Time: Sat Nov 09 05:14:03 1996
To: mleeiv@u.washington.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Nationwide Jury Challenge
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 12:57:58
>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