Time: Mon Oct 28 18:55:10 1996 To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: LLAW: LeRoy Cc: Bcc: Electra, Chris Wilder, Denver newspapers, Jean-Pierre Weingarten, Jim McCall, Joe Newman, Nancy Lord, Neil Nordbrock, Richard McDonald, The Arizona Republic, Tucson Citizen, William Cooper, Art Bell,rgmoore@primenet.com,chiobec@azstarnet.com <snip> >>Well why don't we try discussing getting Leroy out of that stinking cell. > >As far as litigating throught the established courts...I think it is safe to >say that all we can really do is send LeRoy our ideas on what he might try. >LeRoy is not one who is lacking ideas on how to conduct his defense. > >What does LeRoy need then for us to do for him what he cannot do himself? >Not a lot on the litigation side. Quite frankly, there have been a lot of >folks to offer advice to LeRoy. I've corresponded with him since he's back >at Yellowstone, and I can't add anything to the course he has chosen to >take. It's outside of my expertise. > >Outside of that what can we do? Well, Ralph has a darn good website that >documents what has transpired. In fact, Ralph and Paul have been taking >things that LeRoy has dug up and moving forward with those. > >Of course you and I have tried to spark some action to get a jury in on >this. I advocate a Grand Jury, and you have advocated a straight pre-Magna >Charta/Norman law common law jury. > >I must say my effort has gained modest support, even though I spammed the >patriot community on the Internet with it. Heck we've been featured in >Media Bypass and other papers for what we've worked out here and it has come >to little. Short of knocking on every door I come across, I don't know what >else a man can do? > >I certainly don't have much to offer LeRoy when others with more experience >are helping him. > >~Tom Clark Let me pose a few questions to you: 1. if the United States District Courts (USDC) have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, but 2. LeRoy et al. are being "prosecuted" in this court, and 3. if the plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have no standing to sue in this court, but 4. the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are the named plaintiffs, and 5. if the U.S. Attorneys on the case have no powers of attorney to represent these plaintiffs, but 6. they are representing the plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA anyway, and 7. if there are no regulations for the statute which grants criminal jurisdiction to the District Court of the United States, and 8. if the District Court of the United States (DCUS) is not the same forum as the United States District Court (USDC), according to several standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and 9. if the lack of regulations proves that the statute granting criminal jurisdiction only has application to federal officers, employees, and agents, and 10. if Congress has enacted a policy for convening juries which contradicts itself, and which policy only applies to the District Courts of the United States, and not to the United States District Court, and 11. if Congress presently has NO policy concerning jury selection and service in the United States District Court, where all these pseudo-criminal actions are being brought, and no regulation for the policy it has enacted; and 12. if all federal grand and petit juries have issued indictments/verdicts which are null and void for exhibiting class discrimination against state Citizens who are not also federal citizens, and 13. if the District Court of the United States cannot be convened with any federal judges who are currently having their compensation be diminished by federal income taxes, and 14. if the case of People v. United States was recently removed into the District Court of the United States, on an injunction remedy, and 15. if the petition for injunction invokes a 3-judge panel, and 16. if the 3-judge panel is also needed to adjudicate the apportionment of Congressional districts, which are affected because the disenfranchised state Citizens cannot and do not vote, without also committing perjury (a class 6 felony in some states); and 17. if one qualified federal judge cannot be found whose compensation is not being diminished by federal income taxes, then 3 such judges certainly cannot be found whoses compensation is not being diminished by federal income taxes; and 18. if the Supreme Court of the United States just reached a stalemate on a case involving Social Security taxation of federal judges' salaries, brought by 16 federal judges who don't want their compensation diminished any more; then what do you do now? I am all ears. /s/ Paul Mitchell
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail