Time: Wed Oct 01 09:53:16 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03893;
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:35:46 -0700 (MST)
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA17727;
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:24:13 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 09:23:43 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: What's all the Nick craziness?
Cc: snetnews@world.std.com
Mike,
FYI: a grand jury indictment was defeated in the
New Life case, but that client turned out to be
perpetrating a fraud, by means of a fictitious trustee
who had allegedly "appointed" me to the office of
Vice President for Legal Affairs. I have filed
Petitions with 2 bankruptcy courts, to lift the
automatic stay on this client's 2 bankruptcy cases.
There is much more to this fictitious trustee
in the New Life cases.
I have also sued his accountant, who flatly
embezzled $3,000 from me last year. The docket
number of that civil case can be provided to you,
upon request. For a small donation, I can assemble
the website documents which have been filed in
the embezzlement case, to save you the money
you would need to spend to obtain certified
copies from the Clerk of that court. Some of the
key pleadings from this case are incorporated
in Gilbertson's appeal to the 8th Circuit in St. Louis,
and these are available free from the Supreme Law
Library (http://supremelaw.com).
Broderick turned out to be perpetrating a fraud --
by means of bogus commercial liens, allegedly
filed in the "U S CRIMINAL COURT" [sic]. There
is no such court. Schweitzer is claiming to have
perfected commercial liens on the basis of "true
bills" [sic], to which accused government agents
fell silent. The Oath of Office is not a competent
waiver of the Right to remain silent in the
face of criminal charges. Together, Schweitzer
and Broderick have stiffed me for more than
$20,000 in legal fees. This is theft of
professional services. Their associates also
committed mail fraud against me.
Much of this work is now documented in the
Supreme Law Library. Please help yourself,
but please also do not make the mistake of
selective reading; on the contrary, be sure
to read EVERYTHING, before coming to any
firm conclusions. The two cases of interest
are People v. United States, and In Re Grand Jury
Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company.
We are not far from putting Mr. Nick under
surveillance. He is obviously intent on attacking,
and further obstructing, our work here. I cannot
tell you any more about this, at the present time.
If you want more information on the child kidnapping ring,
get yourself a copy of the book entitled "The Franklin Cover-Up".
I was briefly involved with the defendant in State v. Taylor
here in Tucson, last year. This case was the tip of the
iceberg which has now reared its very ugly head. Certain
Arizona officials, who shall remain unnamed, are now
obstructing my access to federal and state grand juries,
despite my formal written requests to testify. You will
see in the Grand Jury case that we formally demanded
an opportunity to address that grand jury, concerning
the mountain of evidence which was mailed to them,
but they never received any of that mail! It is
essential that you know WHY that grand jury never
received any of that mail!!
As for legal scholars who agree with me, I am merely
citing the key decisions of Chief Justice John
Marshall, particularly in American Insurance v.
356 Bales of Cotton. Justice Kennedy used the
term "federal zone" in his concurring opinion
in U.S. v. Lopez (1995). Mr. Nick is evidently
ignorant of this decision, and Kennedy's concurring
opinion. Read it for yourself! John Marshall is
considered by many to be one of THE most brilliant
Chief Justices we have ever had. I am the author
of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue." Appendix "A" in that book contains a
winning brief by John Knox in San Antonio, Texas,
in 1991, using the same legal theory.
The only real "critiques" of my pleadings that really
count, are the few which have been filed by the
Department of Justice, in response to key Motions
which I have authored. There are very few of these,
and they have all been effectively rebutted. Looker's
case elicited a written opposition to the Motion to
Stay Proceedings, pending final review of our challenge
to the Jury Selection and Service Act. We effectively
rebutted that opposition brief, because it was based
on facts not in evidence (i.e. that Looker was a
resident alien; he is not).
The best pending brief is Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
but I now have serious doubts about Gilbertson's
sincerity. Time will tell. The truth will survive,
intact, for all time.
The jig is up for the IRS.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 11:31 AM 10/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
>[Michael Smith] What I saw this morning on my other address:
>
>NUMBER ONE:
>
>No, Paul did not "get me" with his post.
>
>Before you are confident that he made an eloquent or intellectual response,
>please ask yourself these questions:
>
>How many of Paul's clients have ever won their cases?
>
>How many of Paul's clients who left him has he publicly smeared on this list
>- without their ever posting to this list?
>
>Can you name any legal scholar who agrees with Paul?
>
>Do you believe all federal, state, and local government agencies are engaged
>in a massive conspiracy against Paul and his clients?
>
>If the U.S. government is as evil as Paul claims it is (for example, he
>accuses it of routinely kidnapping and murdering children to serve as organ
>donors) and he has the information to bring it down, why would it leave him
>alive?
>
>Have you read any critiques of Paul's "legal analysis"?
>
>You may wish to ask Paul some of these questions. I believe you will have
>cause to reassess both his credibility and mine.
>
>For freedom,
>
>Nick
>
>NUMBER TWO
>
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>Dear Prick (aka Nick),
>
>Seems to me that you got a little ego problem? Always popping off and
>telling people to sue you. That's your standard piss-weak answer for
>everything? Lacks a bit of creativity if ya ask me. But hey... Got a
>few solutions for you Nicki-Pricki Boy....
>
>With today's technology in the Plastic Surgery business, perhaps you
>could go and visit a Physician and get down on those very out of shape
>knees of yours and beg for a penile enlargement operation. Not sure how
>successful the operation would be since you have several obstacles for
>them to overcome.
>
>1. Bringing your clitoris sized penis up to the size of a chauwawa's
>penis could prove to be a medical challenge that cannot be overcome.
>
>2. Normally when a male's testicle's have failed to descend into the
>sacks, their is a medical procedure to resolve this. In your case, how
>in the world would they ever be able to find those little pea size
>gonads through all the fecal matter that makes up 99 percent of your
>body (including your brain)? I suspect even your clitoris size penis is
>made up of feces.
>
>3. The final problem is getting a Dr. who is willing to take on a
>medical freak who is obviously on the bones of his ass because he sucks
>as an Attorney. Maybe you could work out a trade agreement with him/her
>that in exchange for your surgery, you'll go home and drown yourself in
>your own toilet.
>
>Also in your case I would suggest that you consider consulting a
>Proctologist for your procedure.
>
>When your mother learned that "the rabbit died" and you'd be along in
>nine months or so, she really should have opted for an abortion.
>
>Have a lovely day!
>
>Roxanne
>
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>>
>>Joseph Newman, Evan Soule', and any other bottom-feeders affiliated
>with the
>>two of you:
>>
>>My name is Nikola Mikulicich, Jr. My business address is 1874 S.
>Pacific
>>Coast Hwy., #203 Redondo Beach, CA 90277. Come on and sue me.
>>
>>For freedom,
>>
>>Nick
>>
>
>
>To: Mr. Nikola Mikulicich, Jr.
>
>Directory Assistance in Redondo Beach was contacted and they indicated
>that
>the telephone number and address listed under your name is unlisted.
>
>What is your personal telephone number and personal address?
>
>You also indicate that your "business address" is at 1874 S. Pacific
>Coast
>Hwy, #203, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. What is the name of your business
>and
>what is your business telephone number?
>
>JOSEPH WESTLEY NEWMAN
>
>
>______________________
>Posted by Evan Soule'
>
>
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
>
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: Roxanne Marcianti <roxanne@hard.net.au>
>
>
>
>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>air06.mail.aol.com (v33) with SMTP; Wed, 01 Oct 1997 03:11:51 2000
> by mrin42.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
> with ESMTP id DAA09411;
> Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
> id DAA06541; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
> id DAA06536; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:08:37 -0400 (EDT)
> id AA07990; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:08:16 -0400
>yarrina.connect.com.au with ESMTP id RAA01239
> (8.8.6/IDA-1.6 for <snetnews@world.std.com>); Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:06:49
>+1000 (EST)
>Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1458.49)
> id T5W0PS2A; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:09:58 +1000
>Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:07:08 +0930
>From: Roxanne Marcianti <roxanne@hard.net.au>
>Organization: DeskTop Cottage Design Companie
>To: "snetnews@world.std.com" <snetnews@world.std.com>
>Subject: SNET: The plight of "Sue Me" Nick
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail