Time: Wed Oct 30 00:06:27 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Public Declaration Re: LLAW: LeRoy
Cc:
Bcc:
This donation should be
forwarded to The Freedom Center,
P.O. Box 80446, Billings, Montana
state, Attention: Randy Parsons.
Thanks for your support.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 10:23 PM 10/29/96 -0700, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>PUBLIC NOTICE AND DECLARATION:
>
>Whereas this Freeman and Declarant
>is publicly known for the purposes of
>this list as "Tarheel", and
>
>Whereas Tarheel retains all the Rights,
>Powers, and Immunities granted by God
>to his Progenitors who by their actions
>first earned the appelation "Tarheel", and
>
>Whereas these Progenitors were, in 1776,
>known as We the Representatives of the
>Freemen of the State of North Carolina, and
>
>Whereas no government action or omission
>contrary to the constitutions established by
>Tarheel's People is valid absent his knowing
>and wilful waiver, and
>
>Whereas Tarheel does not waive any
>limitation regarding the proper form and
>substance of money to be in circulation
>in the American States, or the United States
>of America, and
>
>Tarheel repudiates and denies any implied
>benefit from any form of credit or debt currency
>which may be in circulation, therefore
>
>Tarheel refuses to be bound as a surety
>for any debt claimed as result of the circulation
>of any currency other than gold or silver coin, and
>
>Pmitch is requested to privately contact Tarheel
>to arrange delivery of 2 ounces of gold coin of
>the United States of America having a face value
>of 100 dollars to Pmitch as a private compensation
>for his work referenced below, and exchange of
>certain information.
>
>In Him,
>Tarheel
>
>
>At 06:41 AM 10/29/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>=======================================================================
>>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>>=======================================================================
>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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