Time: Mon May 12 15:52:47 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA20438;
Mon, 12 May 1997 12:36:35 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26143;
Mon, 12 May 1997 12:32:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:51:08 -0700
To: "Dale Robertson" <habeascorpus@hotmail.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: USA v. Gilbertson, Gilbertson v. U.S. et al.
Dale,
I agree with everything which you have written,
but I am not sure that we agree about the correct
conclusions we should draw from these undeniable
facts. I wish I had the time to engage you a little
more on the myriad of philosophical issues which
are raised here, but I don't. Moreover, I am not
prepared to give up, because to do so will surely
doom my clients. I am taking my cues from the
defendant, and his lovely and committed spouse.
They are both full steam ahead, with a Petition for
Rehearing En Banc on the ORDER denying release.
We are also full steam ahead on the full-blown
appeal, a massive confrontation which is forming
around numerous issues of federal jurisdiction,
e.g. Jury Selection and Service Act, court of
original jurisdiction to enforce FOIA, etc.
Dale, they cannot do this without us, and that
is as plain as day to me now. I have their
authorization to write a 15-page Petition for
Rehearing En Banc, which will automatically
call for a rehearing by the 3-judge panel on
the previous denial, pursuant to local 8th Circuit
rules of appellate procedure. We would need you,
if and when the entire panel (en banc) denies
the petition for release.
Won't you please join Us, with an open mind and
a committed heart? I regard you as a team "member,"
but I do not want to dictate this status to you.
I want you to accept it freely, knowing full well
that if we obey God's Law, we will surely have
God's assistance in this and other related cases and,
God knows, we need it! The ONLY good that I do now
comes from the Most High; and I am to blame for
any bad which originates from me.
In closing, Corpus Juris cites two cases holding
that Quo Warranto will lie for a failure to take
the Oath of Office required by the U.S. Constitution.
This is an option in the FOIA enforcement suit which
the defendant brought against the USDC Judge [sic].
I also argue that the FOIA deadlines activate estoppel,
pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906). So,
judge's failure to evidence credentials now estops
him from doing so in the FOIA suit.
I am standing by. Do join us, with nothing but your
best, always!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
p.s. I have updated our email address for you (only one now).
p.p.s. I am also taking the liberty of forwarding this whole
message to all clients of the Supreme Law School, because I
regard you as one of the great teachers of contemporary
American jurisprudence, Dale. And that is the truth, and
I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Please indicate
CONFIDENTIAL messages as such in the Subject: line,
until further notice, okay?
At 04:48 AM 5/12/97 PDT, you wrote:
>Paul:
>
>This is a set of facts which paint a very steep up hill battle.
>
>Even when there are compelling facts, it has been my experience that the
>government doesn't want to let someone go for the simple reason of
deterrance.
>It would make them look bad. And the number and variety of delays, excuses,
>prevarications and pretext to keep someone in jail are virtually endless
when
>tyranny runs rampant so as to perpetuate its power to fleece the people of
thier
>wealth. You are literally asking the fox to not only guard the hen house,
but
>also you are asking him to take one of the pluckings from his mouth and
place
>him back into the society from which he was so illicitly plucked. An unlikly
>occurance - wouldn't you say? Now let's face it, we're not talking about
justice
>here. What we are talking about is political power to perpetuate a fraud
on the
>American People. That's what this is about. Let's keep that perspective. Not
>unwinnable - but merely exteremely difficult and unlikely.
>
>It a little like asking the commandant at the death camps in poland during
WWII
>to spare the life of Herr Rosenberg predicated on the unarguable
proposition of
>his human right to his life - - in the Hegelian (and German) sense of the
>notion. The commandant's answer is likely to be (and often was) a 9mm slug
to
>the head of the hapless Herr Rosenberg. And that terrible injustice is
what the
>result always is where there is a divorce between justice and law. When
power
>illicitly conjoins with law their offspring is always an expanding
monopoly of
>arrogant power inexorable producing a veritable profusion of injustice.
ie: the
>death camps of Poland and later Germanny itself.
>
>I invite you to reread Hawthorn's Billy Budd which is a beautiful allagory
of
>the foregoing. We see it unfolding in this country daily of late.
>
>However, I am standing by and will respond as able when needed.
>
>Constitutionally,
>
>Dale Robertson
>
>===========================================
>
>>From pmitch@primenet.com Sun May 11 12:56:54 1997
>[206.165.43.148])
>> by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA16929;
>> Sun, 11 May 1997 12:55:22 -0700 (MST)
>>Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 13:33:57 -0700
>>To: Dale Robertson <jdrobertson@hotmail.com>,
>> Dale Robertson <dalerobertson@hotmail.com>,
>> Dale Robertson <habeascorpus@hotmail.com>
>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>>Subject: USA v. Gilbertson, Gilbertson v. U.S. et al.
>>
>>Dale,
>>
>>Here's a quick summary:
>>
>>1. Defendant demanded proof of USDC jurisdiction
>>2. Defendant executed Affidavit of Default
>> when proof was not forthcoming before deadline
>>3. Defendant then petitioned DCUS for Warrant of Removal
>>4. Defendant then sued USDC judge for failing to
>> produce credentials (e.g. oath of office, commission)
>>5. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was
>> filed against United States and the USDC judge, with
>> a demand for immediate recusal of said judge
>>6. DCUS was invoked, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)
>> and ORDER of USDC Judge in Arizona in Spring of 1996
>>7. despite all of the above, USDC judge sentenced
>> Defendant anyway, in a clear violation of the
>> prohibition against adverse conflicts of interest
>> at 28 U.S.C. 455
>>8. Defendant moved USDC judge for release, pending appeal
>>9. USDC judge denied motion, ruling that Defendant's
>> beliefs about citizenship and tax protest were "dangerous"
>>10. case moved to 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, where
>> Defendant/Appellant immediately requested release,
>> pending appeal
>>11. 3-judge panel denied motion for release, without
>> explanation, but without delay
>>12. we await certified copy of transcript of sentencing
>> hearing, which has been delayed without explanation
>>13. formal Demand has been served on court Reporter, to
>> delivery certified sentencing transcript by Friday, 5:00 p.m.
>>13. in meantime, Appellant noticed 8th Circuit of intent
>> to petition for rehearing en banc, and requested
>> extension of time for same, pending completion of
>> verified transcript of sentencing hearing
>>14. we also need to petition for leave to correct the
>> sentencing transcript, because Court Reporter was
>> spelling case names phonetically, and erred in several
>> places
>>
>>That brings you up-to-date.
>>
>>15. If 8th Circuit denies motion for release, pending appeal,
>> upon rehearing en banc, we are then up to the U.S.
>> Supreme Court, with a Habeas Corpus, hopefully.
>>
>>16. the standard appeal is underway, and I am writing that,
>> but it would help everyone involved if the Defendant
>> was released from federal detention in Rochester,
>> Minnesota
>>
>>Are you ready for a BIG ONE?
>>
>>RSVP ASAP
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>
>\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
>"We do well to bear in mind the extraordinary prestige of
>the great writ, Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum in Anglo-
>American jurisprudence: "The most Celebrated writ in the
>English Law." 3 Blackstone Commentaries 129. It is "a writ
>antecedent to statute, and throwing its root deep into the
>genius of our common law.... it is perhaps the most
>important writ known to the constitutional law of england,
>affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all
>cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of
>immemorial antiquity... ."
>
>"It's root principle is that in a civilized society,
>government must always be accountable to the judiciary for
>a man's imprisonment: If the imprisonment connot be shown
>to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the
>individual is entitled to his immediate release."
>
>Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963)
>\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
>
>Dale Robertson
>habeascorpus@hotmail.com
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
========================================================================
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