Time: Sun Oct 12 18:52:26 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24187;
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:51:25 -0700 (MST)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA20078;
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:49:47 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:49:00 -0700
To: ABeliever@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: If you're ever in front of a Grand Jury
I would not be "in front of a grand jury," unless
it was on my terms. We engineered just such a
strategy In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on
New Life Health Center Company, in the Spring of
last year (1996). Such a body MUST be a legal
body in the first place, before I would ever
step foot inside their door. Everything else
is a waste of time, and completely out of order.
If it is a federal grand jury, the proper response
to the subpoena is to challenge the legality of the
body, in the first instance, because the federal
Jury Selection and Service Act is unconstitutional
for discriminating against state Citizens. For
full explication, see Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF
in the Supreme Law Library, Item #1. The first ever
such challenge was submitted In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
Served on New Life Health Center Company, in
the USDC in Arizona, in the Spring of 1996, but
that federal judge opted to commit over 100 felonies,
instead of ruling on the crisis right under his nose.
If it is a state grand jury, the state juror and
voter eligibility statutes should be examined,
in pari materia with the federal JSSA, because
the same problem is emerging in all 50 states.
The Motion for Leave to File Enlarged Brief,
in Gilbertson's appeal to the 8th Circuit, shows
how I have done this in the case of Mitchell
v. Nordbrock, in Arizona. We have gone so far
as to construct the constitutions of Arizona
and California, as to the correct meaning of
the term "citizen of the United States", which
is found in those constitutions. Our analysis
is holding up against intense opposition,
and systematic obstruction of justice, not
to mention a host of other criminal acts which
seek to delay and/or prevent proper adjudication
of these challenges.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 12:37 PM 10/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Valid?
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>From: behold@teleport.com (BEHOLD! Newsletter)
>Reply-to: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>To: harold@halcyon.com, rj@drtavel.com, piml@mars.galstar.com,
>jus-dare@freedom.by.net
>CC: cjs@sound.net, 75313.2601@CompuServe.COM, patriot@netaxs.com,
>hammernet-l@teleport.com, majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com,
>owner-irs-commonlaw-l@teleport.com, libertylaw@www.ultimate.org,
>mom@logoplex.com, NATEVTS@aol.com, patriot@rmci.net, martin@carroll.com,
>rschmidt@pierian.com, stubby@i-link-2.net, 103527.1020@CompuServe.COM
>Date: 97-10-12 10:35:55 EDT
>
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>At 12:47 AM 10/10/97 +0000, Harold Thomas wrote:
>At 08:20 AM 10/11/97 Robert Wangrud wrote:
>>Much appreciation to Peter Gibbons (conlawdr@pacbell.net) of
>>California (who just received his JD and has taken the bar exam) for
>>the following:
>
>I have no problem with your approach, but I offer this as another approach.
>Should a patriot be summons to appear before a Grand Jury
>realize when you raise you right hand and are sworn in you become a
>federal wittiness. We have been successful at serving an affidavit on
>the U.S. Attorney and refusing to be sworn in until the U.S. Attorney
>answers our affidavit by his affidavit. If you are going to refuse to
>be sworn in you had better have a good reason not to. This has worked
>twice and no charges have been issued by the U.S. Attorney or the
>Grand Jury. Under this approach you don't need to take the Fifth Amendment.
>Further see Title 18, Section 1826(a) USC clearly only applies to "a
>wittiness"
>Once you are sworn in all the rules that pertain to a wittiness come into
>play.
>If you have a Constitutional argument you had better make it before you are
>sworn.
>See our packet titled "HOW TO CHALLENGE THE GRAND JURY" in Behold's Catalog
>at <http://www.announce.com/~behold>
>Robert Wangrud.
>>
>>
>>The most important thing to remember about a Grand Jury is
>>that you are only required to respond to questions by the
>>Grand Jury. Prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys arrogate to
>>themselves the power vested in the Grand Jury and use it as a
>>means to compel testimony that could not be compelled in court
>>and then later use it to convict the witness. I can explain
>>this best by example.
>>
>>We have here in Riverside County a very brave and stubborn
>>Patriot named Eric Williams. Eric was called before a Grand
>>Jury to testify in re a friend of his who was suspected of
>>"willfull failure to file." The prosecuting attorney asked
>>Eric a question and Eric responded by saying that he was not
>>going to answer his question. The prosecutor then said that if
>>Eric refused to answer he would have him jailed for contempt.
>>Eric responded by saying that he would answer any question put
>>to him by the Grand Jury, as that is what the law requires,
>>but that he would answer no questions by the prosecutor. So,
>>the prosecutor told the jury foreman to ask Eric this and
>>that. The foremen did as he was told. Eric responded by saying
>>that he would not answer any questions from the prosecutor
>>including those dictated from the prosecutor to others. The
>>prosecutor then threatened again to have Eric held in
>>contempt. Eric responded by saying "go ahead if you think you
>>can get away with it, but if you continue in your attempts to
>>interfere with the Grand Jury and influence their proceedings
>>I guarantee I will file a formal complaint for tampering with
>>the Grand Jury." Eric went on to explain that if anybody on
>>the Grand Jury had a question of their own he would answer
>>them gladly, but if the prosecutor continues to interfere he
>>will be unable to answer any questions until the prosecutor is
>>removed from the room. The Prosecutor did eventually leave and
>>the Jury asked its questions.
>>
>>The moral of the story is, you are not required to answer any
>>questions from or by the government attorney. You are required
>>to answer questions by the Grand Jury.
>>
>>You may invoke the 5th Amendment privilege against self
>>incrimination as to any question which may result in a self
>>incriminating answer, unless you are given immunity. Be
>>careful when discussing immunity with government attorneys
>>however. There is transactional immunity, and complete
>>immunity. Transactional immunity only protects you from
>>prosecution for acts related directly to the transaction which
>>you are questioned about, but not for other allegations which
>>your testimony may lead the prosecution to later.
>>
>>Complete immunity from prosecution covers prosecution from any
>>allegation which the gvernment may be led to as a result of
>>your compelled testimony. You must assert your right against
>>self incrimination to make any offer of immunity binding upon
>>the government.
>>
>>I cannot stress how helpful a really good criminal attorney
>>may be at this stage. However, even really good criminal
>>attorney's rarely understand how to shut down a officious
>>intermeddling prosecutor trying to control the Grand Jury,
>>only a witness can assert the right not to answer the
>>questions of the prosecutor.
>>
>>
>>[If anyone has a disagreement with the foregoing or experience which
>>would be either corroborate or cast doubt, please respond. HT]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail