Time: Wed Nov 13 23:04:49 1996
To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: initial road map
Cc: pmitch@primenet.com
Bcc:
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
CONFIDENTIAL STRATEGY MEMORANDUM
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