Time: Thu Nov 07 16:36:30 1996
To: Mike Kemp <minutemn@pcl.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: take the high ground NOW!!
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 06:50:40
>To: ewolfe@wnstar.com (Ed Wolfe)
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: take the high ground NOW!!
>
>>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 06:04:31
>>To: Nancy Lord
>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>>Subject: take the high ground NOW!!
>>
>>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