Time: Tue Oct 29 06:45:19 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: LLAW: LeRoy
Cc: 
Bcc: 


>	Please help me in these efforts.
>
>Charles Stewart . . .

Dear Charles,

When I wanted to locate LeRoy,
I called directory assistance
and asked for the telephone number
of the Yellowstone County
Detention Center.  The courteous
operator gave me the number
with very little wait.  I then
dialed that number:  lift the
phone off the receiver, and 
press your finger on the 
numbers given to you by the
courteous operator.  When the
jail staff answer, ask them
for the mailing address of
the Yellowstone County Detention
Center.  While you are at it,
ask them if LeRoy is there,
and is he okay.  They will
give you the information you 
are requesting.  You might have
a pencil and piece of paper 
handy, so you can write down
their answer.  Then, use one
of those pieces of paper to
write to LeRoy yourself.  Then,
fold the piece of paper, put it
in an envelope addressed to the
jail, and put a stamp on it.
Don't forget to take it to the
U.S. Post Office, now, because
it might not get there if you 
don't.  Okay?  Do you have all
this down, or do I need to repeat 
it again?

/s/ Paul Mitchell


>
>On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
><snip>
>> 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