Time: Fri Nov 08 06:18:42 1996 To: Clido@aol.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Nationwide Jury Challenge Cc: Bcc: >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 05:21:05 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: Nationwide Jury Challenge > >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > >For Immediate Release July 27, 1996 > > Juries in Check Around the Nation > > >Payson, Arizona > > The founders of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law >Firm -- have just issued a ground-breaking formal challenge to >the process of selecting grand and trial juries everywhere in >America. > > Paul Mitchell, one of the co-founders, has recently >documented a serious flaw in the laws enacted by Congress to >select jurors for grand and trial jury service. These laws are >found in Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1861 and 1865, >the federal Jury Selection and Service Act. > > On the one hand, Congress has said that all citizens should >have the opportunity to serve on both kinds of juries (section >1861). On the other hand, Congress has also said that jury >candidates must be federal citizens (section 1865). Citizens of >the several Union states are not mentioned in these Acts of >Congress, and the omission was intentional. > > Grand juries are convened to consider probable cause for >issuing indictments, or formal charges, against people suspected >of criminal behavior. Trial juries are convened to try those >people and to determine their guilt or innocence. Both kinds of >juries are now assembled entirely from voter registration lists, >which consist of federal citizens only. In many states, it is a >felony to falsify information on a voter registration affidavit. > > Ever since the Civil War, Congress has been pushing hard, >through force and fraud, to get all Americans into a second, >inferior class of citizenship known as federal citizenship. This >class did not exist in the law before the Civil War. > > Prior to that war, there was only one class of citizenship, >a class which today is called state Citizenship. This is the >class that is mentioned in the qualifications for serving in the >Congress and the White House. The term "United States" in those >provisions means "states United", and the "C" in Citizen is a >capital "C", not a lower-case "c" as in the case of federal >citizens. > > Unfortunately for Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has >ruled, several times, that class discrimination in the selection >of grand or trial jurors is a ground for proving that a jury is >not a legal body. This means that any jury which exhibits class >discrimination cannot issue lawful indictments, nor can it issue >lawful verdicts. There are two "classes" of citizens in America. > > In fact, several courts have already ruled that one can be a >state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, regardless of >the Civil War and its ugly aftermath. > "We are prepared to stipulate that federal citizens have no >standing to challenge the obvious conflict between these two >statutes," says Paul Mitchell, the author of several court briefs >which are racing through the Internet at present. "But, when it >comes to Sovereign state Citizens, the class discrimination is >unmistakable, and unconstitutional." > > At an introductory lecture last week in Mesa, Arizona, >members of the audience were enthralled by the prospect that >government indictments against state Citizens will soon be thrown >out. "The correct procedural move is to petition the court for a >dismissal, or a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of >the challenge," explained Mitchell. A stay is a procedural >"freeze" on any further hearings, until the controversy is >settled. > > Final resolution means that the matter will be finally >decided by the United States Supreme Court, probably after two or >more federal appeals courts decide the matter with opposite >results. This will almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme >Court. > > Sample briefs can be obtained from the Supreme Law Firm by >contacting co-founder Paul Mitchell at email pmitch@primenet.com. >With minor changes, the two briefs can be adapted to any state or >federal prosecution, no matter at what step in the proceedings. >Mitchell is even prepared to utilize their logic in habeas corpus >petitions, in order to release state Citizens from federal >prisons. Their indictments and convictions were decided by >juries that were not legal bodies. > > > # # # > > >Contact: Paul Mitchell, Mail: 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 > Counselor at Law Tucson [zip code exempt] > Supreme Law Firm ARIZONA REPUBLIC > (520) 320-1514 Email: pmitch@primenet.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail