Time: Sun Apr 20 06:44:36 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA12269;
	Sun, 20 Apr 1997 06:11:03 -0700 (MST)
	by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA07176;
	Sun, 20 Apr 1997 06:10:22 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 06:21:49 -0700
To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Public Notice
Cc: Charles Marcus <csharp@mindspring.com>

I have decided to side with Mr. Marcus in 
this debate, and I really had no trouble
deciding.  Mr. Wangrud is treating Mr. Marcus
almost the same way he treated me, upon learning
that there was a book entitled "The Federal Zone."
My memory is very clear that Mr. Wangrud began
to attack it, from all angles.  This attack
went on for several days.  It was only after
this attack had been going on for these several
days, that Mr. Wangrud finally admitted, 
in response to a direct question, that he had
never read it.  This is pure sophistry, at 
its worst.  The one side of this debate here
is not any better, taking both sides into
account.  Perhaps we have all learned something
now: the maxim should be changed to read,
"Never judge a book by its title."

I refuse to engage in any flame wars around
this subject.  I have better things to do with
my time.  Please forgive me if I don't answer
any more posts on this thread.  It is quite
probable that I won't even read them, much less
respond.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com



At 12:15 AM 4/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>         ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>               Type: Not Moderated
>     Distributed on: 20-APR-97, 00:14:56
>Original Written by: IN:behold@teleport.com.
>=======================================================
>
>
>This is my final rebuttal to Charles Marcus. 
> I have had enough of his bad manors, abusive language, and over all
>trained seal mentality. Mr. Marcus does not come into this debate with an
>open mine, he makes no attempt to examine what is being presented:
>
>THE FOLLOWING ARE REMARKS BY CHARLES MARCUS IN A POST LAWFULL MONEY
>
>>>You just got through trashing me because you THOUGHT that I said that
>>>a State supreme Court could overrule the U.S. supreme court, and now
>>>you make some idiotic statement that essentially purports that the
>>>mere opinion of some idiot in the U.S. attorneys office CAN??
>
>I thought you were smarter than this, Robert, but it appears that
>my previous opinion of you was highly overrated.
>
>WHAT ISSUE YOU MORON???????  The issue I am talking about is what the
>supreme court ALREADY SAID, MORE THAN TWICE, about the amendment.  This
>issue has ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
>
>Are you BRAINDEAD, or just STUPID? 
>
>I will NOT be responding to any more of your BULLSHIT opinions, unless
>you can start backing them up with FACTS and PROOF.
>
>>Robert, unless and until you provide some SUPREME COURT rulings that
>>>OVERRULE the numerous cites I gave you, you are pissing in the wind.
>
>I can't believe you are this ignorant, Robert, so you must be one
>of those kind of people that are just incapable of admitting when
>they are wrong.
>
>ROTFLMAOATDM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Wangrud what ever this means?]
>
>Mr. Marcus is a classic example of a trained seal, he excepts everything
>the Supreme Court gives him and rejects the lesser courts that often give a
>good researcher at least a good trail that all is not as it seems. People
>of Marcus Ink think by, abusive language, bad manors, or name calling they
>can discredit those who bring new understanding to old issues.
>  I personally have a bad temper and it has taken me years to get it under
>control, not that I always succeed, but I try. I don't know what Mr. Marcus
>does for a living, but I help people defend themselves, and  Randy and I
>have an good win rate over the last 10 years. We have developed a new
>defense under the use of a bill of particulars, which I have shared three
>wins of this defense with various list. I have posted the names, address,
>court locations, case numbers, and offered copes of the court dismissals,
>and I have more to share unless none of you want this information? If you
>on the lists want this information let me know. As for Mr. Marcus and all
>of his Ink I'm done putting up with his/their bad manors, abusive language,
>and remarks as to my intelligence. I will post articles I believe will be
>beneficial to those who wish to do real research 
>/s/ Robert W. Wangrud.
>
>
>
>
>========================================================================
>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net
>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field.  Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
>    email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net
>For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net
>
>======================================================================== 
>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net
>
>
>
>

========================================================================
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