Time: Tue Apr 22 05:53:41 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA04046;
	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 05:40:44 -0700 (MST)
	by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA21607;
	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 05:39:52 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 05:51:46 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Washington Post auto-responder (fwd)

>From: "DI -- Cust. Care -- Content" <webnews@washpost.com>
>To: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: RE: First Amendment Triumphs (1 of 5)
>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 15:53:00 PDT
>
>
>Thank you for taking the time to write us and sharing your comments and   
>thoughts with us. Please be advised that this mailbox is designated for   
>comments and questions from our washingtonpost.com Web site.
>
>If you wish send comments in regard to a news story or article ,or a   
>suggested news story it is best to send them to the attention of the   
>editor to which the comments pertain.
>
>There is a list of editors with e-mail accounts on our site, under Site   
>Index.
>
>Letters to the Editor at The Washington Post must be sent through postal   
>mail; e-mail messages and faxes are not
>     accepted. Letters must be exclusive to The Post, must be signed and   
>must include the writer's home address and
>     business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, letters   
>that are published may be abridged. The Post is
>     unable to acknowledge letters that are not published, but it   
>appreciates the interest and values the views of those
>     who take the time to send comments. Letters intended for publication   
>should be sent to:
>
>                                        Letters to the Editor
>                                        The Washington Post
>                                       1150 15th Street, NW
>                                       Washington, DC 20071
>
>Please remove this address from mass distribution lists. Such e-mails   
>prevents us from providing fast service to our site users. Your   
>compliance in this matter is appreciated.
>Sincerely
>
>Gayle Seletsky
>Customer Care
>washingtonpost.com
>
> ----------
>From:  Paul Andrew Mitchell[SMTP:pmitch@primenet.com]
>Sent:  Friday, April 18, 1997 9:56 PM
>Subject:  SLF: First Amendment Triumphs (1 of 5)
>
>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>
>                   "First Amendment Triumphs"
>
>                               by
>
>                Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>              Counselor at Law and Federal Witness
>                       All Rights Reserved
>                             (1997)
>
>
>                          Introduction
>
>
>The prototype  pleadings which  follow this introduction are part
>of a  much larger strategy which is based on the latest knowledge
>about the law of federal court jurisdiction.
>
>
>Here is the general sequence:
>
>1.   Freedom of  Information Act  ("FOIA") requests are submitted
>     for the  credentials of all government actors, including the
>     judge, followed by timely FOIA appeals.
>
>
>2.   Then, Final  Notice and Demand for Proof of Power, Standing,
>     and  Jurisdiction   in  the   particulars   (aka   Bill   of
>     Particulars), with same deadline as FOIA appeals:
>
>     a.   Power of  Attorney, if any, to represent the Plaintiffs
>          "United States of America" ("U.S.A.").
>
>     b.   Standing to sue, if any, of Plaintiffs "U.S.A."
>
>     c.   Original criminal  jurisdiction, if  any, of the United
>          States District Court ("USDC").
>
>     d.   Regulations published  in the Federal Register, if any,
>          for key statutes, e.g. Jury Selection and Service Act.
>
>
>3.   Affidavits of Default and of Probable Cause, if and when the
>     Department of  Justice (and  all  other  agencies)  fail  to
>     produce the certified evidence demanded above:
>
>     a.   Testifies to  DOJ's  (or  other  agency's)  failure  to
>          produce certified  evidence, on  or before  the  stated
>          deadline
>
>     b.   Testifies to  existence of  probable  cause  to  charge
>          government  actors  with  deprivations  of  fundamental
>          Rights under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, e.g. due process of
>          law as guaranteed by Fifth Amendment
>
>     c.   Activates estoppel by acquiescence
>
>
>4.   Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal by 3-Judge Panel
>
>     a.   seeks ORDER  by three  (3)  qualified  federal  judges,
>          removing case  from USDC, which has no jurisdiction, to
>          DCUS, which has jurisdiction
>
>          i.   3-judge panel  requires challenge to apportionment
>               of congressional  districts, based  on two classes
>               of citizenship
>
>     b.   Criminal defendant becomes civil Plaintiff.
>
>     c.   New civil Respondents become "United States et al."
>
>
>4.   Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
>
>     a.   names USDC judge as civil Respondent (Doe #1)
>
>     b.   compels  production   of  admissible   copies  of   the
>          credentials of the USDC judge, and entry into evidence
>
>          i.   Oath of Office is most important
>
>          ii.  Commission from  President to  be federal judge is
>               next in importance
>
>     c.   provides prototype  to compel  production of  all other
>          credentials, from all other actors
>
>     d.   forces  recusal   of  USDC  judge  for  adverse  and/or
>          pecuniary interest(s), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455
>
>
>5.   Subsequent pleadings  contest the  payment of federal income
>     taxes  by  any  federal  judge  assigned  to  the  DCUS,  in
>     violation of Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore.
>
>     a.   O'Malley v.  Woodrough is  refuted for  false premises,
>          namely:
>
>          i.   there are two classes of citizenship, not one
>
>          ii.  there is  no law  requiring federal  judges to  be
>               citizens of either class
>
>
>6.   Supplemental brief  details rich history of Petition Clause,
>     as a fundamental federal question.
>
>     a.   U.S.  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  Petition  Clause
>          guarantees a Right conservative of all other rights
>
>
>7.   Other special pleadings are timely submitted, to:
>
>     a.   refute the  constitutionality  of  Jury  Selection  and
>          Service Act ("JSSA")
>
>     b.   establish Plaintiff's Right to assistance of Counsel
>
>     c.   petition  for   leave   to   institute   Quo   Warranto
>          proceedings
>
>     d.   and all  other  federal  questions  arising  under  the
>          Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States
>
>
>8.   New Plaintiff  has  option  to  stay  the  DCUS  proceeding,
>     pending final  resolution of  challenge to constitutionality
>     of JSSA (if matter has not already been finally settled).
>
>     a.   Rebuttal to  first response  of the  United  States  is
>          available, via incorporation of Exhibit, by reference
>
>     b.   History of related cases is recited
>
>
>                             #  #  #
>
>
>

========================================================================
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