Time: Mon Oct 28 18:55:10 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: LeRoy
Cc:
Bcc: Electra, Chris Wilder, Denver newspapers, Jean-Pierre Weingarten, Jim McCall, Joe Newman, Nancy Lord, Neil Nordbrock, Richard McDonald, The Arizona Republic, Tucson Citizen, William Cooper, Art Bell,rgmoore@primenet.com,chiobec@azstarnet.com
<snip>
>>Well why don't we try discussing getting Leroy out of that stinking cell.
>
>As far as litigating throught the established courts...I think it is safe to
>say that all we can really do is send LeRoy our ideas on what he might try.
>LeRoy is not one who is lacking ideas on how to conduct his defense.
>
>What does LeRoy need then for us to do for him what he cannot do himself?
>Not a lot on the litigation side. Quite frankly, there have been a lot of
>folks to offer advice to LeRoy. I've corresponded with him since he's back
>at Yellowstone, and I can't add anything to the course he has chosen to
>take. It's outside of my expertise.
>
>Outside of that what can we do? Well, Ralph has a darn good website that
>documents what has transpired. In fact, Ralph and Paul have been taking
>things that LeRoy has dug up and moving forward with those.
>
>Of course you and I have tried to spark some action to get a jury in on
>this. I advocate a Grand Jury, and you have advocated a straight pre-Magna
>Charta/Norman law common law jury.
>
>I must say my effort has gained modest support, even though I spammed the
>patriot community on the Internet with it. Heck we've been featured in
>Media Bypass and other papers for what we've worked out here and it has come
>to little. Short of knocking on every door I come across, I don't know what
>else a man can do?
>
>I certainly don't have much to offer LeRoy when others with more experience
>are helping him.
>
>~Tom Clark
Let me pose a few questions to you:
1. if the United States District Courts (USDC)
have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, but
2. LeRoy et al. are being "prosecuted" in this court, and
3. if the plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have
no standing to sue in this court, but
4. the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are the named plaintiffs, and
5. if the U.S. Attorneys on the case have no powers of
attorney to represent these plaintiffs, but
6. they are representing the plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA anyway, and
7. if there are no regulations for the statute which grants
criminal jurisdiction to the District Court of the
United States, and
8. if the District Court of the United States (DCUS) is not the
same forum as the United States District Court (USDC),
according to several standing decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court, and
9. if the lack of regulations proves that the statute
granting criminal jurisdiction only has application
to federal officers, employees, and agents, and
10. if Congress has enacted a policy for convening juries
which contradicts itself, and which policy only
applies to the District Courts of the United States,
and not to the United States District Court, and
11. if Congress presently has NO policy concerning
jury selection and service in the United States
District Court, where all these pseudo-criminal
actions are being brought, and no regulation for
the policy it has enacted; and
12. if all federal grand and petit juries have issued
indictments/verdicts which are null and void for
exhibiting class discrimination against state
Citizens who are not also federal citizens, and
13. if the District Court of the United States cannot be
convened with any federal judges who are currently
having their compensation be diminished by
federal income taxes, and
14. if the case of People v. United States was recently removed
into the District Court of the United States, on an
injunction remedy, and
15. if the petition for injunction invokes a 3-judge panel, and
16. if the 3-judge panel is also needed to adjudicate the
apportionment of Congressional districts, which are
affected because the disenfranchised state Citizens
cannot and do not vote, without also committing
perjury (a class 6 felony in some states); and
17. if one qualified federal judge cannot be found whose
compensation is not being diminished by federal income
taxes, then 3 such judges certainly cannot be found
whoses compensation is not being diminished by federal
income taxes; and
18. if the Supreme Court of the United States just reached
a stalemate on a case involving Social Security taxation
of federal judges' salaries, brought by 16 federal judges
who don't want their compensation diminished any more; then
what do you do now?
I am all ears.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail