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