Time: Sun Mar 16 15:47:21 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA10930; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:29:58 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:30:23 -0800 To: conchr-l@xc.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: JUROR WARNING References: <3.0.1.16.19970316065405.295f9d34@mailhost.primenet.com> Dear Lane et al., I would have to agree, at least in part, with your reservations about jury competence. Our research has proven, beyond any doubt, that the federal Jury Selection and Service Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited class discrimination against Citizens of the several States who are not also citizens of the United States. Confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary. The same problem with the federal JSSA does also exist with the jury selection processes of the several States, if not ALL of them. Our challenge is meant to force a thorough review of the entire jury selection and service process, including, of course, the evidence now available proving widespread kick-backs to federal officers who come in contact with federal juries, both grand and trial ("petit"), in any way. After all, indictments and convictions are their "score cards," no? Thus, federal prosecutors will need to answer our key questions concerning the "awards" which Mr. Zolton has admitted, in writing, are being paid in cash -- yes, CASH! -- for federal grand jury indictments which are issued against the President's political "enemies" (read "illegal tax protesters"). Now, THERE is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Protest has NEVER been illegal in America, rendering this phrase a telling admission that the "tax is illegal", not the protest, and certainly not the protesters! I do not know why Kriho has not taken up these challenges, since Colorado's voter registration affidavit tells the whole story (as do lots of other states' voter registration practices). For more details, see the voting rights essays in the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com On the issue of O.J., juries are under no *obligation* to convict a defendant whom they regard as guilty, particularly if there has been gross prosecutorial misconduct. More justice may be done by reining in a "criminal" prosecutor (read "prosecutor who is a criminal"), so as to prevent the worst kind of justice -- convicting the innocent in the future, and making a "practice" of it. See the published writings of Gary Wean (sp?) for some background on the O.J. trial, which never made it (and never WILL make it) into the mainstream (medieval) media. /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. Letter from Mark L. Zolton now follows: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D.C. 20224 September 12, 1996 Mr. Paul A. Mitchell Person to Contact: 2509 North Campbell - #1776 M. Zolton Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone Number: (202) 622-6250 Refer Reply to: 96-1911 Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in reponse to your July 26, 1996, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all financial records of the Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS). Your request was forwarded to us by the Office of Disclosure Services, Department of the Treasury, so that we can respond to you directly. We apologize for the delay in responding. Unfortunately, your request is not specific enough to allow us to conduct a search for the records that are of interest to you. For example, you have not stated the years for which you are interested in obtaining records. Please be advised that the PMRS has not existed for the last 3 years. In addition, it is our understanding that awards made under PMRS took the form of <--!! PM cash payments or quality step in-grade promotions. Therefore, <--!! PM the types of financial records associated with awards made under PMRS did not include the kinds of records mentioned in your request. It would be helpful if you could be more specific in descibing the desired records. Accordingly, you may wish to reformulate your request to assist us in finding the responsive material. If you decide to do so, your perfected request will receive our close attention. Sincerely yours, /s/ Mark L. Zolton Tax Law Specialist FOIA Branch At 04:16 PM 3/16/97 -0500, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >>> she explained the historic role of jury nullification to her fellow >>> jurors. Kriho was sentenced to a $1,200 fine several months after >>> a mock hearing (without a jury of course) by an openly vindictive >>> judiciary. > >Since the most recent notorious use of "jury nullification" was the O.J. >criminal trial, I have a rather poor view of that process right now. > >Lane >---- >Lane Lester / <mailto:llester@athens.net> / Athens, Georgia USA >---- >Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a >living; the other helps you make a life. Sandra Carey >------------------------------------------------------ >You can unsubscribe from this conference at any time. >Just send the command: unsubscribe conchr-l to <HUB@XC.ORG> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail