Time: Fri Aug 08 10:33:17 1997
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 10:32:07 -0700
To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: United States as defendant/Federal Tort Claims Act
Cc: [address in toolbar]
References: <Paul Andrew Mitchell's message of "Fri, 08 Aug 1997 06:42:03 -0700">
<3.0.3.16.19970808064203.3fff0936@pop5.ibm.net>
>> I would just file an amended complaint, and see what happens. The
>> MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS will control anyway. If the judge refuses
>> to recognize the amended complaint, then we will petition for leave to
>> amend it. We can amend nunc pro tunc, by alleging fraud upon the
>> court, and making an offer to prove that fraud, as a result of the
>> FOIA results.
>
>As needs be. Does this need to be done immediately, or will the
>Notice/Demand For Notice and Motion To Stay take care of matters for a
>little while?
Be sure to file the NOTICE AND DEMAND,
and MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS today,
so we have something in by your deadline.
Once these are filed, we can breathe
easier, because the MOTION is crucial
and forms the basis for procedural
appeals, if necessary. We can work on
an amended complaint over the weekend,
and mail it on Monday, or Tuesday.
The judge probably won't get around
to reading the file until next week
anyway. Things just don't happen all
that fast in federal court, and they
should not anyway!
Okay? I have to run some errands.
Take this time to review the STAY MOTION,
and I should be back in about an hour,
giving us plenty of time to make any
changes. Please note in the STAY MOTION
that I have added General Counsel and
Gavin Chafin to the PROOF OF SERVICE list,
primarily because we are now arguing that
neither has made a proper appearance in
response to your original COMPLAINT and SUMMONS.
We, therefore, want judicial determination
of this question: did they, or did they
not, make proper appearances? If they did
NOT, then you can default them with a motion
for summary judgment. All of this new stuff
should prevent the judge from dismissing
with prejudice, because it would be entirely
premature to do so, in light of what we
are filing today. I hope you agree.
If the judge does not agree, we have excellent
grounds for appeal and remand, to hear your
issues as explained in the STAY MOTION. We also
have a FOIA suit pending, now that we have
submitted proper FOIA requests; this is the
main reason why I continue to reiterate citations
to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) in almost every pleading.
I want to drive this point home, until I can
get case law from a Circuit Court. Of course,
as you already know, this particular question is
now before the 8th Circuit in St. Louis. But,
don't expect a ruling from them for about 2 years;
that is the informal feedback we have received
from the Clerk of Court in St. Louis concerning
Gilbertson's massive OPENING BRIEF, and equally
massive questions raised therein.
Later.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail