Time: Thu May 08 21:57:48 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15820;
Thu, 8 May 1997 17:09:31 -0700 (MST)
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07344;
Thu, 8 May 1997 17:09:24 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 21:32:07 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: People v. United States et al. (update)
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Relator
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
Under Protest, Necessity, and
by Special Visitation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
People of the United States ) Case No. CV-96-163-BLG
of America, ex relatione )
Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) REQUEST TO CERTIFY CASE
) FOR APPEAL:
Petitioners, )
) Final Judgements Act,
vs. ) 28 U.S.C. 1291;
) Interlocutory Orders,
United States et al., ) 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________)
COME NOW the People of the United States of America (hereinafter
"Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,
Citizen of Arizona state, expressly not a citizen of the United
States ("federal citizen"), federal witness, and Counselor at Law
(hereinafter "Relator"), to submit their objections to the ORDER,
dated May 1, 1997, issued from the United States District Court
("USDC") by Chief Judge Jack D. Shanstrom, denying Petitioners'
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (hereinafter "ORDER of May 1"), and
respectfully to request certification of this case for appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with
all deliberate speed.
Request to Certify Case for Appeal: Page 1 of 6
OBJECTIONS
Petitioners hereby enter the following standing objections
to the ORDER of May 1, to wit:
1. Said ORDER of May 1 plainly errs by claiming to rule on
a motion to reconsider an order of dismissal by the USDC. On the
contrary, Petitioners previously filed and served Their MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL
REMOVAL STATUTES (hereinafter "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION"), and
Their MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL REMOVAL
STATUTE (hereinafter "MEMORANDUM OF LAW"), specifically to
request reconsideration of the USDC's ORDER of April 8, 1997, in
which Chief Judge Jack D. Shanstrom remanded the instant case
back to the Sixteenth Judicial District Court of Montana state:
Cause No. 2721 in the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District
Court, Garfield County, is hereby remanded to said Sixteenth
Judicial District Court. The Clerk of Court shall return
the file in Cause No.. 2721 received from the Montana
Sixteenth Judicial District Court.
[ORDER of April 8, 1997]
2. The USDC's ORDER of May 1 repeats, once again, the same
error which has been made in all previous Orders which have
issued from the USDC in the instant case, namely, the USDC was
never petitioned for relief of any kind in the instant case. On
the contrary, the District Court of the United States ("DCUS")
was specifically petitioned, pursuant to the grant of original
jurisdiction to the DCUS to hear cases which arise under the
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
3. Likewise, the USDC's ORDER of May 1 repeats another
mistake by confusing the Petitioners with the Relator in the
instant case. The "Petitioners" of record are the People of the
Request to Certify Case for Appeal: Page 2 of 6
United States of America. See Preamble in the Constitution for
the United States of America [sic], as lawfully amended, and
Supremacy Clause. Confer at "Union" and "United States of
America" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856). The "Relator" of
record is Paul Andrew Mitchell who, in said capacity, is
proceeding as a Private Attorney General in the instant case. As
such, Relator technically has not filed any motions or pleadings
in the instant case, any more so than a licensed attorney files
motions on behalf of himself (herself) when s/he is retained to
represent another proper party in a civil or criminal action.
For these reasons, it is technically true that Relator presented
no valid reasons for this honorable Court to reconsider the
alleged Order of dismissal, but this is true because Relator has
not actually filed any motions or pleadings in His own name.
4. The truth of the case is that Petitioners have, on the
contrary, presented numerous valid reasons why the USDC should
reconsider its Order remanding the case to the State court. Most
prominent, and pivotal, among these several reasons is the
damaging effect which such a remand has caused, for example, that
of depriving Petitioners of Their Right to litigate a crucial
FOIA request in a court of competent jurisdiction, with presiding
judges whose independence and integrity are both beyond question
because their judicial pay is not being diminished by federal
income taxes. See Article III, Section 1; Supremacy Clause;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enacted with explicit
Reservations by Congress (see standing for "localities" to compel
United States (federal government) obedience to said treaties).
Request to Certify Case for Appeal: Page 3 of 6
5. Moreover, Petitioners have presented what they consider
to be excellent grounds for challenging the federal statute which
prohibits judicial review of summary remands, such as the Order
of April 8. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) ("not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise"). Petitioners have now argued that said statute is
unconstitutional for being overly broad, for being in conflict
with 28 U.S.C. 1441(e), for being prejudicial to Petitioners'
fundamental Right to an essential remedy when a federal cause of
action is clearly present by virtue of the FOIA, and for
supporting an erroneous claim by the USDC that a civil
petitioner/plaintiff does not have the power to remove a case to
federal court. See Tenth Amendment. The pertinent paragraphs
from Petitioners' MEMORANDUM OF LAW now follow:
Petitioners hereby challenge 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) for
being overly broad, for conflicting with 28 U.S.C. 1441(e),
and for depriving Petitioners of an essential remedy when a
federal cause of action is clearly present by virtue of the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.
Petitioners also conclude that the USDC's ORDER of
April 8, 1997, in the instant case, is erroneous for basing
a remand upon a false premise, namely, that a civil
petitioner/plaintiff does not have the power to remove a
case to federal court.
If allowed to stand, said ORDER will deny a remedy
which belongs to Petitioners, and thereby cause irreparable
damage(s) to Petitioners, for all the reasons stated above.
[SUMMARY, Page 8 of 9, emphasis added]
Petitioners remain convinced that each of these issues is
not only meritorious, but also entirely valid, particularly in
light of the Respondents' continued total silence in the instant
case. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a
legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered
would be intentionally misleading. See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d
Request to Certify Case for Appeal: Page 4 of 6
297, 299 (1977). Silence also activates estoppel. See Carmine
v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906). Confer also at "Acquiescence,
estoppel by" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with
pronunciations).
REMEDY REQUESTED
Wherefore, all premises having been duly considered,
Petitioners hereby request this honorable Court to certify this
case for appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, pursuant to the Final Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.
1291, or to the authority for review of interlocutory orders at
28 U.S.C. 1292(b), with all deliberate speed.
Dated: May 8, 1997
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
Counselor at Law, and Relator on behalf of
the People of the United States of America
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Request to Certify Case for Appeal: Page 5 of 6
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state,
federal witness, and Counselor at Law, do hereby certify, under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years
of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s):
REQUEST TO CERTIFY CASE FOR APPEAL:
Final Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 1291;
Interlocutory Orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
by placing one true and correct copy of same in first class U.S.
Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
Attorney General William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
Department of Justice Supreme Court of the U.S.
10th and Constitution, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Solicitor General Warren Christopher
Department of Justice U.S. Secretary of State
10th and Constitution, N.W. Department of State
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
James M. Burns LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer
United States District Court c/o Yellowstone County Jail
316 North 26th Street 3165 King Avenue, East
Billings, Montana state Billings, Montana state
Office of the U.S. Attorneys Judge J. Clifford Wallace
United States District Court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Federal Building c/o P.O. Box 193939
Billings, Montana state San Francisco, California
Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o P.O. Box 193939 125 South Grand Avenue, #200
San Francisco, California state Pasadena, California state
Executed on May 8, 1997:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Relator
Request to Certify Case for Appeal: Page 6 of 6
# # #
========================================================================
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