Guidelines for Clients

of the Supreme Law Firm:

Rev. 3.0

 

Introduction

 

A number of our previous clients retained the Supreme Law Firm using assumptions about us that were not correct.

These simple guidelines are being provided to improve our working relationships and to minimize any misunderstandings about the ways in which we choose to serve clients.

Also, we expect all current and future clients to appreciate the unusually large damages we have sustained as a result of extensive and protracted economic retaliation for our published writings and our judicial activism.  Our firm is quite unique in this regard.

The Supreme Law Firm is a business, not a charity.  If potential clients come to us with the expectation that we will work pro bono (“for free”) on their particular cases, they are sadly mistaken.

We have expended extraordinary amounts of our own resources to build and maintain the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.  It now has over 52,000 separate documents, both large and small.

This library is available for free to everyone in the world with an Internet-compatible computer.  Internet users are kindly directed to this library, if all they are really seeking is free information.

To summarize, the Supreme Law Firm will no longer provide any pro bono services to anyone, and this shall remain our permanent policy from now on.  “The worker is worthy of his hire,” says the Holy Bible.  If you have an emergency, call 911 or ask someone else for help.

 

Email Communications

 

We much prefer electronic mail (“email”) communications, for many excellent reasons.  They are very cost-effective, first of all.  They also create a written record of messages to and from clients, in the event that any misunderstanding might later arise about our counsel as written in those messages.  Please read everything we write for you.

It is always possible for clients to print their own hard copies of email messages.  The Internet has made it possible to shift the print burden to the reader.  The Supreme Law Firm will shift the print burden to clients as often as possible and appropriate.

 

Telephone Communications

 

We strongly discourage telephone and fax communications.  Not only are long-distance telephone calls quite expensive.  They are also frequently forgotten one week, one month or one year later.

In our experience, unscheduled telephone conversations always result in interrupting something else we are doing at the moment the telephone rings.  Such interruptions are quite unnecessary, in fact.

On the rare occasion when we will consent to telephone calls, all clients will be required to schedule and accept COLLECT calls.

Over time, we have noted a marked increase in our productivity, by channeling client communications thru electronic mail.  This policy has permitted us to schedule our work flow much more effectively.


Sending Payments

 

The Supreme Law Firm is now boycotting the banking system, in part because American banks routinely violate federal laws by invading their customers’ privacy.  Also, banks typically violate the holding in U.S. v. O’Dell, which requires IRS to obtain a warrant of distraint before levying any bank accounts.  Banks never do this, however.

Also, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) appears to be in league with this same banking system.  When the USPS “modernized” and effectively incorporated during the 1970’s, it sold bonds that were purchased by the same banks that now own the Federal Reserve system.

Some of the retaliation we have endured has come from the USPS, by way of stolen, rifled and obstructed mail, arbitrary refusal to cash postal money orders or rent post office boxes, outright theft, and criminal conspiracy to tamper with federal grand juries and obstruct justice.

If clients wish to expedite the delivery of payments to us, we prefer cash or blank U.S. Postal Money Orders in small denominations, i.e. $100.00 maximum per money order.  A blank PMO leaves the PAY TO line blank, allowing us to negotiate it freely, and privately.

Also, these payments should be shipped either via Federal Express (“FedEx”), United Parcel Service (“UPS”), or other reputable private courier to the following shipping destination:

 

Paul A. Mitchell

c/o Lake Union Mail

117 East Louisa Street

Seattle 98102-3203

WASHINGTON STATE, USA

 

And, a tracking number should be emailed to us on the same day the shipment begins.  If you don’t have an email address, get one!

 

 

SupremeLaw Discussion List

 

As an ongoing service to all our clients, we also moderate the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive at Topica on the Internet.  Detailed directions for subscribing to this email group can be found at Internet URL:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm

 

As a general rule, we prefer to get acquainted with prospective clients first by inviting them to pay the nominal subscription fees, and then to explore the extensive message archives for answers to their questions.  This helps us a lot ‑‑ by obviating the need for us to answer the same questions many times over, e.g. tax liabilities.

As the number of subscribers grows, an ever larger community of like-minded users will create a growing pool of talent and experience available to everyone in the SupremeLaw group.


But, we must stress that if prospective clients cannot afford the nominal subscription fees for accessing this group, they are certainly not going to afford the regular, ongoing expenses involved in retaining professional Counsel from the Supreme Law Firm (or any other reputable law firm, for that matter).  No free lunches, okay?

We also wish to emphasize here that legal research is expensive.  Good legal research is even more expensive.  And the best legal research is the most expensive.  We learned this important lesson quite early, from the Hon. Norman L. Vroman, the elected District Attorney for Mendocino County in Ukiah, California.  We pass this lesson on to you now.  A word to the wise is sufficient!

 

Our Specialization

 

For now, our primary missions in life are: (1) dismantle the IRS, (2) repeal the federal income tax, and (3) restore constitutional courts to the federal judiciary;  e.g. see our case against AOL et al.

Our main area of expertise is the U.S. Constitution and federal laws and treaties enacted pursuant to that Constitution, with emphasis on the fundamental human Rights also enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enacted with specific Reservations.

We have no real expertise nor any practical interest in doing family law or defending intoxicated drivers, traffic or drug cases.  Please do not ask us to offer any assistance in these latter cases.

 

Plaintiff Preference

 

We have also come to appreciate, from many years of experience, that Plaintiffs generally fare much better in civil cases, especially if they first prepare with pertinent legal research and also organize their evidence thoroughly.  Whenever building a case, good foundations are essential!  Plaintiffs also have more control over case direction.

We are now spending a growing portion of our time providing counsel in the Civil RICO remedies at 18 U.S.C. 1964.  We expect this thrust to be most productive, in part because private parties lack standing to prosecute violations of the federal criminal statutes in Title 18 of the United States Code, e.g. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.

Also, because of serious problems we have discovered with all State Bar Associations, we will continue to refuse any license(s) to practice law in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

This means, however, that we will not be able to represent any prospective clients in court, and that they will be required to appear In Propria Persona in all court cases they wish to litigate.  This has not been a problem in the past, unless clients get cold feet when they eventually must appear before a judge in open court.

We are authorized by Congress and by the U.S. Supreme Court to appear and practice as a Private Attorney General, and we will continue to offer our professional services in this latter capacity.


Client Confirmation

 

We now request that you kindly indicate, by signing and dating this form below, that you have read and understood these Guidelines.

 

 

Thank you very much for considering the Supreme Law Firm.

 

 

I have read and understood the above Guidelines for Clients of the Supreme Law Firm.

 

 

 

Dated:  

         _____________________________________________________

 

 

 

Signed: 

         _____________________________________________________

 

 

Printed:

         _____________________________________________________

 

 

 

Please execute two (2) copies of this form, keep one for your records, and transmit the other to the shipping destination at Lake Union Mail shown above.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell                           Initials:  ________

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General (18 U.S.C. 1964)

Supreme Law Firm, Seattle, Washington State

www.supremelaw.org