Time: Mon Nov 11 06:49:23 1996 To: PatriotUSA@aol.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Ray Looker Cc: Bcc: Hello Mark, Please share this entire message with Pastor Paugh. I have appended some important essays to the end of this message. The "Karma" article you can share, but the other one is somewhat confidential; I would appreciate it if you kept the latter "under wraps," so to speak. Thanks. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:06 AM 11/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Mr. Mitchell, > I contacted Pastor Butch Paugh by phone on Sunday morning and told him about >your offer. He is going to be contacting you early this week. These people >are innocent and do not belong in jail. Pastor Paugh will be broadcasting on >SW radio 5.85 monday evening at 11:00 pm est to update the situation there. > Pastors Paugh, a close personel friend of Ray Looker, is their only contact >with the outside. He will be seeing Mr looker on Tuesday. I asked Pastor >Paugh to assure Mr. Looker that we are praying for him and stand behind him >one hundred percent. It brings tears to my eyes to know that these freedom >fighters are so wrongfully prosecuted. If there were more people in this >country like Ray Looker, it would be a much better place to live. > God bless you Mr. Mitchell, and thanks for responding. > >Mark > >oh, by the way, Arizona Republic... I like that.. Maybe I'll start >something like that in Florida. > > [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release November 2, 1996 "Karma and the Federal Courts" by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (November 1996) The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around. When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your house. And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal "District Courts" in the federal court system. One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for the state zone. Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase "District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone. We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic]. Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are assigned to them expressly by statutes. When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231. This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the United States District Courts (USDC)! How about them apples? Remember this carefully: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ). Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English). Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition). So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 1 of 3 into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction whatsoever. This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of judicial tyranny.) By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the United States by moving their talents state-side. They should return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on available supplies of soap and water. Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which surround the federal zone. This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its limited Honors and tarnished glory. Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities. So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did Congress need to enact two separate statutes? The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really, when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which penetrates the deception. Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War; furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive law. See Title 1 for details. What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such things as any regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18 U.S.C. 3231. Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 2 of 3 It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case in any way. Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal deadline has run, you are in court. But which court? Guess ... ... the answer is the District Court of the United States. What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests must be litigated in the District Court of the United States (DCUS). Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C. 552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231! Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it. It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head- on, collision. Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ... ... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!! Love it. Common Law Copyright Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice November 2, 1996 # # # Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 3 of 3 CONFIDENTIAL Post Conviction Procedures in the United States District Court by Paul Andrew Mitchell all rights reserved (November 1996) 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 ("JSSA"); this can be used to prove that the grand and trial juries were not legal bodies. The 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 (her) to rule. Step 5: file Final Notice and Demand for proof of Power (of attorney), Standing (of "United States of America" ("USA")), 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 U.S.C. 3231 (there are none); this invokes the DCUS. For proof, see 5 U.S.C. 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 (only the DCUS), so this is how you activate the collateral attack. Congress has no policy for jury selection and service in the USDC! See 28 U.S.C. 1861 for proof. Step 8: when they default beyond deadline stated in the 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 collateral 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), or other competent federal court (there is none), to Preside on the DCUS. This is your big move; Ninth Circuit has docketed Wallen's Notice and Demand for same as a Mandamus (deMAND = MANDamus). Step 11: execute and file an Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition, because each defendant was 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 becomes a respondent, so he (she) 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, just like that. No trespassing on this case, period. 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 (DCUS), 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. Jury can issue declaratory relief. 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 the Circuit Court to prepare it. Step 15: quite obviously, if the certificate of necessity is finally prepared, with or without Mandamus to 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 for details). 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 or townshipcourt, where you will probably get justice, at last. File a FOIA request now for the Reservations which Congress attached to the human rights treaties; these are archived in the State Department, Secretary of State's office. 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), or in a State Superior Court, once the U.S. Attorneys fail to prove that the USDC has any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever (it has none). I am standing by. This will give everyone lots of hope. These moves are very powerful, however, so we don't need or want whimps 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