Time: Tue Dec 09 20:43:12 1997 To: Brenda McCurdy <brendamc@admin.hilconet.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: court case Cc: Bcc: References: Dear Brenda, I called you earlier today, but you have not returned my call. Our phones went haywire here anyway, after a very heavy rain storm. Here are my latest thoughts: I believe your best angle for remanding the case back to the trial court, is to plead ineffective assistance of counsel. Attorneys work for the banks, and the attorney who advised you, gave you very bad advice. Failing to appear has actually created many more problems than it could ever have solved. I wouldn't be surprised if this "attorney" gave your father deliberately bad advice, to set up your father and deceive him into believing that his case would be "better" if he failed to appear. This is civil entrapment. Also, if the bank added a new term -- increasing the equity in the land -- then this is fraud, and it is actionable. However, you must have a very good reason to explain why this fraud was not raised in the District Court; failure to argue a point can raise estoppel in favor of the other party. Also, there is a mechanism in federal court by which you can resurrect almost any case, and that is "newly found evidence." Can you think of any facts which are only recently coming to your attention? What about that attorney's oath of office? You could argue that your father was not aware, back then, of the original 13th Amendment, which rendered this attorney an alien, because he forfeited his citizenship when he accepted a Title of Nobility. This again goes to ineffective assistance of counsel, because the attorney committed a fraud upon your father. In general, this is called the "reliance defense." Let me know your thoughts, asap. /s/ Paul Mitchell, Candidate for Congress http://supremelaw.com
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail