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