Time: Wed Nov 13 09:20:03 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Help Needed Now for a Fallen Patriot
Cc:
Bcc:
Mike,
Do you want me to evaluate it?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 09:26 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>FYI- I'm not competent to evaluate this.
>Mike
> by ntpcl.pcl.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-13621)
> with SMTP id AAA184 for <minutemn@pcl.net>;
> Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:27:01 -0600
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:36 -0500
>From: DotHB@aol.com
>Message-ID: <961113092436_1949403892@emout18.mail.aol.com>
>To: minutemn@pcl.net
>cc: DotHB@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Help Needed Now for a Fallen Patriot
>
>MIKE -
>
>This is a message I received from Kay Stern (Missouri Militia??)
>I don't know if this is the same Peter Stern (of TV fame) but he is
>an attorney. Anyhow, they sent this to help.
>
>Dot Bibee
>=============
>
>Subj: Re: FW: HELP NEEDED NOW FOR A FALLEN PATRIOT
>Date: 96-11-12 19:52:10 EST
>From: pstern@dnet.net (Peter Kay., Stern)
>To: DotHB@aol.com
>
>10:58 PM 11/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>CAN YOU HELP THIS GUY ?
>
>>From: DotHB@aol.com[SMTP:DotHB@aol.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, November 10, 1996 2:25 PM
>>To: minutemn@pcl.net
>>Cc: DotHB@aol.com
>>Subject: HELP NEEDED NOW FOR A FALLEN PATRIOT
>>
>>Dot!
>
>The solution is that California has passed a medical pot bill.
>
>Use of the 10th Amendment and equality between states is a timely and strong
>position.
>
>A Motion to vacate under FRCP 26 and 60 would open the matter back up.
>
>Further strength from putting in a Habeas based on new info is a second
>document.
>
>Third...did anyone look at the original indictment and or warrant to see if
>they were proper?????
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\EUDORA\GRDJURY.SAM
>
>[edoc]
><:#556,9360>As pertains to Grand Jury in the instant matter, the following
>citations on Grand Jury procedure MUST be met, or the Grand Jury process is
>tainted, the purported indictment(s) void;
>
><:#836,9360>1. Was the grand jury conducted pursuant to the Supreme Court's
>decision in United States v R. Enterprises Inc., 111 S.Ct. 722, 726 (1991)?
>Was every proper witness and clue examined in every proper way?
>
><:#278,9360>No! I don't think so! Avra Lee wasn't called.
>
><:#558,9360>2. Had the grand jury, in substance, abdicated? Costello v United
>States, 350 U.S. 359, 365, 76 S.Ct. 406 (1956).
>
><:#1114,9360>3. Grand jury could only indict on proof sufficient to warrant
>conviction.
>Charge to the Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. No. 18,246 (C.Ct.D. Conn. 1867)
>{not provide the U.S. Attorney\prosecutor a speaking forum, a place to bring
>personal vendettas, a means of intimidating enemys, or a means of institution
>of a politically motivated fishing expedition}"
>
><:#278,9360>It appears that this is McCullough's last hurrah!
>
><:#558,9360>4. Did the grand jury act as a shield between the government and
>the defendant?
>Wood v Georgia, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 1373 (1962).
>
><:#278,9360>Not hardly...especially if they did not see ALL the evidence!
>
><:#557,9360>5. Was the grand jury acting independently of either the
>prosecuting attorney or the judge?
>Stirone v United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.Ct. 270 (1960).
>
><:#278,9360>Want to take bets on this one?
>
><:#836,9360>6. Did the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment act as a
>safeguard designed to protect this defendant from opressive governmental
>practices?
>United States ex rel Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 79 S. Ct. 1 (1955).
>
><:#278,9360>It does not appear so in this case!
>
><:#558,9360>7. Was there a significant infringement of the grand jury? United
>States v Larrazolo, 869 F.2d 1354, 1359 ((th Circuit 1989).
>
><:#278,9360>Based on McCullough's conduct (stealing their evidence) I doubt
>it!
>
><:#557,9360>8. Was the grand jury degraded into a rubber stamp and the
>testing of the prosecutor's evidence into an empty ritual? United States v Al
>Mudarris, 695 F. 2d 1182, 1188 (9th Circuit 1983).
>
><:#278,9360>Probably!
>
><:#558,9360>9. Was there prosecutorial misconduct in front of the grand jury?
>
>United States v Samango, 607 F.2d 877 (9th Circuit 1979).
>
><:#278,9360>Ref: The evidence being swiped by McCullough...you bet!
>
><:#558,9360>10. Did the prosecutor express an opinion on the weight and
>sufficiency of the evidence?
>United States v Wells, 163 F. 313 (D. Idaho 1909).
>
><:#558,9360>11. Did the grand jury have freedom of deliberation? In re
>Grand Jury Subpeona, 920 F 2d 235, 241 n. 8 (4th Cir. 1990).
>
><:#558,9360>12. Did the prosecutor usurp the function of the grand jury?
>United States v Isgro, 751 F. Supp. 846, 849-850 (9th Cir. 1990).
>
><:#278,9360>It appears like it!
>
><:#558,9360>13. Was the grand jury composed of a fair cross-section of the
>community?
>United States v Pottorf, 769 F.Supp. 1176, 1186 (D. Kan. 1991).
>
><:#278,9360>Can't tell.
>
><:#558,9360>14. Was the grand jury free from outside influence? Matter of
> Grand Jury Investigation, 748 F. Supp. 1188, 1194 (E.D. Mich. 1990)
>
><:#558,9360>15. Was there improper influence on the grand jury? Application
>of Jordan, 439 F. Supp. 199, 210 (S.D. W. Va. 1977).
>
><:#278,9360>Based on McCullough's conduct, you bet!
>
><:#835,9360>16. Did Congress have the constitutional authority, in the first
>place, to enact the so-called 'law' or 'statute' the United States Attorney
>is trying to manipulate the grand jury into bringing an indictment on?
>Charge to the Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. No. 18,258 (C.Ct. W. D. N.C. 1875)
>
><:#556,9360>I don't see it...but that's an argument for another time. The
>above is more than sufficient to quash the indictments and kill this whole
>thing.
>
>[Embedded]
>00009224
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail