdiction is possible. But, or I dare say: * * B U T * * this case has presented me with circumstances which are unprecedented in the full sweep of habeas corpus history to my knowledge and practice. I am confronted with a set of circumstances which are so steeped in perplexity that they seem defiant of a solution. I am endlessly frustrated - - to say the least. I am continuing to regret that day in which Russell Bingman left the Parole Office in California and did not return as was there expected. That day has made this case infinitely more complex that it was or could have been under almost any other set of conditions that my mind presently has the ability to conjure. However, that call was made by Russell under the circumstances that he saw and perceived at the time and in that place - - and I cannot place myself in a position of second guessing the wisdom of that decision - I am left to just deal with the facts as they are presented to me in this case - I wasn’t there and it’s his liberty is at stake - not mine. Its was, and is, his call. However, I am left with a wake of complexity as far as habeas corpus goes which is 1) without historical parallel and 2) with a complexity and confusion which is seemingly beyond resolve. While I am painfully aware that there is a very real individual named Russell Bingman who is now wrongly a hunted man, and while I am as a compassionate human being wounded that his family and friends are without his company, I am required by the circumstances and my role in this task to continue my objective and sterile academic approach, analysis and potential solution of the case while I continue at the same time my search for some real world practical solution. So far - the perplexed milieu has seemingly won the day! I am left without a foundation of jurisdiction, state or federal, on which to exercise the writ and on which it’s exercise must inexorably be grounded. And I seriously question the wisdom of claiming a foundation of jurisdiction predicated on newspaper accounts that Russell Bingman might be in a particular area (ie: Tucumcari, NM) simply because the newspapers report that the Federals are looking for him there. So it is in the face of this profusion of confusion that I now remain quite perplexed and frustrated for the present. Constitutionally, Dale Robertson \=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ "We do well to bear in mind the extraordinary prestige of the great writ, Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum in Anglo- American jurisprudence: "The most Celebrated writ in the English Law." 3 Blackstone Commentaries 129. It is "a writ antecedent to statute, and throwing its root deep into the genius of our common law.... it is perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of england, affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of immemorial antiquity... ." "It's root principle is that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: If the imprisonment connot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release." Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963) \=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ Dale Robertson habeascorpus@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com =========================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 ======================================================================== 12 [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail