Time: Sat Feb 01 05:46:17 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA08735;
Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:29:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 05:34:39 -0800
To: John Goshy <goshy@azstarnet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Janet Reno
John,
If a U.S. Attorney should move against
you in a legal action, such as a grand jury
subpoena, or similar court case, it is
essential that the U.S. Attorney have
delegation of authority to sign pleadings
in the name of the Department of Justice.
See, for example, IRC 7401, for a good
example of this requirement.
If the U.S. Attorney does not have delegation
of authority, whether s/he knows it or not,
it is a fraud upon you. Now, if Janet Reno
has failed to produce her credentials upon
receipt of a proper Freedom of Information
Act Request and Appeal, the law says that
she is now estopped from ever producing them.
This means that you can make a proper challenge
to all U.S. Attorneys now, for failing to have
delegation of authority, because Janet Reno
cannot delegate authority she does not have.
She cannot demonstrate authority without first
produced certified evidence of her credentials.
Secondly, the use of proper FOIA invokes the
original jurisdiction of the District Court
of the United States. You would most likely
be in the United States District Court. Your
FOIA gives you a procedural right to remove
the action into the proper court, where federal
judges cannot preside if their compensation
is currently being diminished by federal income
taxes, in violation of Article III, Section 1.
This results in a stalemate.
Does this help clarify why I am raising this
issue of her lack of credentials?
I think you are making the "force and fraud"
argument here; I am making the case for due
process of law. They lead to very different
results, obviously.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
p.s. For more information about the duality
in the federal court system, visit the
Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
and read the essay entitled "Karma and the
Federal Courts."
At 11:02 PM 1/31/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 03:43 AM 1/31/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>
>>At 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 24, 1997,
>>Janet Reno defaulted in the face of a proper
>>FOIA request for her credentials. Since she
>>chose to fall silence, her silence is now
>>a fraud, and it activates estoppel. She
>>will not be able to produce her credentials
>>now, even if she has them, because of her
>>silence in the face of this FOIA. Therefore,
>>she cannot delegate ANY authority downwards
>>to anyone else within the Department of Justice,
>>and that includes ALL U.S. Attorneys.
>
>Tell this to the people who have had their doors kicked in,
>property "forfeited", etc. etc. etc. since Jan 24th.
>
>Paul, with all of your "education" you should know that
>your claims quoted above carry no weight, FOR
>ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. Your statement carries
>as much weight as some Elvis sighting in the
>deep woods of the Florida everglades.
>
>BUT: I hope you are correct. I hope all of Janet Reno's
>commanders ignore her. I hope the whole federal
>government decides to quit tomorrow and take up
>honest jobs.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
====================================================================
[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
Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.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