Time: Mon Oct 28 22:21:40 1996 To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: LLAW: LeRoy Cc: Bcc: At 08:52 PM 10/28/96 -0800, you wrote: >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >======================================================================= >Paul, > >If you were directing that question to me...I think you missed my point. >Which is that the knowledge of the folks on this list has been at LeRoy's >(and the others involved disposal) and they have used it as they sees fit. > >The only realm that I can see as not being pursued is bringing in an >Independent Grand Jury to investigate the matter. And try to force some >prosecution against criminal and ursurper activity if it can be shown by the >claimants. > >As you say, I don't know what else to do that hasn't already been done. I'm >all ears myself. > >~Tom Clark Such a remedy can be requested of the District Court of the United States in People v. United States, which has been removed from the Garfield county district court. However, we need a 3-judge panel to sign the Warrant of Removal. So, without a judge, there can be no judicial remedies, not even an ORDER to convene a federal grand jury, properly qualified and competent to hear the matter. No judge, no remedy. /s/ Paul Mitchell > > >><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 >> >>=========================================================== >>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>=========================================================== >> >> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail