Time: Fri May 17 14:32:50 1996
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:56:21 -0700
To: "John Burr" <john.burr@qmail.eonetworks.com>, libertylaw@www.ultimate.org,
        "Marcia H. Armstrong" <siskfarm@snowcrest.net>
From: pmitch@primenet.com (Paul Andrew Mitchell)
Subject: Re: LLAW: grand jury

=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Tom Clark, JOP, Presiding.  Clerk & Bailiff: Majordomo@www.ulitmate.org
=======================================================================
At 07:16 AM 5/17/96 U, John Burr wrote:
>We are having this problem in the Robert Melvin: Young case...the way our
>group is handling it is to sue them under Title 42 USC Section 1986...for
>violating their oaths of office.  This is done after they (the court) has been
>put on notice for the violation.  We have also served the US District judge,
>US attorney and US Marshal with a waiver of tort charging them 1 million
>dollars in gold coin per day for every day they continue to ignore the
>repeated Writs of Habeaus Corpus and the continued violations of Robert
>Melvin: Young's Constitutionally guaranteed rights.   We are also getting the
>oaths that judges around the bay area and the US District judges have taken
>and that arre supposed to be on file...we then compare them to the full oath
>that must be taken by law.  We have found that in most cases they have taken
>only a short form of the oath and not the full oath.  Evidently they are not
>too happy with us.  I can post the press release that was sent to all media
>and talk radio around the country about the case the the special hearing of
>Our one supreme Court in Common Law venue, to be held this Monday the 20th day
>of May 1996 at 10:00 am in front of the Federal building in San Jose
>California.  I invite any and all in the area to attend...it should be
>interesting to say the least.

Give them 10 working days to produce certified copies of said oaths, via a
Constructive Notice and Demand, and Notice of Intent to Petition a Court of
Competent Jurisdiction for a Writ of Quo Warranto.  Then, when they default,
be sure to file an Affidavit of Default, serve this Affidavit on all interested 
parties, and attach a copy of your Affidavit to the Petition for Writ Quo
Warranto.
Then, invoke the Private Attorney General's powers under the California
Constitution, because Lundgren will not move against the impostor federal
judges, even though He is authorized to do so (see Quo Warranto in 
Corpus Juris and American Jurisprudence).  You will be amazed to see 
how many times Quo Warranto has succeeded in America; it remains THE
correct action to oust impostors, bandits, and pirates from public offices.
We have been using FOIA to demand oaths, and the 13th Amendment to
prove that the judiciary's exemption in FOIA is unconstitutional for extending
an unlawful privilege to the judiciary.  This has, in most cases, caused the
pirates to fall silent, which is what you want.  Then, the Quo Warranto 
proceeding becomes the perfect forum to switch into equity:  if they DID
execute an oath, they affirmed their support of the wrong contract, as 
evidenced by the journals of the various state Senates and Assemblies
which ratified the original 13th.  Then, switch the court back into LAW 
mode, and convene another jury under Savings to Suitors (28 USC 1333).
Now YOU are in control of the court and if the judge doesn't like it, move
against him too, under 28 USC 372(c);  nor can he practice law from the
bench without committing a high misdemeanor, under 28 USC 454.

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail