Time: Wed Nov 13 23:53:34 1996
To: Richard Ginn <ginn@cornell.edu>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Traffic Court defeated (USA)
Cc:
Bcc:
Yeeeeeooooooowwwwwwww!!!!!!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
P.S. Nice goin' guys.
Do it again.
Do it again.
We like it.
We like it.
At 01:46 AM 11/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Sent to me by a good friend, I believe that this is a
>true account:
>.......................................................
>
>A letter to my friends:
>
>Here is the personal account of what I witnessed...
>
>I went to a traffic trial of a friend named Jeff L. to
>be a witness of the event on October 11, 1996.
>
>Jeff L. had the court initiate a subpoena duces tecum
>with supporting affidavit to produce a document that
>asked for "...waiver of his unalienable right to life,
>liberty and the pursuit of happiness,..." (a copy of
>one that was eloquently drafted by David D.) to the
>District Attorney.
>
>Jeff L. also filed a "Refused for Fraud pursuant to
>F.R.C.P. 9(b)" document, and also stated in said
>document that "the Citizen in Party (Jeff L.) was
>invoking the commonlaw jurisdiction and appearing under
>the American Flag of Peace pursuant to Title 4 U.S.C.
>1, and that no admiralty, maritime, or administration
>jurisdiction will be allowed in this case."
>
>I went into the court room and took a seat. The judge
>said is Jeff L. present? John R. stood up and said "I
>am John R. and I recognize the American Flag of Peace
>and invoke the common law jurisdiction and Jeff L. is
>present in this court room" and then sat down. Harvey
>W. stood up and said "I am Harvey W. and I recognize
>the American Flag of Peace and invoke the common law
>jurisdiction and Jeff L. is present in this court room"
>and then sat down. Jeff L. stood up and said, the
>citizen in party is appearing under the American Flag
>of Peace pursuant to Title 4 U.S.C. 1; and, I invoke
>the common law jurisdiction of this court; and, no
>admiralty, maritime, or administration jurisdiction
>will be allowed in this case. I require the court to
>remove the admiralty flags and replace with the Title 4
>U.S.C. 1 flag. (As this is happening, two police
>officers that were sitting directly behind me were
>snickering and saying things such as "oh, one of those
>kind of people, and who do they think they are, and
>look at those crack pots, and so forth").
>
>Before Jeff L. could say anything more, the judge
>quickly stated that "your request has been denied, your
>case has been acknowledged, and your case is dismissed.
>Next case."
>
>Jeff L., John R., and Harvey W. stood up and walked
>out. I stood up and looked at the two police officers
>and gave them a friendly smile, and noticed they had
>dumbfounded looks on their face. Quite a few people
>were looking at us like... what the heck just happened.
>
>Outside, we all talked for a while and were needless to
>say, exuberant! Bill D.
>
> ***
>
>When I got home after my trial there was a letter from
>the DA.
>
>It said:
>
> Dear Mr. L.:
>
> Your subpoena duces tecum, served on this
>office, has been referred to me for answer. Your
>subpoena seeks a copy of a "waiver of his unalienable
>right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness,..." After a diligent search, no such
>document could be located within this office.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Paul M.
> Deputy District Attorney
>
>I really don't know what to make of it. If I had seen
>this before the trial I would have been very fearful
>for what was going to happen at the trial since he
>never mentioned verified complaint. My best guess
>though, is that the subpoena with the affidavit was
>what pushed the judge to dismiss.
>---end---
>
>Forwarded by:
>Richard ginn@cornell.edu (607) 277-5058
>510 Utica Street, Ithaca, New York USA
>http://www.neuron.net/~ginn
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail