Time: Thu Mar 20 07:57:33 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA19174;
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:02:35 -0700 (MST)
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA01725;
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:02:24 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:36:22 -0800
To: harold@halcyon.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: USDC v. DCUS
References: <3.0.1.16.19970319080711.295f8d28@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.1.16.19970319191113.385f845a@pop.primenet.com>
Harold,
At that exact point in time, she was
working with a friend of hers who was
indicted for conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine. The guy told me it
was a setup, and he needed a place to
hide out, to avoid service of the
indictment. So, I invited him into
my apartment, for at most 2 weeks,
until he could figure out what to do.
After 5 weeks with him still here, and
with cigarette butts ground into my carpet,
I decided to give this guy a test. I got
up that morning and began the day by
telling him that I had decided to testify
against Elizabeth Broderick, the source of
many of the commercial warrants which this
guy had used, on himself and others. Instead
of flowing with the revelation and discussing
it intelligently, he hit the ceiling and
started to threaten me physically, in one
case with throwing me through the sliding
glass window from my second-floor balcony.
The client came to me soon after that,
screaming at me that I was a government
agent and she was not going to pay me
anything against the invoice I had prepared.
The next day, I got an anonymous fax that
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had
docketed the paperwork I had prepared as
a formal Petition for Writ of Mandamus in
her case. In other words, they were taking
it seriously, and had decided to rule on the
points of law I had documented. The man who
threatened me is now in federal prison in
Oregon, waiting trial on the conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine. My client is
now refusing to speak with me, and returns
all my mail, this after she stiffed me for
about $4,000. I think she is a moderate to
heavy drug user. Oh, I almost forgot one
important thing. Her brother helped the
meth dealer to abscond with over $1,000 of
my cash and computer equipment, when this
guy moved out of my apartment, and now refuses
to return any of it. So, now I have to sue
the lot of them. These are the stories which
just do not seem to make it onto the air waves.
Of course, certain people, who shall remain
unnamed, continue to broadcast vicious lies that
I am a deep cover government agent, and that
of course gives lots of people pause to consider
and avoid hiring me for any legal work whatsoever.
My only solace has been the Holy Bible, which makes
it clear that I will be punished for telling the
truth, and I should rejoice when the persecution
escalates. The Lord feeds me with a constant
flow of bread, just like the sparrows which came
out of nowhere yesterday, when I was eating french
fries at my favorite drive-in. They even "spoke" to
me, when I was eating the french fries without
sharing them with the sparrows. Of course, I had
to give in; how can you stiff a sparrow who is
hopping on your table and singing to you at the
same time? :)
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 11:47 AM 3/19/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul, thanks! Got it. BTW, the earlier send on USDC had a gal's
>motion/lack of jurisdiction argument. Did she succeed in getting the
>dismissal? Just curious.
>
>Harold
>
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Yes: begin with 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2,
>> and take notice of the difference between:
>>
>> SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
>> COUNTY OF PIMA
>>
>> on the one hand, and:
>>
>> SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
>> PIMA COUNTY
>>
>> on the other hand.
>>
>> Do you see the difference? The cite from
>> 31 CFR supra is your material evidence to prove
>> that there is a crucial difference. The
>> former is a de facto forum convened
>> under a rebuttable presumption that the
>> State of California (corporate version)
>> is operating under the municipal jurisdiction
>> of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the
>> secret bankruptcy of 1933. In that mode,
>> the corporate State is subject to all the
>> municipal codes and regulations of the
>> United States (federal government).
>>
>> So, you can smoke them out by submitting a
>> Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request
>> for their credentials. If they respond,
>> they are subject to the municipal codes
>> of the United States (federal government).
>> If they say they are not subject to the FOIA,
>> because they are not federal, then that is
>> prima facie evidence that they are operating
>> under de jure authority of the California Republic.
>>
>> The latter above is, then, the de jure
>> California Republic, hidden in a coded
>> caption. People v. Boxer was pleaded at law
>> before the California Supreme Court, and
>> the Plaintiffs were the People of the California Republic!
>>
>> The California Supreme Court heard the case,
>> meaning that they had jurisdiction,
>> and the Plaintiffs had legal standing!
>>
>> How about them apples?
>>
>> Got it?
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>> At 10:39 PM 3/18/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Paul, is there a similar way to challenge the juridiction of "state"
>> >courts based upon any of the material you sent Rusty in the 3 emails
>> >dated 3/19/97?
>> >
>> >Harold Thomas
>> >
>> >
>> >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Rusty and friends,
>> >>
>> >> See if this helps. See also 28 U.S.C. 132,
>> >> Historical and Statutory Notes:
>> >>
>> >> "... provisions of this title ... with respect
>> >> to the organization of the court, shall be
>> >> construed as a continuation of existing law ...."
>> >>
>> >> Act June 25, 1948, Section 2(b).
>> >>
>> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >>
>> >> p.s. Part 1 of 2 follows:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> 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
>> ========================================================================
>
>
========================================================================
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