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

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
>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>
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 wonít 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 isnít playing Kenneth Starrís game and heís not happy about 
that. So be it. Susan McDougal is weathering her personal crises in good 

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 McDougalís 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 Russellís 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 

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 

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 wasnít there and itís 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 itís 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.


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

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