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