Time: Thu Nov 07 06:04:17 1996 To: Nancy Lord From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: take the high ground NOW!! Cc: Bcc: Dean, Electra, Neil Nordbrock, Richard McDonald Starr v. United States et al., DCUS Application for Order to Show Cause Dear Nancy & Althea, The exact same thing happened in U.S.A. v. Wallens. Here is the sequence I now recommend. We must stay the course, however; flinching will scuttle this plan: Step 1: file challenge to Jury Selection and Service Act; this can be used to prove that the grand and trial juries were not legal bodies. judge will probably freak out, or balk. Step 2: if judge denies the motion to stay, pending final resolution of challenge to constitutionality of JSSA, petition for reconsideration and possibly also clarification Step 3: reserve your right to refuse any ORDER on this question for fraud and other causes; you must do this within 5 days of any ORDER Step 4: if judge does not rule, go to Circuit Court of Appeals for a Mandamus to compel him to rule Step 5: file Final Notice and Demand for proof of Power (of attorney), Standing (of "United States of America"), and Jurisdiction (of USDC), with 10-day deadline; this will setup estoppel if they default. Step 6: with Step 5, file FOIA request for published regulations promulgating 18 USC 3231 (there are none); this invokes the DCUS. See 5 USC 552(a)(4)(B). Also request powers of attorney for Office of U.S. Attorney to represent plaintiff USA. Also request all Acts of Congress granting standing to USA; there is none. Step 7: the petition for clarification should point out that JSSA makes no mention of the USDC, so this is how you activate the collateral attack. Congress has no policy for jury selection and service in the USDC! Step 8: when they default beyond deadline for Notice and Demand for Proof of Power, Standing, and Jurisdiction, file Notice of Removal and of Petition for Warrant of Removal to 3-Judge Panel in the DCUS; you will petition that court for TRO and permanent injunction to force a stay, for lack of criminal jurisdiction in the USDC. Step 9: at this point, beginning with the removal petition, switch parties: defendants become the new plaintiffs; United States et al. become the respondents; use the same docket number, but remove "CR" because that is a fraud (USDC has no criminal jurisdiction, which you will establish via equitable estoppel); if Clerk balks, pay for a new docket number (don't make trouble here). Step 10: there is currently no federal judge who is competent or qualified to sit on the DCUS, because they are all paying federal income taxes on their compensation; so, file Notice and Demand on the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for a Certificate of Necessity to be served upon the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for Temporary Assignment of 3 judges from the Court of International Trade (an Article III forum) to Preside on the DCUS. This is your big move; Ninth Circuit has docketed Wallen's Notice and Demand as a Mandamus. Step 11: execute and file an Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition, because the defendants were unlawfully extradited into a foreign jurisdiction (the territorial USDC court) without an express waiver, in violation of the Tenth Amendment; give the other side a tight deadline to rebut, and invoke estoppel by acquiescence if they fall silent (they will). Step 12: petition the DCUS for an Order to the Office of the United Attorney to show cause why its alleged agents should not be charged with a laundry list of federal crimes, such as piracy, extortion, perjury, and so on. Import state law to show that they also violated numerous state laws, e.g. trespass, entrapment, etc. USDC judge become a respondent, so he is automatically recused from the criminal action. This is a warning also to any replacement that may be assigned to the USDC case: if s/he steps in, s/he is a new respondent. Step 13: the petition for OSC must demand a trial by competent and qualified jury, so re-file the jury challenge in the new court, because you want real relief from that court, including declaratory judgment on probable cause for charging all federal employees with the laundry list mentioned in 12. See the All Writs Statute for ideas. Step 14: this is the big one (which I have not done yet); if Circuit Court does not prepare the certificate of necessity to be served on Rehnquist, then Mandamus will lie in the Supreme Court of the United States to compel them to prepare it. Step 15: quite obviously, if the certificate of necessity is finally prepared, with or without Mandamus to the the Circuit Court, you are then waiting on Rehnquist to act; if he does not, Mandamus will lie in the Supreme Court of the United States again to compel him; he recuses himself as a respondent, and you go with a quorum of 8 judges, or 7 to create a stable voting block (6 is the legal minimum for a quorum; see Title 28). Step 16: if all of this fails, two international human rights treaties guarantee effective judicial remedies for violations of fundamental Rights, notwithstanding that the violations were committed by persons acting in their official capacities; Congress reserved to the localities standing to compel the United States to provide effective judicial remedies; you have the option, then, to remove the action to a local common law court, where you will probably get justice, at last. File FOIA now for the Reservations which Congress attached to the human rights treaties; these are archived in the State Department. Step 17: at an appropriate moment in this sequence, a Habeas Corpus petition will lie, but it would be best to get such relief from the DCUS, so you are on better grounds to stay the court with the Certificate of Necessity for Temporary Assignment of 3 competent and qualified judges, so you will then have a panel to rule on the Habeas Corpus. But, it is not absolutely necessary that the Habeas Corpus be filed in the DCUS; you could also file it with the Circuit Court of Appeals (since they have authority over the USDC judge). I am standing by. This will give everyone lots of hope. These moves are very powerful, however, so we don't need or want wimps to take these on. The United States will begin to act very strangely when these briefs start to flow, so get ready for the unexpected. One judge freaked out and made some really stupid rulings, e.g. the affidavit is hearsay, and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have no legal significance. Yes!! Another judge just fell totally silent in the face of the jury challenge. Silence is victory; remember that!! I can send you copies of almost all of these moves, except the Mandamus to the Circuit Court, and the Mandamus to Rehnquist. I trust that you can write that yourself. /s/ Paul Mitchell
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail