Time: Tue Oct 29 06:40:45 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LeRoy
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists
At 12:52 AM 10/29/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>You have my utmost respect. I know you are sincere in your
>efforts. But the laborious outline of the problem which you posted below,
>focuses entirely on utilizing court systems run by the federal government.
With one important qualification:
the DCUS can only be convened with
an independent judiciary, not one
subject to the undue influence of
the other departments. See Evans
v. Gore, and Lord v. Kelley.
For your information, I am thinking
seriously about volunteering to
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
as a competent and qualified stand-in
for such missions, although People
v. United States is out of the
question, because I am the Relator
in that case.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
> And I've argued with you before about how your newfound DCUS or
>whatever is not going to provide the solutions which you seek. And I am
>tired of arguing with uypou and the others about the merrits of these
>strategys. I don't wanna hear about it any more. As far as I'm concerned,
>it's trash fromm stem to stern. We need to skuttel that entire ship of
>state and lert her soink like the whore which she is.
Objection.
I understand your feelings here.
I published my strategic plan for
what I would do in Billings, and
they hired me to do just that.
"They" refers specifically to
LeRoy, who is in the driver's
seat in such matters, because
he is proceeding In Propria Persona.
If they want to change courses now,
that is entirely up to them; it is
not my decision, and never was.
I am an "architect" of sorts, and
I am down in this trench throwing
dirt around, because we are
implementing a foundation, tying
rebar, getting dirty, and
excavating to find bed rock.
People topside are standing there
asking me what I am doing down in
this hole, and they are kicking
dirt in my face. These people
do not know how to read blue prints,
and never will, much less create the
blue prints in the first place.
Do you get the metaphor here?
The exact same thing happened
in the Broderick case, only there
I was given a loaner car with
front brakes that had been tampered
with. This is criminal negligence,
and maybe also attempted murder.
DO YOU GET THE DRIFT HERE?
Like, just maybe, there is
sabotage going on?
maybe? maybe?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
> The essence of the original pure commonlaw is what leroy was
>seeking to re-establish in justice township. Leroy is the only scholar
>who I have ever heard to quote magna carta.
You haven't read very many
scholars, then.
He is on a hihggher plane
>of consciousness.
And his colleagues are avowed
white supremacists who cannot
cite ANY New Testament authorities
for their bigotry, even when
challenged to do so. I know.
I was there. I issued the
challenge to them.
We need him out of that stinlking cell, and we need to
>quit screwing around with these stinking defacto smoke and mirrors
>prostitutres. If you want a job done right you have to do it yourself.
Go for it, then.
Mind if I watch?
>
> We have the authority to take the reigns of power. Leroy directed
>his students to read chapter 61 of magna carta, as showing clearly that
>the power remains in "we the people". Check it out. Its dynamite.
For me, that translates into a
judicial power forum, with a
lawfully convened jury of
state Citizens, to hear any
and all matters brought to them
by the Plaintiff, the People
of the United States. You seem
to have forgotten that the DCUS
action we filed exhibits a demand
for jury trial. That is the
entire focus of my work up there:
competent and qualified jury
verdicts, issuing declaratory
relief and other relief as they
deem proper. I can see why I
need to repeat myself over and
over and over, because the
American People are just not
getting it. Maybe if I repeat
myself 100 times, just maybe,
they might begin to see what I
am doing up there. I tried in
every way I could to explain
the crucial, pivotal importance
of our challenge to the Jury
Selection and Service Act, but
instead I get grief. Well,
America, we are lost if we cannot
agree on something as obvious as
the class discrimination we have
found in the Jury Selection and
Service Act. I am blue in the
face. Pardon me.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
> The pathway which you advocate below is not the pathway which
>either leroy or god wishes for us to follow in this quandery before us.
OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LEROY APPROVED IT!!!!!!!!!
JUST HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY
THIS BEFORE IT SINKS INTO YOUR THICK SKULL?
NOW, WILL YOU STOP MAKING FALSE AND OFFENSIVE
STATEMENTS HERE, PLEEEEEEEZE!!!!!!!!
If you don't believe me, ASK HIM YOURSELF!!!!
I am going for a walk.
Please excuse me ...
for several days.
10-4
>We must re-establish some new form of commonlaw process for addressing
>these matters. Our original ideas for doing a commonlaw court online is
>still one of the best, imho. And as this discussion again unfolds, I
>would really like for leroy himself to be in communication with us.
>
> I have asked Tom Clark to assist me in gaining access to avenues
>of communication with leroy. I am hereby asking you respectfully for the
>same assistance.
>
> Please help me in these efforts.
>
>Charles Stewart . . .
>
>On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
><snip>
>> 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