Time: Thu Feb 27 06:49:11 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA25239;
Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:02:13 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:43:49 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: federal grand jury challenge (a template)
>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
> [ D R A F T]
>
>Certified U.S. Mail
>Serial Number #P-xxx-xxx-xxx
>Return Receipt Requested
>Restricted Delivery Requested
>
>Foreperson
>Federal Grand Jury
>[street]
>[city] (zip code exempt)
>[STATE]
>
>In re: Grand Jury Subpoena
> Served on Mr. John Doe
>
>Dear Foreperson:
>
> At the verbal request of My client, Mr. John Doe, I am
>writing this letter to challenge your alleged authority to issue
>a subpoena upon Him to testify before your body. We hereby
>document the reasons for Our challenge, as follows:
>
>1. Janet Reno has failed to produce any credentials in response
>to a proper and timely Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
>request and appeal submitted for same. In addition to the
>request and appeal, a 10-day courtesy notice was also mailed to
>Ms. Reno. Her deadline for producing credentials was 5:00 p.m.
>on Friday, January 24, 1997. Her failure to produce the
>requisite credentials means that she is now estopped from
>claiming any of the authorities which can be exercised by the
>Attorney General, because her silence is a fraud, pursuant to
>U.S. v. Tweel, and her silence activates estoppel, pursuant to
>Carmine v. Bowen. Thus, the U.S. Attorney(s) who signed the
>subpoena to Mr. Doe have no delegation of authority at all.
>
>2. The federal Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861
>thru 1865, is unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited class
>discrimination against Citizens of [UNION-STATE] state who are
>not also federal citizens. This is the case, even though each
>and every member of your "grand jury" is otherwise qualified,
>according to the requirements of this Act. The problem is that
>the Act itself is unconstitutional, and its unconstitutionality
>dates from the moment of its enactment. In several federal cases
>around the nation, this challenge has been placed properly before
>federal courts, but they are now obstructing justice by failing
>to rule on it. Accordingly, your body is not a lawful grand
>jury, and Mr. Doe cannot be compelled to testify before a group
>of people who are not a lawful body.
>
>3. Evidence now shows that specific employees of the federal
>government receive financial kick-backs upon obtaining federal
>grand jury indictments against the "enemies" of the President.
>These kick-backs include $25,000 per indictment to U.S.
>Attorneys, and $35,000 per indictment to the President of the
>United States. These kick-backs are being paid under color of a
>defunct federal program called the Performance Management and
>Recognition System ("PMRS"). A FOIA request for all financial
>records of the PMRS system has been submitted to the U.S.
>Department of the Treasury. A staff attorney in the Treasury
>Department has responded by admitting that there are no records
>for many PMRS kick-backs, because they were paid in CASH! Add to
>this the evidence of widespread perjury and property conversion
>rackets within the Department of Justice, using computer software
>which was stolen by that Department, and you have the makings of
>a massive criminal conspiracy among employees of the U.S.
>Department of Justice, the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic], and
>possibly also the federal judiciary.
>
>4. Recent research has also proven that the federal judiciary
>has sabotaged the U.S. Constitution and corrupted laws governing
>the conduct of the federal courts. This has been done in part by
>creating the false impression that the United States District
>Court ("USDC") has territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
>within the several States of the Union, particularly over
>criminal prosecutions, when it does not. The truth is that the
>USDC is designed to adjudicate matters that arise within the
>federal zone, and the District Court of the United States
>("DCUS") is designed to adjudicate matters that arise within the
>state zone. You will notice on the subpoena which you attempted
>to serve upon Mr. Doe, that the USDC is named. This is a fraud
>upon you, upon Me, upon Mr. Doe, and upon all American People,
>who enjoy the fundamental guarantee of due process of law.
>Sedition by syntax is not due process of law.
>
> For your edification, We have attached to this letter a
>number of essays, and additional documents, which constitute
>material evidence to support the challenges which We bring to you
>in this letter. These documents also constitute probable cause
>to charge the U.S. Attorney(s) in Mr. Doe's case with fraud, jury
>tampering, and perjury of oath, not to mention a host of other
>criminal violations of pertinent federal laws. See Title 18,
>United States Code, Sections 241 and 242, for example.
>
> Please give all this evidence your careful and considerate
>attention.
>
> The future of this nation is riding on what you do.
>
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>
>
>
>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
>Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Mr. John Doe
>
>attachments
>
>copies: Mr. John Doe
> The Internet
>
>
> # # #
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail