Time: Mon Mar 03 17:03:00 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA06411;
	Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:29:10 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 17:01:25 -0800
To: fwolist@hollyent.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Boiler Plate Responses

Dear Clients and Friends,

I would like respectfully to argue with this notion 
that "the first person to traverse loses."

Due process of law is a fundamental Right,
pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.  All state
Constitutions recognize the U.S. Constitution
as the supreme Law of the Land, and they usually
have their own due process provisions, often
written in the exact same language as the 
Fifth Amendment.

Now, federal courts, in particular, cannot have
subject matter jurisdiction without an Act
of Congress granting same.  Therefore, litigants
are not empowered to remove the defect that
arises when Congress has not Acted.  So, to
suggest that a litigant can "grant" jurisdiction
by "traversing," or wearing the wrong color tie, etc.,
is to contradict a mountain of American case law
which proves that a court cannot proceed without
subject matter jurisdiction, which can be raised
at any time, even in Habeas Corpus petitions
after conviction and incarceration.  If there is 
no subject matter jurisdiction, there can be 
no due process of law, because the court in question
lacks authority to grant ANY relief whatsoever,
except to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I hope this helps.  Admittedly, almost all of my
work to date has been in federal courts.  In state
courts, the presumption is generally that they HAVE
jurisdiction until proven otherwise;  in federal 
courts, however, the presumption is the opposite, 
namely, they do NOT have jurisdiction until proof
appears in the record;  without said proof appearing
in the record, the court has no jurisdiction to 
proceed, and a MOTION TO DISMISS is in order.
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is always
in order, assuming that the identical challenge has
not already been heard ("res judicata").

So, I respectfully dispute this notion that a Citizen
can cure a defect in jurisdiction by "crossing the bar"
or "saying the wrong thing."  Remember when we were
kids, and we used to joke that something or other would
"take an Act of Congress."  Well, when it comes to 
the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts, 
IT TAKES AN ACT OF CONGRESS, and nothing else will do!
This rule applies in law, equity, and admiralty, because
these are the only three types of law which Article III
federal courts can hear.  The subject matter jurisdiction
of state courts will be located in the state Constitutions,
and the statutes enacted pursuant to those Constitutions.
Just be very careful to distinguish "SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF ARIZONA" from "SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA STATE".
The former is a de facto executive tribunal convened under
the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, the latter is a 
de jure judicial forum convened under the state Constitution.

/s/ Paul Mitchell




At 11:26 AM 3/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>         ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>               Type: Not Moderated
>     Distributed on: 03-MAR-97, 11:26:04
>Original Written by: IN:behold@teleport.com.
>=======================================================
>
>
>At 03:27 AM 3/3/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 12:56:50 -0800
>>From: Tom Clark <clarktj@valley-internet.net>
>>To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>>Subject: Re: LLAW: Boiler Plate Responses (Was: Can he testify?) 
>>
>>Charles, et al.,
>>
>>My comments inserted below:
>>
>>At 12:22 AM 3/2/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>>On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Tom Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Russell, et al.,
>>><snip>
>>>> No, I would tackle it in this manner.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.  Abate on name.
>>>
>>>	I admit this is the best response for those not ready to branch
>>>out to using the CommonLaw Courts. However, I would hit them with a:
>>>	"Notice of Removal to the CommonLaw Court", accompanied by notice
>>>to appear and prosecute or face a dismissal of the charges. 
>>>
>>>> 2.  If they correct the record, use
>>>> 3.  Behold's BofP.
>>>
>>>	Yes, great boiler plate strategy in their courts, thus far. 
>>>
>>>> 4.  If they answer the BofP, use
>>>> 5.  Tarheel's argument's in a Declaratory Relief Action (you are not a
>>>> person, you were not in a federal area) as a collateral attack.
>>>
>>>	Hmmmm, Sounds very solid, but I do think it is a traverse. I would
>>>stick on the name thing, incorporating it into a further Bill Of
>>>Particulars. I would follow up with "Where do you get the jusridiction to
>>>prosecute a Christian Freeman in his proper Christian appellation?" 
>>
>>Note that I do not say:
>>
>>1.  Abate
>>2.  Demand a BofP.
>>
>>Only if they correct the record to you go on to the next step.  If you have
>>trouble with the "just-them system" properly responding to the Abate issue,
>>then you do NOT GO TO THE BofP.  In that case, you appeal and petition your
>>butt off.
>
>Behold has a impressive record of dismissals using the Bill of Particulars.
>We do not use an abatement. We cure the name problem by stating we are free
>white State Citizens.
>>
>>Now, I know that further on, you properly show caution on doing an appeal.
>>There seems to be a lot of confusion between an appeal on judgment or
>>sentence and an appeal on an interlocutory order.  When I talk about "appeal
>>and petition" I mean do an interlocutory appeal and if and when that doesn't
>>work you follow up with a petition for an appropriate writ.  The
>>interlocutory appeal does not preclude other actions on the instant question
>>of law, to my knowledge.  Whereas, as you suggest, a general appeal cures
>>all previous controlling questions of law as ALREADY stipulated to.
>
>This is true, but so far the appeals court has refused to hear our
>interlocutory appeal, [we file as soon as the judge denies our BOP] which
>opens the door to file the writ of Prohibition in the Circuit Court of
>Oregon, which is a Constitutional Court in possession of the Judicial power
>of the State of Oregon.
>I can't give you a report on how the Circuit court would respond as the
>cases got dismissed before we got that far. I have posted these cases. And
>I have another one to post soon.
>>
>>>> 4.  If they answer the BofP, use
>>>> 5.  Tarheel's argument's in a Declaratory Relief Action (you are not a
>>>> person, you were not in a federal area) as a collateral attack.
> 
>I of course like my answer to the BOP. I have posted a successfull
>Declaratory Judgement to prove we have overcome the problem of the court
>identifying you as the wrong status of person. I have two attempted answers
>to Behold's BOP by State attorney's The problem is they are not directly
>answering the BOP they are trying to answer by saying they do not have to
>answer. That's not answering the Demand for BOP. and we are putting their
>feet to the fire. I am putting together a book of how to respond to these
>non answers. For sale of course.
>>
>>>	Hmmmm, Sounds very solid, but I do think it is a traverse. I would
>>>stick on the name thing, incorporating it into a further Bill Of
>>>Particulars. I would follow up with "Where do you get the jusridiction to
>>>prosecute a Christian Freeman in his proper Christian appellation?" 
>>>	I understand that the BOP is not a traverse. I believe the
>>>Declaritory Relief Action is a traverse. The Right Waty gurus chant the
>>>mantra:
>>
>>Again, IF AND ONLY IF the prosecution answers the BofP they are NOT going to
>>answer it truthfully.  But once, answered the ball is in your court to
>>overcome the lie.  I am privy to this happening in one man's case and he was
>>very upset.  I asked if the BofP was answered on the record or signed to by
>>the prosecutor.  To which he said no, I said then he hasn't answered the
>>BofP he's just trying to trick you.  Make him answer on the record.
>>
>>Now, this got me to thinking.  What would you do if a prosecutor was stupid
>>enough to lie on the record?  Well, then I think some sort of collateral
>>attacks are in order.  Tarheel's is a darn good one, or you could seek to
>>declaratory relief on the controversy on the BofP. 
>
>If he lies charge him. Why do the attorneys tip toe around answering the
>BOP. Because if they did a civil war would be the people's answer.
>>
>>>	"The first person to traverse looses."
>>>	"The first person to traverse looses."
>>>	"The first person to traverse looses."
>>
>>That's right and if the Prosecutor answers the BofP, he traverses first.
>>Now, the issue is the issue YOU WANT TO ARGUE.  
>>
>>>	Chant it for a while yourselves. Breathe deeply down to your
>>>toes as you do the exercise. A warm yellow light will appear to your
>>>closed eyes as you begin to realize that if you dont traverse, it really
>>>messes with their evil game plan. 
>
>I'm a Christian I don't CHANT.
>>
>>>> 6.  Remove the action to a federal court on some sort of Constitutional
>>>> question (OTHER THAN THE LIBERTY OF THE COMMON WAY).
>
>Of course you have to exhaust all remedy's in the State Courts first.
>Article 4 sec 4 U.S. Const. would be a good start for a federal question,
>because the state officials are overthrowing the Republic Form of
>Government of the State of Oregon, and every other State in this Union. I
>did say FORM, FORM, FORM. THEY ARE REPLACING OUR REPUBLIC FORM OF
>GOVERNMENT WITH REGIONALISM, WHICH IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT UNDER A MILITARY
>VENUE ENFORCED BY A MARTIAL-LAW JURISDICTION.
>>
>>>	If I were to do a removal of any form, It would be to the
>>>CommonLaw Courts. Once taken in, it might be worth defending in that
>>>court just to keep the hassel to a minimum. But if you are getting jerked
>>>around in the first level if their courts, (imho) It's time to remove it
>>>to one of our courts, not to a second level of their courts, as is herein
>>>advocated. 
>>
>>Well, I don't have a problem with removing it to a People's Independent
>>Court, if that is in your heart.  I won't recommend it unless I know the
>>People's court rules, procedures, governing principals etc. that you are
>>talking about.  Some of the courts I've heard about I would consider good
>>and practical, and some are just begging for trouble that we can't handle.
>>However, you still have to get the tribunal to stop it's course of action.
>>I haven't seen a People's court stop that.  So you would still have to
>>petition a "just-them" superior court for a prohibition of some sort.
>>
>>>	LeRoy Schweitzer's testimony indicated that this process can be
>>>rock solid. And yea, I know, he's in jail. But that's because theyre a
>>>bunch of slimey tyrants who dont obey their own laws. 
>>
>>Some of us are ready to face jail now, and some are not.  My goal is to
>>provide something that maximizes the cost to wage war on the People while
>>minimizing the costs to the People who will struggle.  It's a war of
>>attrition in my mind.
>>
>>>	If everyone was doing LeRoy's strategy, It's solid basis in
>>>Law together with the greater numbers of people using it, I think would
>>>make the defactos back down. This is where we really need to be pushing.
>>>This is the kind of a strategy which will eventually give a PERMENANT
>>>SOLUTIUON to the problem.
>>
>>As you know, I advocate People's solutions as well.  I favor the Independant
>>Grand Jury and People's Independent Courts.  As time goes on, I think these
>>things will be an intricate and legitimatized part of the judicial system.
>>
>><snip> 
>>>> Now anytime you don't get cooperation on your battle plan, you appeal
then
>>>> petition your little tail off.
>>
>>>	This is a big error, Tom. The Right Way guys, especially Mr
>>>Schramm, are in unity that the appeal is a bad move. The CommonLaw process
>>>of Writ of Certiorori, followed by Writ of Error has much better results
>>>within even the statutory system. Not to mention moving us in the right
>>>direction (Way) towards the permenant CommonLaw solution.
>
>On the Federal level the right to appeal and writ of Error to the U.S.
>Supreme Court has been abolished. 
>>
>>I doubt that I would ever appeal a trial court judgment or sentence, if that
>>was conveyed it was by accident.  I mean interlocutory appeals or appeals on
>>declaratory judgments, which do not compromise you as a general appeal WILL.
>>When these fail it's TIME to petition for the writs.
>>
>>>	Mr Lemming can probably come in with the bioler plate argument
>>>Right Way uses here, better than I can, but briefly:
>>>	Appeal locks in the previous Judgement, like: "you are not
>>>contesting the facts on the record", or something like that. Writ of
>>>Certiorori brings up the whole Record. It literally means "To Certify
>>>the Record", apparrently up before the superior court of review it must
>>>thus be brought. Appeal locks in what the lower court screwed up. It's 
>>>some kind of traverse as to the validity of the proceedings in the
>>>lower courts.
>
>Correct, but if you file an interlocutory appeal and they deny it you have
>the issue to put forth the writ of prohibition as your only remedy. If you
>wait until the statutory court puts you to trial you have lost your right
>to the writ of Prohibition in a Constitutional Court.
>>
>>What you write about is a general appeal on the final judgment and you are
>>dead right.  When you do that you stipulate to all the controlling questions
>>of law, i.e. the presumption that you are a "person", etc.  Even if you
>>argue them in the appeal the courts will silently notice that it's TOO LATE
>>- YOU SHOULD'VE DID AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON THAT QUESTION. At least
>>that's what the case notes in the Idaho Court Rules say.
>>
>>>>Cert brings the lower courts goof ups before the appellate
>>>court. You can cure way more defects in the lower court with Cert. It's
>>>the boiler plate response of those with the best boilerplates. 
>
>A writ of Certiorari can only be used to correct the errors of a lower
>statutory court in a higher statutory court. A Constitutional Court cannot
>review the record of a statutory court as the statutory court is within a
>military venue and a Constitutional Court is within a State Civil Venue.
>the two can't mix. This is why we file all proceedingsof the statutory
>court in the miscellaneous file at the County recorders office as the
>County records are a record a Constitutional Court can review. I believe
>the writ of Prohibition is the proper writ as you can argue the superiority
>of a constitutional Court over an statutory court exercising a military
>Venue with a Martial-Law Jurisdiction.
>>
>>I agree, but the Writ is a properly (imho) a writ of last resort.  Only to
>>be used when no other remedy will do.
>>
>>>> If they decide to pursue the action, they
>>>> probably won't win for two years down the road.  Even if you loose, after
>>>> such an expensive prosecution of fraud, I'll wager that they'll leave you
>>>> alone on such fraudulent charges.
>>
>>>	What you have outlined here is way better than what the
>>>average courtroom activist has access to Tom, But there are still better
>>>strategys than this available right here with our little group, if we can
>>>just get it all outlined correctly.
>>
>>I think I have utilized the best contributions (except for removal to a
>>People's Court) in this outline in the order it ought to be followed,
>>provided that one is not incarcerated.  
>>
>>>We really should be building a web
>>>page with just the best strategys listed on it, or something. It could
>>>be improved as our list members knowledge improves. 
>>
>>I have repeatedly tried to organize LLAW along this line, but I have
>>repeatedly recieved lackluster results. 
>
>Well Tom if you go back to the standard you started with PROOF PROOF PROOF.
>you will return the LLAW list to it original purpose. God Speed. 
>>
>>>	Sorry about spelling errors. I dont care. 
>>
>>I don't particularly worry about spelling either.
>>
>>~Tom Clark
>>
>>
>                                                Robert W. Wangrud
>                                                BEHOLD! Newsletter
>                                                Fourth Judicial District
>                                                522 Hartke Loop
>                                                Oregon City, Oregon
>                                                (503) 657-6207
>
>"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.  We ask
>not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
>May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were
>our countrymen." - Samuel Adams."
>
>****************************************************************************
>Copy Rights secured to Robert W. Wangrud & Randy Geiszler.  
>All Rights reserved. behold@teleport.com
>PLEASE NOTE THE NEW SITE - Home Page BEHOLD NEWSLETTER: 
>http://www.announce.com/behold/index.htm
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
>========================================================================
>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@hollyent.com
>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field.  Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
>    email: Not Moderated@hollyent.com or listmgmt@hollyent.com
>For information about this system and its lists email: info@hollyent.com
>  Help to save your liberties! mailto:info@hollyent.com SUBJECT: bernie
>======================================================================== 
>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com
>
>
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail