Time: Tue Apr 15 09:39:21 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06351;
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:17:22 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA26019;
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:17:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:37:52 -0700
To: civprocedure-l@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: My question re: remand
At 11:35 PM 4/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Thanks to all who responded, some with some very helpful pointers to
>relevant provisions of the FRE and FRCP. Now to clear up any
>misapprehension. My desire to remand this case in no way reflects a
>negative view of the federal courts on my part. I am actually quite
>fond of federal court, it is an orderly, civil place with high calibre
>judges for the most part. I wish to disassociate myself from anyone who
>finds federal court to be a hostile environment. We would not have made
>the social progress we have made in the last four decades were it not
>for the federal judiciary.
Well, then who gets the credit for the fact
that the incarceration rate in America is
twice that of South Africa, and South Africa
is SECOND worldwide in incarceration rates,
per capita.
You have, evidently, not litigated a single
tax case, in which federal judges have become
routinely and habitually tyrannical. I know
this from direct experience. See, for example,
"The Lawless Rehnquist" in the Supreme Law
Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
While you are there, you might also read
"The Kick-Back Racket," which now implicates
federal judges in a widespread, criminal bribery
racket. And don't forget Lord v. Kelley, in which
that judge had enough courage to admit, in his
written opinion, that all federal judges are
subject to the undue influence of the IRS in
tax cases.
And you call this social progress? Excuse me,
but these are felony violations of Title 18,
United States Code. See section 242 and 241,
in particular.
I guess you would call it "an orderly, civil place
with high calibre judges for the most part," even
after the judge in a subpoena enforcement case
just admitted, in court and on record, that he
was the one who obstructed all 27 pieces of first
class mail which the defendants had attempted to
mail to the grand jury foreperson, and then gave
all 27 pieces of mail to the Assistant U.S. Attorney.
We have now counted 112 separate felonies by this
one judge, in this one case. And you would call this
"an orderly, civil place with high calibre judges"?
I mean, the judge even had the gall to complain
that he had 14 inches of pleadings to read.
We had filed only 7 inches of pleadings; the
judge had intercepted all the pleadings which we
mailed to the foreperson too. THAT'S why he had
14 inches to read, instead of 7. When he realized
his error, the judge called an immediate recess,
huddled with his staff both inside and outside
the courtroom, and then came back into session to
say that he really had only 7 inches to read, but,
he guaranteed, if we filed it, he had read it!
Are you serious?
I know criminal behavior when I see it. This is
criminal behavior. Even Rehnquist has admitted,
to a law school class at the University of
Arizona, that federal judges should be punished
for serious crimes. I think 112 felonies by a
single judge, in a single case, are quite enough
to put that judge in federal prison for quite a
long time.
If you are telling me that you want to side with
this racket, then you are entirely correct to
decide that you do not want to associate yourself
with me, because we mean business. If I were a
Congressman right now, I would have instituted
impeachment proceedings against John M. Roll
a long time ago. I am prepared, as an eyewitness
and a damaged party, to let the chips fall where
they may.
Choose your sides, and choose your weapons.
I am using the truth, and the law.
What are you using?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Private reply: Sue Ochs <sueochs@sirius.com>
>Public replies: CIVPROCEDURE-L@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>To subscribe, signoff: listserv@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>Listserv questions: Quintin Chatman, qchatman@pf.com
>With technical assistance from WashLawWEB
> http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/washlaw/washlaw.html
>
>
========================================================================
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