Time: Fri Dec 05 01:33:14 1997
To: nickishay@juno.com 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Advice Requested
Bcc: sls

>Outside the courtrom we all gathered to support Lloyd.  His attorney
>friend said, "Well Lloyd, we won!"  I asked, "How is that - that he won?"
>The friend said, "It is the law that a Judge cannot act as Lloyd's
>attorney and the Judge at the same time."  "When we return on Dec. 23,
>we'll ask that this case be dismissed based upon that illegality."
>Paul:  Is this accurate?  I am not positive that I heard the exact
>statement that Lloyd made to the Judge, but it was very darned close. 
>Can you amplify on this for me if you have time.

Dear Nicki,

Yes, this is correct.

The court cannot proceed until the accused
understands the charge.  Lloyd made it very
clear that he did NOT understand the charge.

Lloyd's position invokes the Sixth Amendment
Right to know the nature and cause of the
accusation.  Thus, he has already raised
a non-frivolous, fundamental issue.

The ONLY thing which the court could do
at that point in time, is to enter a plea
for him, because they cannot proceed without
a plea having been entered.  Lloyd must now
OBJECT formally, if he did not do so at
the moment that "not guilty" plea was

Here is what I recommend:  Lloyd should
BY AFFIDAVIT, and serve it on all parties.

That will set up the challenge properly.

Also, is there a verified complaint
by damaged party(s)?  This is very
fundamental also.  If the so-called
damaged parties are lying, those lies
are actionable under applicable perjury
laws in his state.  He can sue the police
later, for cruel and unusual punishment.

I hope this helps.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

>That strategy, if valid, would prove interesting to many innocent parties
>if they knew about it.
>Thanks, Paul - God Bless and Love you for your courage!
>Nicki Shay (nickishay@JUNO.com)

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail