Time: Tue Nov 05 20:35:53 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Kemp Trial Begins
Cc: Richard McDonald
Bcc: 

At 07:54 PM 11/5/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Mike Kemp writes:
>> 
>> Note for Paul- Alabama selects its jurors from DRIVER'S LICENSE HOLDERS.

That can be attacked because it
discriminates against those who
choose to travel on the highways
without also being in interstate
commerce, i.e. licensed by the
State to transport the goods 
of others, or their Persons.
In other words, those who exercise
Rights are being denied the exercise
of other Rights, fundamental ones
at that.  This is where we would
weave in all the traffic research
which has been accomplished in the
past 5-10 years.  Contact Richard
McDonald for more information.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


But to that, I ask why my grandfather who has not had a license 
>in several years got notice for jury duty?
>> 
>> To All:
>>         Hizzoner agreed that I objected to everything, and I told him
>> that I would participarte out of sheer desperation in self defense. A
>> jury was selected, and the prosecution began presenting its evidence.
>>         The DA got up in his opening statement and lied about how the
>> raid went down. The occifers involved began their testimony, and have
>> admitted that:
>>         They sent for a helicopter from four hours away, and said that
>> they already had probable cause. But, they went specifically to my house
>> and searched the back porch from the air anyway, just to make sure.
>>         The interior of the house was searched before a warrant was
>> obtained.
>>         The occifer neglected to tell the hizzoner who issued the warrant
>> that the house had already been searched.
>>         They finally admitted when the informant had been there, and that
>> he was not a *citizen,* but a profesional tattletale. To have been where
>> he said he was, when he said he was, to have observed my back porch, he
>> had to have trespassed, a crime. Having trespassed, he committed another
>> crime by covertly observing my back yard. He committed another crime when
>> he told the head of the Etowah County Drug and major Crimes Task Force
>> commander about the items on my back porch. Another crime existed in the
>> conspiracy to continue.
>>         The arresting occifer claimed to have seen marijuana growing on
>> the porch when he rounded the corner of my house, but photographs show
>> the porch to be in deep shade with a bright sunny sky overhead, and the
>> eye can distinguish no detail on the porch in the photographs which THEY
>> introduced as evidence.
>>         Hizzoner claims that I *waived* my rights by not pretending to be
>> a lawyer, and allows all this evidence.
>>         The guy who was responsible for inventory of the seized items
>> testifies tomorrow. That will just about wind up the prosecutions case.
>> However, this ought to be a hoot, for this guy will testify to
>> inventorying several bolt-action SKS rifles, along with several other
>> semiautomatic SKS rifles. He also inventoried a Remington 700A
>> bolt-action .30-06 with a Unertl scope on top, serial number XYZABC.
>>         Problem is, I don't own such a rifle. However, I do own one of
>> that description and serial number in .22-250. Ah'ma gonna eat his ass.
>> Wish you were gonna be there.
>>         Then I get to present the affidavits that hizzoner ignored while
>> demanding that I pretend to be a lawyer. In them are laid out the
>> trespass, the reasons for unlawful search, the unlawfullness of hemp
>> prohibition, you name it.
>>         Oh, yeah, one last item. One of the occifers (who said he could
>> see onto a deeply shaded porch from the bright sun, fifty feet away and
>> recognize a marijuana plant) testified that I appeared to be *under the
>> influence* of some drug, becasue I didn't hop and jump when he said hop
>> and jump, and I wouldn't respond to his questions (I reminded him that I
>> had the right to remain silent).
>>         When questioned directly about whether I appeared to be under the
>> influence right then, during the trial, he responded in the negative.
>>         Well, fifty-fifty ain't bad. I WAS under the influence, on both
>> occasions- arrest and trial. The reason that the occifer claimed that I
>> was under the influence when arrested was that I moved slowly and
>> wouldn't obey his commands. The point was, I pushed him by NOT responding
>> just as hard as I could, to the point that I figured he was actually
>> about to pull the trigger on me. Then I slowly turned to face him,
>> keeping my hands visible but NOT where he said put them.
>>         The occifer testified that the only words I spoke were to the
>> sheriff, and *he didn't hear what I said to him.* What I said was *What
>> the fuck are you doing, coming to my house without a warrant?*
>>         I was perfectly aware, and perfectly rational, as I was today-
>> even though I had *inhaled* in the preceding hours.
>>         Tomorrow, it goes to the jury- some of whom are paying attention,
>> and some of whom might even be friendly- I hope- but I would settle for
>> one Constitutionalist among the bunch.
>>         One last thing- they made a big point about how I had *publicly
>> threatened* law enforcement occifers, even to the sheriff's face. The
>> Gadsden Minute Men was brought up by the DA in his jury questioning,
>> wondering if anybody was a member or knew any members.
>>         Thank you, Lord, for now I get to talk about the Good O'Boys, the
>> video tape of the occifer who hung out at the gun store, and Bart
>> McIntyre, BATF Macon, yelling at one of our guys *You fucking people are
>> about to piss me off.*
>>         Iffin ah'm'a loose tomorrow evening, ah'll let ye know whut's
>> happenin'.
>>         I appreciate your interest amd your prayers.
>> 
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> Mike Kemp
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail