Time: Tue Dec 09 20:43:12 1997
To: Brenda McCurdy <brendamc@admin.hilconet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: court case

Dear Brenda,

I called you earlier today, but you have
not returned my call.  Our phones went
haywire here anyway, after a very heavy
rain storm.

Here are my latest thoughts:

I believe your best angle for remanding
the case back to the trial court, is to
plead ineffective assistance of counsel.

Attorneys work for the banks, and the
attorney who advised you, gave you very
bad advice.  Failing to appear has 
actually created many more problems
than it could ever have solved.

I wouldn't be surprised if this "attorney"
gave your father deliberately bad advice, 
to set up your father and deceive him into 
believing that his case would be "better"
if he failed to appear.  This is civil 

Also, if the bank added a new term --
increasing the equity in the land --
then this is fraud, and it is actionable.
However, you must have a very good 
reason to explain why this fraud was not
raised in the District Court;  failure
to argue a point can raise estoppel
in favor of the other party.

Also, there is a mechanism in federal
court by which you can resurrect almost
any case, and that is "newly found
evidence."  Can you think of any facts
which are only recently coming to your

What about that attorney's oath of office?
You could argue that your father was not
aware, back then, of the original 13th
Amendment, which rendered this attorney
an alien, because he forfeited his citizenship
when he accepted a Title of Nobility.

This again goes to ineffective assistance
of counsel, because the attorney committed
a fraud upon your father.

In general, this is called the "reliance

Let me know your thoughts, asap.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail