Time: Sun Nov 03 19:02:21 1996
To: Bernie Oliver <patriot@rtd.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Your Case
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Bernie,

You have a federal question:
the grand and trial jurors are
all federal citizens (cf. in 
Black's Law Dictionary).  So, 
remove the action into the 
District Court of the United States.
If your public pretender won't go for it,
fire him.  

Then you can "beat them up" by turning
the tables, at the very least, with a
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Final Resolution of Challenge to the
Jury Selection and Service Act.

There are lots of other things you can
do, like demand a presiding federal judge
whose compensation is not being diminished
by federal income taxes.  All these briefs
have already been prepared.

This is a general-purpose challenge
we have worked up, for people like yourself.
Do you want some details?

I am standing by.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

P.S.  There are some vicious lies circulating
that I am some kind of deep cover government
operative.  Please evaluate me on the basis
of my works, not on the basis of hearsay.
If you do, we will work fine together.


[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

                 "Karma and the Federal Courts"

                               by

                      Paul Andrew Mitchell
                       All Rights Reserved
                         (November 1996)


     The law  of karma  is this:  what goes around, comes around.
When you  begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your
house.

     And so,  we have  come to this point in decoding Title 28 of
the United  States Codes:   there  are  two  classes  of  federal
"District Courts" in the federal court system.

     One class  is for  the federal zone;  the other class is for
the state zone.

     Using  a  very  powerful  rule  of  statutory  construction,
"inclusio unius  est exclusio  alterius," we show that the phrase
"District Court  of the  United States"  refers to federal courts
for the  state zone;   and  the phrase  "United  States  District
Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.

     We have  this on  the authority  of the Supreme Court of the
United States,  most notably  in the  cases of American Insurance
Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].

     Now, here's  the rub:  Since federal courts are creatures of
statutes only,  they can  only cognize  subject matters which are
assigned to them expressly by statutes.

     When it  comes to  criminal  jurisdiction,  the  controlling
statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.

     This statute  grants original  jurisdiction to  the District
Courts of  the United  States (DCUS),  but does  not mention  the
United States District Courts (USDC)!

     How about them apples?

     Remember this carefully:

     Inclusio  unius  est exclusio  alterius  (in Latin  ).
     Inclusion of one is  exclusion of others (in English).

     Since the  USDC  is  not  mentioned,  its  omission  can  be
inferred as  intentional. (Read  that again,  then confirm  it in
Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).

     So,  from  the  historian's  point  of  view,  Congress  has
permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
of the  USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and
into subject  matters over  which said  court has no jurisdiction
whatsoever.


           Karma and the Federal Courts:  Page 1 of 3

     This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but
now it  is  obvious,  and  quite  difficult  to  change,  without
bringing down  the whole  house of  cards (which is happening, by
the way.   The  Liege firemen  are  literally  hosing  their  own
corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of
judicial tyranny.)

     By the  way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been
invited, via  the Internet,  to discharge the Belgian debt to the
United States  by moving  their talents  state-side.  They should
return home  debt free,  in about  ten years  or so, depending on
available supplies of soap and water.

     Imagine a  sheet of  Saran Wrap,  which has  been yanked too
far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which
surround the federal zone.

     This is  the United States District Court (USDC), in all its
limited Honors and tarnished glory.

     Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18
U.S.C. 1964(a)  and 1964(c).  Both statutes  grant  authority  to
issue remedies  to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by
18 U.S.C.  1962.   Section 1964(a)  grants civil  jurisdiction to
issue injunctive  relief to  the DCUS;   Section  1964(c)  grants
civil jurisdiction  to issue injunctive relief to the USDC.  Both
refer  to   the  exact   same  subject   matter,   namely,   RICO
(Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.

     So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did
Congress need to enact two separate statutes?

     The answer  is simple:   one  authority was  needed for  the
DCUS, and  the other  was needed  for the  USDC.  Simple, really,
when the  sedition by  syntax  is  explained  in  language  which
penetrates the deception.

     Now, if  this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to
prove us  wrong about  this matter,  the United  States  (federal
government) is  in a  heap of  trouble here,  because it has been
prosecuting people  in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War;
furthermore,  those   courts  have   no   criminal   jurisdiction
whatsoever, because  such an authority is completely lacking from
Titles 18  and 28,  both of which have been enacted into positive
law, unlike  Title 26,  which has  not been enacted into positive
law.  See Title 1 for details.

     What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery?  Well, when
any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a
Freedom of  Information Act  (FOIA) request immediately, for such
things as  any regulations  which  have  been  published  in  the
Federal Register,  pursuant to  the Federal  Register Act, for 18
U.S.C. 3231.


           Karma and the Federal Courts:  Page 2 of 3

     It won't  hurt to  send submit similar FOIA requests for the
credentials of  all federal employees who have "touched" the case
in any way.

     Since we  already know  that there are no regulations for 18
U.S.C. 3231,  and that  federal employees  will usually refuse to
produce their  credentials, your  FOIA requests  will be met with
silence, whereupon  you will file a FOIA appeal.  Once the appeal
deadline has run, you are in court.

     But which court?  Guess ...

     ... the  answer is  the District Court of the United States.
What an  amazing discovery,  yes?  A United States District Judge
in Arizona,  in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States
District Court  (USDC) is  not the  proper forum  to  litigate  a
request under  the FOIA.   That can only be because FOIA requests
must be  litigated in  the District  Court of  the United  States
(DCUS).

     Now we  have the United States checkmated.  The proper forum
for FOIA  is now  res judicata.   If the DCUS is the proper forum
for FOIA,  and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, THEN
the USDC  is not  the proper  forum for prosecuting violations of
Title 18  either, because  the USDC  does not show up in 5 U.S.C.
552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!

     Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it.
It's okay  to admit  that you  must read  it several  times; this
writer once  read a  paragraph from  Hooven and  Allison v. Evatt
some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.

     Inclusio unius  est exclusio  alterius.    The  omission  by
Congress  of  the  USDC  from  18  U.S.C.  3231  must  have  been
intentional;   the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was
intentional.   Use of  this maxim allows for us to exploit one of
the most  powerful techniques  in American  jurisprudence.  It is
called "collateral  attack"  --  a broadside, rather than a head-
on, collision.

     Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...

     ... freedom.  Freedom!  FREEDOM!!!

     Love it.


Common Law Copyright
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
November 2, 1996


                             #  #  #


           Karma and the Federal Courts:  Page 3 of 3

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



At 03:57 PM 11/3/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>     Thanks for the information you passed on to me.  It will be forwarded
>on to my public defender.  As you have, no doubt surmised from that
>statement, I'm not in a financial position to put out the $500.00 retainer
>and $75.00 per hour for your services.  This is not to infer in any way that
>I wouldn't if I were in position to do so.  I fully understand that your
>services are how you make your living.  I'm just appreciative of what you
>have forwarded to me.
>
>     Not only has my business gone down the perverbial toilet after becoming
>a media celebrity, but after having a display ad in the Yellow Pages for
>about 20 years they suddenly forgot to put my ad in this year.  When you
>look on page 1299 it has a one-liner with my company name and instructs the
>reader to turn to page 1297 for our display ad-- the one that they forgot to
>put.  There is, however, another company that pronounces their company name
>the same but they spell it differently.
>
>     To say that I've been financialy "nuked" would be to make an
>understatement.
>
>     Thank you for what you've already forwarded to me.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Bernie Oliver
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail