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