Time: Sun Oct 12 13:00:16 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA07321;
	Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:44:49 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA03055;
	Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:44:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:43:15 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: If you're ever in front of a Grand Jury (fwd)

>Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 11:39:02 PDT
>Dale Robertson responds to the present post (reposted below) by 
>reposting my own post to Greg Doty and LLAW counsellors-all of 6 June 97 
>when the same subject was the issue then on the front burner.
>I am appreciative of added discussion on this point since the tactics 
>are applicable in many different forums - not just the grand jury - as 
>to fifth amendment, immunity, etc. so the general knowledge is good to 
>go over again and again until we have it down pat in permanent memory.  
>But CAVIATE: there is more to this story.
>Additionally, I take this opportunity to point out that in a tyranical 
>society it makes no difference what you do when tyrants start asking you 
>questions. In a tyranical society (which we are rapidly becoming) you 
>simply don't have a chance once you become the target and they "have 
>your body". 
>The point to all this is that we have an actual case in point. Susan 
>McDougal was placed in jail because she didn't answer questions to a 
>Grand Jury. Because of her alleged contempt of the Grand Jury she has 
>been subjected to jail conditions and degradations to which capital 
>murderers are not subjected. More importantly, and certainly more 
>relevant to this conversation, is the fact that she was ordered to be 
>released on recognizance from the California detention center in Los 
>Angeles by a California judge and the Sheriff of Los Angeles thumbed his 
>nose at the judicial order, has contemptiously defied the judicial order 
>and has failed contemptiously to respond in any meaningful manner as to 
>releasing Susan McDougal. She is today still languishing in the 
>Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles County, California. 
>This is what we have come to. Now I draw the conclusion from all this 
>that it doesn't make any difference what the law is. Even the writ of 
>habeas corpus doesn't work in California when at times the sheriffs 
>simply refuse to honor its service, the demand at law for a "return", 
>they fail to produce the body in the courtroom at the ordered show cause 
>hearing and then refuse contemptiously to obey the direct judicial 
>directive to release the person. This is raw tyranny. While we sit and 
>watch the drama unfold the citizens (we) and all other persons and the 
>judiciary sit on their thumbs doing nothing to rectify the tyrannical 
>wrongs being contemptiously perpetrated under our noses and in front of 
>our faces.
>I further note the case that I am presently working on in which the 
>state of california manufactured charges against Russell R. Bingman, had 
>him arrested by the FBI in the State of New Mexico, had him extradicted 
>(spirited out of in the middle of the night) out of the state of New 
>Mexico and transported to California and incarcerated at Chino for 6 
>months when there were no charges whatsoever except those manufactured 
>and concocted by the California Department of Corrections - a political 
>body not known to have accusatorial or prosecutorial powers. This is 
>simply the pure manufacture of paper to terrorize a citizen for his 
>journalistic proclivities exercised in the city of Tucumcari, New 
>Mexico. This is raw tyranny. 
>Now the ultimate and final conclusion from these two and other cases is 
>simply that the law doesen't make any difference - at least in 
>California (and in many other states) the defactos now are beginning to 
>do just exactly like they please and are doing so with consumate 
>impunity for the law, their oath, the constitution and their duty to the 
>citizens as a whole.
>So in light of these revelations I think it appropirate to place into 
>perspective such clever and time tested tactics and strategies as the 
>fifth amendments and the insistence that only the grand jury direct its 
>questions to the "witness".
>Like Herr Rosenblatt when, citing his right to his life - that he had 
>done no wrong - he protested to the German Waffen SS Officer who had 
>just ordered that he and the 50 or so other folks to be machine gunned 
>in a concentration camp in Germany in 1943. The German Officers 
>immediate and unhesitating response was to draw his luger and blow Herr 
>Rosenblatt's brains out following which the squad proceeded to machine 
>gun the remaining victims. A simply solution to a rather comples and 
>egregious problem - its called MURDER - some call it TYRANNY. We have 
>seen it a Ruby Ridge and also at Waco (and others). We, here in the land 
>of the free and the home of the brave, are not immune to the march of 
>tyranny - its now has taken hold in our own land. It is alive and well 
>and is virulently expanding and consuming. Anyone want to feed that 
>We too like sheep go to the slaughter - but in our case and in this time 
>we are content merely  watch as horror stories like Susan McDougal and 
>Russell Bingman (not to mention Ruby Ridge and Waco)  proceed while we 
>pointlessly pontificate about the nicities of clever tactics and this 
>fantasy called "rule of law". Susan McDougal is the a living 
>personification and fixed proof that there is an absolute failure of 
>justice in our system of laws. There is a fundamental breakdown 
>evidenced by her continued incarceration in the Metropolitian Correction 
>Center in Los Angeles. I ask you: Where is the writ to obtain her 
>release? and and I ask: Where is the obedience to the rule of law when 
>the judge ordered her release but in jail she remains? 
>So while you read the post below as to clever tactics such as fifth 
>amendment and insisting that the grand jury ask the questions instead of 
>the prostituting federal attorney - just remember that in California it 
>really doensn't make a damn bit of difference. Your going to lose your 
>liberty and the perpetrator is going to do so with absolute impunity (in 
>addition to practical immunity)
>Dale Robertson
>Friday, 6June97 @ 03:45 Hours CDT
>In my judgment (obviously this is my judgment!) and experience, this is 
>a case which turns on the maxim: Nemo tenature se ipsum accusare.
>Which in good ol' Texan as well as good english means that "I gonna keep 
>my mouth shut". The literal translation is "No man shall accuse 
>himself". Of course I am referring to that portion of the the fifth 
>article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States of 
>America which proclaims that no person ..."...nor shall be compelled in 
>any criminal case to be a witness against himself...".
>Now, there is a specific case in point which I see a being dead center 
>bulls eye as to your question: 
>I refer to the case of Joseph Curcio vs. United States of America, 354 
>U.S. 118. In this case, the supreme Court (of the United States - the 
>big un) "held that Secretary-Truesurer of local union 269 could invoke 
>personal privilege against self-incrimination as to questions as to 
>whereabouts of missing union books and records which had been subponeaed 
>but not produced ...." Mr. Curcio "testified that he was the 
>Secretary-Trueasurer of Local 269; that the union had books and records: 
>but that they were not then in his possession. He refused, on the ground 
>of self-incriminaltion, to answer any question pertaining to the 
>whereabouts, or who had possession, of the books and records he had been 
>ordered to produce".
>Courts have always held that personal books and records are privileged: 
>that corporate and other public entities records are not! But, it seems 
>that the Government must first ascertain the whereabouts of the public 
>records which are subponed and who exactly has custody of them. 
>Now Mr. Curcio was the custodian of those records. He testified that 
>they were at the time of his appearance before the grand jury not then 
>in his possession. After he said that under oath, the only other 
>question  reasonably permissable was "Where are they?", or "Who has 
>Now that information is within the confines of Mr. Joseph Curcio's head. 
>And information stored in that location is unfortunately not public 
>information. ie: it is subject to the right to remain silent! It is a 
>private information as distinquished from the records themselves which 
>are public records which he testified that he did not then have. And the 
>content of a persons mind has always been held to be subject to an 
>objection as to self-incrimination. All questions such as "Who has them? 
>or When did you last have them? Where do you think they might be? What 
>is the color of your underwear? What did you have for lunch today? Who 
>told you to say these hateful things? all are either absolutely 
>protected by the right against self incrimination or are outright 
>irrelevant. Copisch?
>Now such a plea before the grand jury will assure you a trip to the 
>District Court and an attempt at getting at the information during an in 
>camera review of the "objection of self incrimination? which again in 
>its turn is itself subject to an objection or an assertion of the 
>"privilege?" againsy self incrimination. (How can you properly refer to 
>a portion of the Bill of RIGHTS as containing a PRIVILEGE? It's either a 
>Further, the prostitutor may well attempt to cite you for contempt to 
>test (your nerve) the propriety of your plea of a constitutinal right as 
>a barrier between the propounded question and the compelled answer 
>locked within your mind.
>However, I believe that a Motion for protective order will properly and 
>effectively place the question before the district court prior to the 
>question ever having been ask. It will preemptively and ancipatorially 
>head off the worst that the prostitutors have to offer in response to a 
>proper assertion of the fifth amendment before the grand jury. And at 
>the worst it will tend strongly to keep the prostitutor honest and let 
>him know that he is going to have to tell it to "DADDY" (da judge) if he 
>plays any monkey business before you and the grand jury. This is simply 
>good management of subponea practice. 
>I remind you also of the obvious, If the gentleman subponed is a target 
>of the grand jury investigation, this tactic is surely not going to 
>endear him to the grand jury or to the prostitutors. On the other hand, 
>I am unable to say that anything except a signed confession will endear 
>you to a grand jury or especially to the prostitutors who "manage" the 
>grand jury in the same manner that a puppeteer will "manage" his 
>puppets.  Get it? They are already as mad as they can get, and a bit 
>more gas on that fire will not make it any hotter for you. Right? It 
>still buring - Right? So pour it on. Let's see if there is still a 
>constitutional right against self incrimination? 
>I'd be happy to elaborate further if desired. Just e-mail me and I'll 
>try to confuse the situation some more.
>And I will be happy to entertain any reticence on the part of any LLAW 
>member as to the effectiveness and propriety as to the above strategy. 
>And if you detect some faint note of sincerety here - - that there is in 
>the foregoing commentary the suggestion that I speak of experience - let 
>me take this opportunity to compliment your perception!
>Dale Robertson
>PS: it might be a good idea to have a 28 USC 2255 habeas corpus handy 
>just in case you get to wear the little braceltes along with the bright 
>orange suit for a bit. This scale of intimidation is standard operating 
>procedure for a veteran prostitutor and he just might find a judge that 
>will go along with his scheme. But in the end this is a question of the 
>right to remain silent vs the federal governments right to inquire into 
>the contents of your head. Your rights have held up for some 1000 years 
>or so, so far - but - you never know what the bright boys in the US 
>prostitutors office might come up with. I don't think that the United 
>Nations condones or supports the fifth amendment at all and for that 
>reason the fifth amendment just might not apply anymore. 
>What do you think? 
>PPS: Do you know why the little brown hen wen half-way across the road?
>Answer: She wanted to LAY IT ON THE LINE!  - - - How about you?   
>>From owner-libertylaw@ultimate.org Thu Jun  5 22:25:38 1997
>XAA18815 for libertylaw-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:49:11 -0400
>XAA18803 for libertylaw; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:49:01 -0400
>[]) by blake.sharpcomm.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id 
>XAA18799 for <libertylaw@www.ultimate.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:48:59 
>>	by iceland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA04048
>>	for <libertylaw@www.ultimate.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:48:55 -0700 
>>Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
>>To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>>From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty)
>>Subject: LLAW: Federal Grand Jury Witness
>>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>>There is a nasty IRS situation down here in West Palm Beach which is 
>>even nastier. In essence, a local bar attorney was in the business of
>>setting up trusts under Florida laws. The IRS arrested the attorney and
>>confiscated all of his records, etc, without warrent or supporting
>>affidavits. An acquaintence was/is one of the trust managers and 
>>today a summons to appear before a federal grand jury next Thursday, 
>>days from receipt of the summons. The acuaintence does not particularly 
>>to appear since (1) he has fears of being criminally prosecuted by any
>>testimony he may give, (2) he is a federal witness for the
>>defendant/attorney, (3) he feels that the matters of the trust are 
>>issues and not federal, (4) he feels that the questions which may be 
>put to
>>him are based on information obtained without sufficient warrent, (5) 
>>holds the trust books, however the "shotgun" list of items he is to 
>bring to
>>the grand jury does not specifically name the trust books, just "and 
>>other information which may be of interest to the grand jury" and (6) 
>>mother's 70th birthday is the day after the grand jury in Massachusets.
>>I don't think he can get out of the appearance for his mother's 
>>but according to 28 USC 1826 he may be excused for "just cause". The
>>question I put before this esteemed body is "how?"
>>What we have in mind is to file a motion for a protective order under 
>>26(c) (even though it refers to depositions) and an alternative motion 
>>time under FRCvP 6(b), and at the same time file a motion under FRCvP 
>57 for
>>a Declaratory Judgment concerning his rights before the grand jury. If 
>>is the path to follow, could these motions be filed under the criminal
>>action already filed against the attorney/defendant, or would it be a
>>separate action?
>>Any suggestions, comments, or alternative ideas?
>"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
>----Original Message Follows----
>>From owner-libertylaw@ultimate.org Sun Oct 12 07:49:17 1997
>KAA12803 for libertylaw-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:33:09 -0400
>KAA12795 for libertylaw; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:33:03 -0400
>by blake.sharpcomm.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA12792 for 
><libertylaw@www.ultimate.org>; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:33:00 -0400
>[]) by mail1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id 
>HAA25907; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 07:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 07:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
>To: harold@halcyon.com, rj@drtavel.com, piml@mars.galstar.com,
>        jus-dare@freedom.by.net
>From: BEHOLD! Newsletter <behold@teleport.com>
>Subject: LLAW: Re: If you're ever in front of a Grand Jury
>Cc: cjs@sound.net, 75313.2601@CompuServe.COM, patriot@netaxs.com,
>        hammernet-l@teleport.com, majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com,
>        owner-irs-commonlaw-l@teleport.com, libertylaw@www.ultimate.org,
>        mom@logoplex.com, NATEVTS@aol.com, patriot@rmci.net,
>        martin@carroll.com, rschmidt@pierian.com, stubby@i-link-2.net,
>        103527.1020@CompuServe.COM
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>At 12:47 AM 10/10/97 +0000, Harold Thomas wrote:
>At 08:20 AM 10/11/97 Robert Wangrud wrote:
>>Much appreciation to Peter Gibbons (conlawdr@pacbell.net) of 
>>California (who just received his JD and has taken the bar exam) for 
>>the following:
>I have no problem with your approach, but I offer this as another 
>Should a patriot be summons to appear before a Grand Jury 
>realize when you raise you right hand and are sworn in you become a 
>federal wittiness. We have been successful at serving an affidavit on 
>the U.S. Attorney and refusing to be sworn in until the U.S. Attorney 
>answers our affidavit by his affidavit. If you are going to refuse to 
>be sworn in you had better have a good reason not to. This has worked 
>twice and no charges have been issued by the U.S. Attorney or the 
>Grand Jury. Under this approach you don't need to take the Fifth 
>Further see Title 18, Section 1826(a) USC clearly only applies to "a
>Once you are sworn in all the rules that pertain to a wittiness come 
>If you have a Constitutional argument you had better make it before you 
>See our packet titled "HOW TO CHALLENGE THE GRAND JURY" in Behold's 
>at <http://www.announce.com/~behold>
>Robert Wangrud.  
>>The most important thing to remember about a Grand Jury is
>>that you are only required to respond to questions by the
>>Grand Jury. Prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys arrogate to
>>themselves the power vested in the Grand Jury and use it as a
>>means to compel testimony that could not be compelled in court
>>and then later use it to convict the witness. I can explain
>>this best by example.
>>We have here in Riverside County a very brave and stubborn
>>Patriot named Eric Williams. Eric was called before a Grand
>>Jury to testify in re a friend of his who was suspected of
>>"willfull failure to file." The prosecuting attorney asked
>>Eric a question and Eric responded by saying that he was not
>>going to answer his question. The prosecutor then said that if
>>Eric refused to answer he would have him jailed for contempt.
>>Eric responded by saying that he would answer any question put
>>to him by the Grand Jury, as that is what the law requires,
>>but that he would answer no questions by the prosecutor. So,
>>the prosecutor told the jury foreman to ask Eric this and
>>that. The foremen did as he was told. Eric responded by saying
>>that he would not answer any questions from the prosecutor
>>including those dictated from the prosecutor to others. The
>>prosecutor then threatened again to have Eric held in
>>contempt. Eric responded by saying "go ahead if you think you
>>can get away with it, but if you continue in your attempts to
>>interfere with the Grand Jury and influence their proceedings
>>I guarantee I will file a formal complaint for tampering with
>>the Grand Jury." Eric went on to explain that if anybody on
>>the Grand Jury had a question of their own he would answer
>>them gladly, but if the prosecutor continues to interfere he
>>will be unable to answer any questions until the prosecutor is
>>removed from the room. The Prosecutor did eventually leave and
>>the Jury asked its questions.
>>The moral of the story is, you are not required to answer any
>>questions from or by the government attorney. You are required
>>to answer questions by the Grand Jury. 
>>You may invoke the 5th Amendment privilege against self
>>incrimination as to any question which may result in a self
>>incriminating answer, unless you are given immunity. Be
>>careful when discussing immunity with government attorneys
>>however. There is transactional immunity, and complete
>>immunity. Transactional immunity only protects you from
>>prosecution for acts related directly to the transaction which
>>you are questioned about, but not for other allegations which
>>your testimony may lead the prosecution to later. 
>>Complete immunity from prosecution covers prosecution from any
>>allegation which the gvernment may be led to as a result of
>>your compelled testimony. You must assert your right against
>>self incrimination to make any offer of immunity binding upon
>>the government. 
>>I cannot stress how helpful a really good criminal attorney
>>may be at this stage. However, even really good criminal
>>attorney's rarely understand how to shut down a officious
>>intermeddling prosecutor trying to control the Grand Jury,
>>only a witness can assert the right not to answer the
>>questions of the prosecutor.
>>[If anyone has a disagreement with the foregoing or experience which 
>>would be either corroborate or cast doubt, please respond. HT]
>"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