Time: Tue Nov 12 00:52:10 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: LLAW: Is this the get-out-of-jail-free card?
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 09:47 AM 11/11/96 -0800, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Dave,
>
>>>Bad answer. Answer the question with a question. These people work for
>>>you. They have some explaining to do (at least that's the attitude they
>>>need to see and hear). Here's possibly a better answer: "How can I
>>>understand the charges if the charges aren't against me? Now then, do YOU
>>>understand what the charges will be against YOU if you continue to fuck
>>>with my day like this? Can you afford hiring an attorney to defend YOU
>>>against a multi million dollar lawsuit for fraud?"
>
>
>Other than the swearing, I like this answer the question with another question.
>
>As for the "Nomme de Guerre" (sp?) theory:  What I've been doing works
>without addressing that point.  However, I don't see any reason why one
>could not serve the prosecution with an affidavit on the matter.  Whoever is
>writing this sounds like they follow the abatement process of Randy Lee,
>John Quaid, etc.
>
>If the stiff-arm strategy did not prove itself to work, I would be
>advocating the abatement myself.  If I knew someone that the abatement
>worked for I would probably recommend it as it appears to be less stressful
>than the stiff-arm strategy.  Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who has
>used the abatement (that I can recall).  I've had folks call and claim that
>they tried abatements and wound up with warrants out for them.  That doesn't
>mean that abatements don't work if done properly, it just seemed to me that
>folks needed a backup for the abatement process in case things went wrong.
>
>I am really excited about the abatement process, because it is supposed to
>keep your posterior out of their courtroom.  I just haven't seen it work,
>and I have seen the "stiff-arm strategy" work.

I appreciate your "real" experience, Tom.
I would only add that U.S. v. Griffith
made it very clear that a Plea in Abatement
is the correct procedural move to challenge
the authority of a grand jury to issue
indictments in the first instance.

So, NOTICE OF PLEA AND PLEA IN ABATEMENT
is actually an adequate substitute for
a formal plea to the charges, without 
getting you into the jurisdiction.
Such a PLEA IN ABATEMENT is done by 
special appearance only, UNDER PROTEST
(you might also add "AND BY SPECIAL VISITATION").
That makes it very clear that you are not
making a general appearance, granting 
jurisdiction.  Remember, the courts can
only proceed, and only have legitimate
jurisdiction, when the indictment is 
proper and the grand jury is lawfully
convened. 

/s/ Paul Mitchell

/s/ Paul Mitchell


>
>~Tom Clark
>
>
>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail