Time: Mon May 12 15:14:17 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00956;
	Mon, 12 May 1997 12:13:05 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24599;
	Mon, 12 May 1997 12:12:58 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:10:25 -0700
To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Article III Judges (not nomme de guerre)

Dear America,

The rules for removal are found in 28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.
Just be aware that the USDC and the DCUS both are mentioned
in these statutes, and for this reason, the People have 
challenged this entire group of statutes for being void
for vagueness.  See latest pleadings in People v. United States,
DCUS Montana, Billings Division, particularly the challenge
to the constitutionality of one of the key removal statutes:
28 U.S.C. 1447(d), for being overly broad and other reasons.

Specifically, summary remands cannot be reviewed on appeal
or otherwise, if the case originated in a "State" court,
and was removed under 28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.  This statute
prevented the People from enforcing their FOIA request for the
credentials of all 633 alleged federal agents who rotated
in and out of the so-called standoff with the "Montana Freemen".

As such, the net effect was an unconstitutional deprivation of
due process of law, and it violates the grant of original 
jurisdiction to the DCUS to litigate FOIA requests.  See
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), and holding of U.S. District Judge
John M. Roll In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life
Health Center Company, USDC Arizona, Tucson, May 21, 1996.

However, be advised, Judge Roll has now had a formal complaint 
of judicial misconduct filed against him with the Ninth Circuit, 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c), for allegedly committing 
over 112 felonies in that one case alone.

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



At 10:35 AM 5/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>         ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>               Type: Not Moderated
>     Distributed on: 12-MAY-97, 10:35:40
>Original Written by: IN:behold@teleport.com.
>=======================================================
>
>
>At 08:14 PM 5/11/97 -0700, fwolist@sportsmen.net wrote:
>>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>>         ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>>               Type: Not Moderated
>>     Distributed on: 11-MAY-97, 20:13:42
>>Original Written by: IN:cjs@sound.net.
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>>>>>> Various post have given the false impression that a Federal
>>>>>> Article III judge is vested with the Judicial Power of the
>>>>>> United States. This is not true. If you read Article III sec. 1
>>>>>> of the Federal Constitution it clearly says the Judicial Power
>>>>>> of the United States is Vested in certain Courts not the
>>>>>> Judges of those Courts. What a patriot needs to do is establish
>>>>>> he is in a Court in possession of the Judicial Power of the
>>>>>> United States. Do this and the Judge is bound to follow the
>>>>>> procedures of such a court.
>>
>>Hello Mr. Wangrud,
>>
>>Would you expound some more on the above topic?  Here are some general
>>observations.  Someone is before a court either as someone accused or
>>someone seeking a remedy.
>>
>>In the first case, I believe the nature of the process, if applicable to
>>the accused, would dictate in what venue the court would proceed.  In most
>>all of the cases I have witnessed, the accused really is subject to the
>>process and cannot reasonably contest its application to him.  And these
>>cases are started before a commissioner (I'm sorry I can't remember the
>>correct name), not a judge.  This quasi-judge goes through the omnibus
>>hearing rather methodically and then he races through the last one minute,
>>"The court finding it has established venue and the parties present are
>>those named in the indictment, the court therefore assumes jurisdiction and
>>transfers this case to the District Court judge."  I can see that an attack
>>on the nature of the process is the way to stop the proceeding, either in
>>the same court or (I prefer) a collateral attack in a court which could
>>exercise the judicial power.
>
>Wangrud:
>I agree the Federal Magistrates Court pre-establishes you are charged by a
>statute under a Military Venue, and the Federal Magistrates job is to
>attach you by your previous "CONDUCT"  to the statute. This is done by the
>Federal Magistrate by asking you for your Name, Address (with Zip Code) and
>they use to and I believe still do ask for your SSN. Make no mistake the
>Magistrate understands the Military Venue the charges  come from and takes
>silent judicial notice of it. [Sub Silento] Have you ever noticed the file
>folder the Magistrate has and keeps looking into? What's in there is you. A
>computer print out of information about you. [YOUR CONDUCT] The judges
>don't want you to understand What's going on is the Indictment or
>Information filed against you is "skeletal" in other words the Indictment
>or Information does not state the Venue they are issued under. If the Venue
>was clearly stated you would know the jurisdiction of the statute. Venue
>establishes Jurisdiction for example a Military Venue establishes a
>Martial-Law Jurisdiction. THAT THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S ARE PUTTING IN SKELETAL
>INDICTMENTS AND IN FORMATIONS IS TRUE SEE  U.S. v. SMITH [below] 
>
>
>United States of America
>
>v.
>
>Smith, William T. Jr.
>
>Patriot News Company (Limited Intervenor), Appellant, No. 85-5112.
>
>United States of America
>
>v.
>
>STONEMAN, Alan R.
>
>Patriot News Company (Limited Intervenors),
>Appellant, No. 85-5112.
>
>Nos. 85-5111, 85-5112.
>
>United States Court of Appeals,
>Third Circuit
>
>Argued Aug. 7, 1985
>
>Decided Nov. 6, 1985
>
>PAGE. 1111
>"...Historically and functionally, the bill of particulars is closely
>related to the indictment. Bills of particulars, relative to indictments,
>have a brief history. Nevertheless, that history closely ties the bill of
>particulars to the indictment. Originally indictments set forth the
>accusation in great detail and there was no need for supplementation. The
>modern trend, however, has been towards more skeletal accusations combined
>with procedures providing access to the omitted details if the defense has a
>legitimate need for them...."
>
>"...Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) provides the opportunity for
>such access. That rule authorizes the court to "direct the filling of a
>bill of particulars" (emphasis added). This is in marked contrast to the
>provisions of Rule 16, which authorize the court to direct that the
>government "furnish to the defendant" certain specified items of discovery.
>In this context we believe Rule 7(f) provides some evidence that bills of
>particulars were  regarded by the drafters of the rules as a supplements
>to the indictment rather than as pretrial discovery. 
>
>"...Because bills of particulars thus set the parameters of the governments
>case, we think public interests serve by access to the charging documents..."
>
>Clearly the BOP is not to be used for discovery, but is used if you want
>the U.S. Attorney to make a more detailed indictment or information. In
>other words detail the VENUE of the charge and thereby establish the
>jurisdiction. We will have no more SKELETAL INDICTMENTS OR IN FORMATIONS.
>Remember this is a 1985 3rd Circuit Court case. In the U.S. District Court
>it is cited as: U.S. v. SMITH, 776 F. 2d. 1104 (1985) What have the other
>people have to prove their Abatements or other process is valid????
>
> 
>>
>>This brings us to the second case where the one before the court is trying
>>to get relief.  I know the court is supposed to be in possession of the
>>judicial power but the court-house, the court-room, the court-anything does
>>not give the relief; the officers do, by signing papers and eventually
>>physically carrying out the court's order.  And we try to get the petition
>>or other paperwork that starts the process into someone's hands or
>>attention.  And in the petition for the writ of mandamus, are we trying to
>>compel a judicial officer in a lower court to do something?
>>
>>Any more information would be appreciated.
>>
>>C.J. Scheppers
>
>Wangrud:
>A Mandamus is a civil writ, most charges are presented before a purely
>statutory court, or a Constitutional Court given statutory jurisdiction
>[Martial-law Jurisdiction] by Congress or the state Legislators. The
>Legislatures don't say they are granting Martial-Law Jurisdiction to the
>Statutory Courts[Tribunals] or the Constitutional Courts [they don't use
>the word Martial-law] but if you study the statutes the determination that
>the statute is governed by a Martial-Law maxim is not hard to establish.
>The Bill of Particulars Behold developed is designed to bring this issue of
>Venue and Jurisdiction out into the open. I agree when you enter into a
>statutory Court you are putting one foot into their jurisdiction, but
>appearing by Special Appearance and serving the District Attorney U.S. or
>state your demand for a Bill of Particulars has held the statutory
>tribunals exercising Martial-Law jurisdiction at bay, and the D.A.'s have
>been dismissing charges at the State level so far.  When the D.A. would't
>dismiss the charge and wouldn't answer the bill of particulars its time to
>push the D.A. to dismiss for lack of prosecution or answer. Behold has just
>now developed a Writ of Mandamus spaciality designed to address this issue.
>One thing is for sure a Citizen have better understand the jurisdiction of
>the statute he is fighting and some thing about the procedures of the
>statutory and Constitutional Courts, at least enough to put forth this
>issue. More latter
>/s/ Robert 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>========================================================================
>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