Time: Sat Nov 02 09:44:14 1996
To: Bernie Oliver <patriot@rtd.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Our "justice" system at work???
Cc:
Bcc:
Bernie,
Motions in limine like this
are now in grave jeopardy
because of the decision by
the U.S. Supreme Court in
U.S. v. Gaudin (1995), in
which the Supremes held that
juries are empowered to decide
matters of relevance AND
materiality of evidence.
Moreover, the matter of "motivation"
calls for a conclusion of law, as
well as matters of fact, which the
jury should also be allowed to decide.
Finally, the "legal basis for such
filing" is the whole core of the case.
If this motion is granted, you are up
to the Ninth Circuit on a Mandamus,
to compel the state court to consider
"the legal basis for such filing."
See also U.S. v. Powell, the third
published decision (I believe), in
which the Ninth Circuit threw out all
their prior precedents on the question:
can criminal defendants read the law
into the record, before the jury?
Answer: after U.S. v. Cheek, they
certainly can. See last footnote on
last page (where they were hiding it).
You have a mistrial in the making,
if this motion is granted.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>Lest anyone think that the prosecution in my case has any intentions of
>>changing it's tactics, the following is an exact (complete with typo) from
>>Mr. John Evans, prosecutor for the AG's office. It is a motion in Limine,
>>Re: Admissibility of article describing commercial liens.
>>
>> "The State of Arizona, by and through the Attorney General
>>Grant Woods and his assistant, JOHN R. EVANS, and urges the court to allow
>>the State to present evidence regarding the motivation for Mr. Oliver to
>>file the liens and to prevent Mr. Oliver from presenting any testimony that
>>there is a legal basis for such filing.
>> Respectfully submitted this 11th. day of October, 1996,
>>
>>
>> Now that is rich! Evans wants to vilify me like he did at the grand
>>jury hearing and me not be allowed to defend myself (like at the grand jury
>>hearing). I wouldn't have had the juevos to have even filed that one. It
>>should also be noted that I only filed *one* lien against the judge-- not
>>*liens* and it was perfectly legal.
>>
>> Guilty until proven innocent.
>>
>>
>>Bernie
Bernie,
We also have devastating briefs
which attack the competence of
the grand and trial juries, for
exhibiting class bias against
state Citizens who are not also
federal citizens. Since they are
all pulled from voter registration
lists, and since those lists consist
of federal citizens only, you have
a federal question and should remove
this case immediately into the
District Court of the United States.
For more on this, you will need to
retain me as our assistant Counsel:
$500 retainer and $75.00 per hour,
charged against the retainer.
I am a professional with a lot of
experience in cases like yours.
I will be happy to assist you in
any way I can.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
P.S. There is a vicious lie circulating
that I am a deep cover government agent.
I submit to you the affidavit of non-governmental
affiliation which I filed in U.S.A. v. Broderick
in Los Angeles, United States District Court.
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
For Immediate Release July 27, 1996
Juries in Check Around the Nation
Payson, Arizona
The founders of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law
Firm -- have just issued a ground-breaking formal challenge to
the process of selecting grand and trial juries everywhere in
America.
Paul Mitchell, one of the co-founders, has recently
documented a serious flaw in the laws enacted by Congress to
select jurors for grand and trial jury service. These laws are
found in Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1861 and 1865,
the federal Jury Selection and Service Act.
On the one hand, Congress has said that all citizens should
have the opportunity to serve on both kinds of juries (section
1861). On the other hand, Congress has also said that jury
candidates must be federal citizens (section 1865). Citizens of
the several Union states are not mentioned in these Acts of
Congress, and the omission was intentional.
Grand juries are convened to consider probable cause for
issuing indictments, or formal charges, against people suspected
of criminal behavior. Trial juries are convened to try those
people and to determine their guilt or innocence. Both kinds of
juries are now assembled entirely from voter registration lists,
which consist of federal citizens only. In many states, it is a
felony to falsify information on a voter registration affidavit.
Ever since the Civil War, Congress has been pushing hard,
through force and fraud, to get all Americans into a second,
inferior class of citizenship known as federal citizenship. This
class did not exist in the law before the Civil War.
Prior to that war, there was only one class of citizenship,
a class which today is called state Citizenship. This is the
class that is mentioned in the qualifications for serving in the
Congress and the White House. The term "United States" in those
provisions means "states United", and the "C" in Citizen is a
capital "C", not a lower-case "c" as in the case of federal
citizens.
Unfortunately for Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled, several times, that class discrimination in the selection
of grand or trial jurors is a ground for proving that a jury is
not a legal body. This means that any jury which exhibits class
discrimination cannot issue lawful indictments, nor can it issue
lawful verdicts. There are two "classes" of citizens in America.
In fact, several courts have already ruled that one can be a
state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, regardless of
the Civil War and its ugly aftermath.
"We are prepared to stipulate that federal citizens have no
standing to challenge the obvious conflict between these two
statutes," says Paul Mitchell, the author of several court briefs
which are racing through the Internet at present. "But, when it
comes to Sovereign state Citizens, the class discrimination is
unmistakable, and unconstitutional."
At an introductory lecture last week in Mesa, Arizona,
members of the audience were enthralled by the prospect that
government indictments against state Citizens will soon be thrown
out. "The correct procedural move is to petition the court for a
dismissal, or a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of
the challenge," explained Mitchell. A stay is a procedural
"freeze" on any further hearings, until the controversy is
settled.
Final resolution means that the matter will be finally
decided by the United States Supreme Court, probably after two or
more federal appeals courts decide the matter with opposite
results. This will almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme
Court.
Sample briefs can be obtained from the Supreme Law Firm by
contacting co-founder Paul Mitchell at email pmitch@primenet.com.
With minor changes, the two briefs can be adapted to any state or
federal prosecution, no matter at what step in the proceedings.
Mitchell is even prepared to utilize their logic in habeas corpus
petitions, in order to release state Citizens from federal
prisons. Their indictments and convictions were decided by
juries that were not legal bodies.
# # #
Contact: Paul Mitchell, Mail: 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Counselor at Law Tucson [zip code exempt]
Supreme Law Firm ARIZONA REPUBLIC
(520) 320-1514 Email: pmitch@primenet.com
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail