Time: Tue Nov 26 22:52:53 1996 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:33:28 -0800 To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: NWLibs> Supreme Court Ruling Dale, This masterpiece of yours should be formatted into a brief in support of an Application for Intervention of Right for the remand back to the U.S. District Court (USDC). Why don't you do it, so it can become a permanent part of American Jurisprudence, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Did you get the actual decision yet? If not, I can route forward it to you, with my short abstracted version. I am standing by. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. I have prototypical intervention pleadings, if you need them. At 09:41 PM 11/26/96 -0600, you wrote: >Tuesday, 26Nov96 @ 19:17 Hours CST > >TO: COUNSELORS ALL > PAUL MITCHELL > LARRY > >FROM: DALE ROBERTSON >SUBJECT: 1040 AND THE FIFTH > >What we have here is a really profound subject. That is the law >respecting 1040's and the fifth amendment! Wow what a topic! This >question goes to the heart of a free country predicated upon the >preservation of individual rights. > >At the top of the treasury building in that pathetically pollutted would >be panacia on the Patomic is the enscription (I parapharase): Taxes are >the price we pay for civilization. > >Now, at is raw essence, what we have here is a collision between on the >one hand the right of the individual to remain silent and on the other >hand the right of the government to inquire. The right to remain silent >is generally regarded as guaranteed by that portion of the fifth >amendment which proscribes that no person "... nor shall be compelled in >a criminal proceeding to bear witness against himself...". And the right >of the government to inquire, in small part, arises from the sixth >amendment via the statement: the accused shall have compulsory process >for witnesses in his behalf and shall have the right to face his >accusor. So the power of the state is thus imvoked by the bill of rights >to compell process resulting in witnesses including you. Additionally, >other law provides for similar process for you to give your testimony to >the government. > >The right to remain silent is indellibly enschrined in history and in >particular the common law. It was Jesus Christ himself who said to his >inquisitors in the San Heedren in answer to the question: You say that >you are the son of God? to which Jesus is recorded to have said: "So say >ye!" Thus we have the first recorded instance in which an accuses on >trial was to have invoked the right to remain silent in answer to a >question - in this case giving an unresponsive verbal traverse to the >incriminating quesion by asking a question. > >I remind each of you of my previous post as to the effect and deveopment >of Roman and Justinian civil and criminal law as it is sharply >contrasted against the pure Anglo Saxon English Common Law prior to >William's norman military incursion into the British Isles in 1066. Of >course after that time the pure common law was "polluted" with the >European civil law via the conquering Norman intruders. Should anyone >wish me to repost this monograph - just ask! > >Now the right of an englishman to remain silent is ensconsed permanently >in the maxim: "Nemo tenature se ipsum accusarae" and it's companion >maxim which reads: "Nemo tenature se ipsum proderea". In good English >this reads: No man shall accuse himself and No man shall produce against >himself, respectively. In good ol Texan it's just: "I ain't talking". >These principles were firmly in place in the Common law well prior to >the events at Runnymead that misty June morn when King John was invited >at the point of a sword by the Barons present to enscribed the Magna >Charta. Get the point! It was not a voluntary contractual transaction. >It was won through force! But for those of you who would observe that >the force and intimidation at the point of a sword invalidates the >document - let me rejoinder that the principles - and each one of them - >set forth in Magna Charta were firmly in place in common law, custom and >practice in English Anglo Saxon judicial proceedings for many decades >and in some cases for hundreds of years prior to King John's birth. > >Now back to the 5th. There was this guy named John Lillburne. He was >born in 1623 near London. His father sent him to London at age 14 to >apprentice as a Taylor. He fell into puritian circles and began studying >the King James Bible and Cokes Institutes and Commentaries as well as >other such "seditious" and "inflamatory" material. He studied well. He >learned it's truth. He was even seized with the belief that one should >practice of what truth he studied. He later serreptiously went to >Holland to print leaflets, phamplets and books whose publication were >banned by the crown despite King Charles having signed the Petititon of >Right in 1628 permitting just that. Even as late as 1640's just prior to >the Puritian Revolution a license from the crown was necessary to >"publish" anything. The good King Charles later literally lost his head >over such Tyranny in 1649. > >Now what has all this got to do with the right to remain silent? >Weeeelll.... Lil ol John Lilburne at the ripe old age of 18 was arrested >for distribution of seditious (spell that unlicensed) phamphlets in 1638 >in London and was brought before one of the Kings Counsel's prerogative >courts called the Star Chamber - named thusly due to the stars which >graced its ceiling. Lillburn was destined to become its "star" defendant >for he soon was invoking the gospel of Lork Coke and his Commentaries as >well as the Magna Charta for the right of an Englishman to not have to >accuse himself. With uncommon articulation for a young man not yet 18, >Lillburne - Freeborn John as he was to later be throughout England known >- confronted the hign commission and the judges of the Star Chamber and >refused to answer the charges or even to be sworn in as a witness >relying instead, inter alia, upon the scriptural precedent of Jesus >Christ himself when he was questioned by his judges. For his temerity he >was stipped to the waist, tied to an ox cart and whipped with a knotted >three cord whip every other step from the Star Chamber Court at >Westminster down fleet street to the public stocks where he was secured >- hands and neck - in the public stocks. From this vantage he observed a >large but sympathetic crowd assembling. Being an enterprising sort and >with more guts than sense (he was not yet 18 years old) he began to >exercise what he called an Englishmans right of free and unfettered >speech and began reciting (indeed inciting) one of the very phamplets >for which he had been arrested in the first place. And to the >astonishment of the now large and unruly crowd he actually managed to in >contortionist style to amazingly produce three copies of the same >phamplet from his attire which he somehow threw to the crowd. The Star >Chamber judges on hearing of this "insolence" directed the public >hangman to gag John Lillburn so as to prevent any further sedition and >lible. A company of calvery were dispatched to quell the ensuing riot. >And then the gagging proceeded with such violence that blood spurted >from his gagged mouth. He was further sentenced for his incorregable >behavior while in the public stocks to three years in the Fortress Tower >of London and was further fined an enormous amount in pounds sterling. >He served his time, and despite his youth and strength, nearly expiring >under the close confinement ordered by the court and kept true by his >warders only to in the process write a steady stream of several more >phamplets and to become famous throught England for his articulate gift >of the both language and the courage to use it at great personal cost in >the name of individual English freedom. > >Now the relevance of all this detail is this. John Lillburne was the >first recorded individual to defy the Star Chamber with 1) a absolute >refusal to be sworn; and 2) refusal to testify against himself. He >quoted and invoked Magna Charta, Cokes Institutes and Commentaries, the >Bible and the "good ol ancient Anglo Saxon law of England". > >I note this history with both relish and detail for two purposes: John >Lillburne stood up for the rights of individuals when it was both >unpopular and unconventional to do so - for which he paid a terrible >price for a young man of 18. Secondly, the Star Chamber, having a tenure >of several hundred years, was in 1641 denied of all right to exist as a >court and was entirely disenfranchised by Parliment only to be >dismantelled in fact - entirely - board by board - in 1642. I firmly >believe, without complete historical corrobation, that the demise of the >Star Chamber at that time was in large part due to the individual >challenge of Lillburne, the terribly harsh punsihment to visit him, and >the resulting attentions of Parliment all of which was engendered by >outrageously judicially ordered suffering of John Lillburne. All >freedom loving individuals owe a debt to the memory and person of >Freeborn John Lillburne. In Dr. Leonard W. Levy's profound and Pulitzer >Prize winning book: "Origins of the Fifth Amendment" Lilllburne - or >Freeborn John - is given major billing in the developmental history of >the "fifth" as it has come to be known in American parlance. > >Lillburne is a historically tragic figure - but one who looms large in >the history of freedom and the principles upon which it is lawfully >guaranteed and enforced. > >James Madison's individual insistence on December 15th, 1791 that there >be passed by the two year old congress of the then newly formed United >States of America a Bill of Rights including the right not to >incriminate oneself is a landmark act on a landmark day history of human >freedom. The inclusion in the Constitution and the elevation to >Constitutional imperative respecting the right to remain silent is a >pivotal cornerstone of individual freedom. But - - I must also state >that its inclusion is merely a Constitutinal reflection of the reality >of the prevailing common law of the day born of hundreds of years of >English Common Law rule in judicial proceedings. Early in American >jurisprudence, even Arron Burr invoked the Fifth in his trial which >caused a stir as is succintly reported at Ex parte Burr, 25 Fed Case at >page 38. > >And the United States Supreme Court, in the last half of this century, >in a unaminous decision, has stated in McCarthy vs. Ardnstein that the >right applies to civil and criminal proceedings alike whenever anyone >perceives and thus "fears" that his testimonay might incriminate. > >Now what do you do when the mere citizen is confronted with all the >power of the state to inquire into his business, including tax matters, >including the 1040, and that individual acting under the rule of >reason, the rule of right and the rule of constitutionally guaranteed >law to invoke his right to remain silent. The likes of Freeborn John >Lillburne come to mind. Having seen this confrontation several times >over the last 20 years or so - I can say from personal observation and >authority that the right to remain silent has prevailed in each such >confrontation. Yes there is great bluff. Yes there is profound >intimidation. but - - the right prevailed each time!!! Now - from >whose malevolent mind will such treacherous come? Well for one thing I >can accurately say that that mind is the mind of a traitor to the >constitution and the common law principles upon which it derives its >compelling authority. > >But let me further say without equivication, that there is no case in >the history of this cournty, to which I have ever been made aware, which >stands for the proposition that the right of the government to inquire >into your person or business prevails over your individual right to >remain silent in the face of such inquiry. While, I will properly defend >the state's right to inquire - - I will further place on a higher and >prior plane the right of the individual to remain silent. It is the >right of the individual to remain silent in the face of the government's >right to inquire which shall, should and will prevail. > >So when Larry inquires as to whether filing a 1040 will violate an >individuals right to remain silent - my response is that each person >must decide for himself as to whether such "testimony" of filing and >whether such production by filing constitutes a violation of one's right >to remain silent. The constitutionally protected rule against self >incrimination is predicated upon the "fear" of injurious testimony or >the "fear" of injurious production. The United States Supreme Court in >the Hoffman case states that "...it must be perfectfully clear..." that >there is no possibility that the witness may incriminate himself before >he can be judicially compelled (ie: contempt) to bear witness against >himself. "Fear" alone, as distinquished from the fact, of incrimination, >is sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent to any governmental >instance for inquiry. > >Finally, and pragmatically, I will describe what I refer to as the >"Classic Confrontation". This setting is in a Court Room. There is a >judge on the bench. You, the witness, are being interrogated by a >prostitutor (sic??? - yeah, sure!). And you, the witness, have in FEAR >of self incrimination invoked the "fifth" or your right to remain >silent. The prostitutor, whinning and wailing, request that the court >direct the witness to responsively answer the question. The court >directs the witness: "You must respond to the question!" You, the >witness, persist in your reliance upon your rights arising under the >fifth amendment - that is the right not to bear witness against >yourself. And the court repeats his directive with further and >intimidating admonishment as to the threat and potential of contempt. >With a jail cell yawning for your body and with the marshall at the >ready, - to custom fit you with the nice bracelets connected with a >short chain - , you have an opportunity to carefully contemplate the >gravity of the situation. Now this is where the rubber meets the road. > >One the one hand, the parlour patriot reconsiders his position and >craters and sings like a bird in perfect harmony and syncapated rythem >with the prostitutor who smiles approvingly after every question and >incriminating response. After which the parlour patriot's own testimony >is used to incriminate and then convict him and he goes to jail having >admitted from his own mouth his "crime". The jury has no alternative in >this setting but to convict. In that case the "crime" is admitted! End >of case! > >On the other hand, the freeborn individual, like Freeborn John >Lillburne, is learned, prepared and armed to the teeth with rightious >indignation and knowledge of his rights. The freeborn individual is thus >able to easily recognize the trespass on his dignity by the very >incriminating question which is so insolently condoned by the court. The >mere placement of which incriminating question does violance to the >common law and constitutional principles to which the prostitutor has >solemnly sworn to uphold. In the face of an insistent witness who >powerfully persist in exercise of his constitutional right to not >incriminate himself, the court is duty bound to hold an in camera review >of the "objection" to the incriminating question with only the court >reporter and the witness present. Picture please a question reaching for >its rightful answer - but behold - you interpose between the proper and >just right to inquire and its responsive answer an objection predicated >upon the 5th amendment right not to incriminate. this objection is what >the court must now rule on in the in camera review. At this in camera >review the Judge is duty bound to apply the so called Hoffman "perfectly >clear" rule that it must be "perfectly clear" that the witness is >mistaken and that there is no possiblity that incrimination will occur >should your responsive answer to the question be compelled over your >timely placed objection - that is to say "enforced" by contempt, by fine >jail or other punishment. In such event even the witness may not be >compelled to reveal to the court why he is in "fear" that his anwer >might criminate. For to do so will compell the witness to reveal the >very thing that he has invoked the right to begin with and thus >incriminate himesel in the in camera review what he sought protection >from in the courtroom proceedings. Rather the court must be skeptically >aware that in the deviousness of crime and its detection that >incrimination may be achieved by obscure and unlikely lines of inquiry. >See: Untied States v. Isaacs, 256 F2d 654. Therefore the court must in >the final analysis take your word for the fact that you "fear" that your >responsive answer might tend to incriminate you. Under these >circumstances the court has no alternative but to sustain your >invocation of the fifth - you right not to incriminate yourself. And in >this "Classic Confrontation" the right to remain silent will have thus >prevailed over the full weight of the Untied States (or any state or >political or other subdivision thereof) right to inquire. And you will >thus remain in possession of your liberty. > >CAVIAT: Some jurist cannot resist the opportunity to become tyranical - >even if they claim its only a mistake. In such a situation - some of you >may have heard of this thing called the Writ of Habeas Corpus - but >that's another story. There will be another day and besides, I'm tired >of typing for now. > > >Constitutionally, > >Dale Robertson >======================================================================= >> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, >USA >> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry >Rushing >> >======================================================================= >> Larry, >> >> No, I heard this first from you. >> Call the Clerk first thing in >> the morning. If you don't have >> the number, call Directory Assistance >> for the Capitol Switchboard, then >> ask for the Clerk of the U.S. >> Supreme Court, Mr. Suter. >> >> Good luck! And let me know asap!! >> >> I am standing by. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> At 04:04 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >> >Mr. Mitchell, >> > >> >I have been hearing rumors the Supreme court just handed down a >ruling >> >that filing a 1040 form would be a violation of an individual's fifth > >> >ammendment rights and it is now not "required". Wondering if you have > >> >any confirmation of this? Sounds too good to be true, but as we all >> >know, it is the truth. >> > >> >Sincerely, >> > >> >LC >> >lcouncil@maui.net >> > >> > >> >> =========================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> =========================================================== >> >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >======================================================================= >Larry, > >No, I heard this first from you. >Call the Clerk first thing in >the morning. If you don't have >the number, call Directory Assistance >for the Capitol Switchboard, then >ask for the Clerk of the U.S. >Supreme Court, Mr. Suter. > >Good luck! And let me know asap!! > >I am standing by. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > >At 04:04 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >>Mr. Mitchell, >> >>I have been hearing rumors the Supreme court just handed down a ruling >>that filing a 1040 form would be a violation of an individual's fifth >>ammendment rights and it is now not "required". Wondering if you have >>any confirmation of this? Sounds too good to be true, but as we all >>know, it is the truth. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>LC >>lcouncil@maui.net >> >> > >=========================================================== >Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >=========================================================== > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail