Time: Thu Nov 07 13:53:32 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: take the high ground NOW!!
Cc:
Bcc:
Where are you going to be?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 03:37 PM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 06:05 AM 11/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>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:
>
>Paul,
> I'll pass this along. I'm leaving now.
>Save it for my trial.
>
> Thank you for all the cheering in my
>times of need.
>
>Nancy
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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