Time: Tue Oct 29 06:48:41 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: LeRoy
Cc:
Bcc: Neil Nordbrock
>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:41:56 -0700 (MST)
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: LLAW: LeRoy
>
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>At 12:52 AM 10/29/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>Paul,
>>
>>You have my utmost respect. I know you are sincere in your
>>efforts. But the laborious outline of the problem which you posted below,
>>focuses entirely on utilizing court systems run by the federal government.
>
>With one important qualification:
>the DCUS can only be convened with
>an independent judiciary, not one
>subject to the undue influence of
>the other departments. See Evans
>v. Gore, and Lord v. Kelley.
>
>For your information, I am thinking
>seriously about volunteering to
>Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
>as a competent and qualified stand-in
>for such missions, although People
>v. United States is out of the
>question, because I am the Relator
>in that case.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>>
>> And I've argued with you before about how your newfound DCUS or
>>whatever is not going to provide the solutions which you seek. And I am
>>tired of arguing with uypou and the others about the merrits of these
>>strategys. I don't wanna hear about it any more. As far as I'm concerned,
>>it's trash fromm stem to stern. We need to skuttel that entire ship of
>>state and lert her soink like the whore which she is.
>
>Objection.
>I understand your feelings here.
>I published my strategic plan for
>what I would do in Billings, and
>they hired me to do just that.
>"They" refers specifically to
>LeRoy, who is in the driver's
>seat in such matters, because
>he is proceeding In Propria Persona.
>
>If they want to change courses now,
>that is entirely up to them; it is
>not my decision, and never was.
>
>I am an "architect" of sorts, and
>I am down in this trench throwing
>dirt around, because we are
>implementing a foundation, tying
>rebar, getting dirty, and
>excavating to find bed rock.
>
>People topside are standing there
>asking me what I am doing down in
>this hole, and they are kicking
>dirt in my face. These people
>do not know how to read blue prints,
>and never will, much less create the
>blue prints in the first place.
>
>Do you get the metaphor here?
>
>The exact same thing happened
>in the Broderick case, only there
>I was given a loaner car with
>front brakes that had been tampered
>with. This is criminal negligence,
>and maybe also attempted murder.
>
>DO YOU GET THE DRIFT HERE?
>
>Like, just maybe, there is
>sabotage going on?
>
>maybe? maybe?
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>>
>> The essence of the original pure commonlaw is what leroy was
>>seeking to re-establish in justice township. Leroy is the only scholar
>>who I have ever heard to quote magna carta.
>
>You haven't read very many
>scholars, then.
>
> He is on a hihggher plane
>>of consciousness.
>
>And his colleagues are avowed
>white supremacists who cannot
>cite ANY New Testament authorities
>for their bigotry, even when
>challenged to do so. I know.
>I was there. I issued the
>challenge to them.
>
>
> We need him out of that stinlking cell, and we need to
>>quit screwing around with these stinking defacto smoke and mirrors
>>prostitutres. If you want a job done right you have to do it yourself.
>
>Go for it, then.
>Mind if I watch?
>
>
>>
>> We have the authority to take the reigns of power. Leroy directed
>>his students to read chapter 61 of magna carta, as showing clearly that
>>the power remains in "we the people". Check it out. Its dynamite.
>
>For me, that translates into a
>judicial power forum, with a
>lawfully convened jury of
>state Citizens, to hear any
>and all matters brought to them
>by the Plaintiff, the People
>of the United States. You seem
>to have forgotten that the DCUS
>action we filed exhibits a demand
>for jury trial. That is the
>entire focus of my work up there:
>competent and qualified jury
>verdicts, issuing declaratory
>relief and other relief as they
>deem proper. I can see why I
>need to repeat myself over and
>over and over, because the
>American People are just not
>getting it. Maybe if I repeat
>myself 100 times, just maybe,
>they might begin to see what I
>am doing up there. I tried in
>every way I could to explain
>the crucial, pivotal importance
>of our challenge to the Jury
>Selection and Service Act, but
>instead I get grief. Well,
>America, we are lost if we cannot
>agree on something as obvious as
>the class discrimination we have
>found in the Jury Selection and
>Service Act. I am blue in the
>face. Pardon me.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>>
>> The pathway which you advocate below is not the pathway which
>>either leroy or god wishes for us to follow in this quandery before us.
>
>OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>LEROY APPROVED IT!!!!!!!!!
>
>JUST HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY
>THIS BEFORE IT SINKS INTO YOUR THICK SKULL?
>
>NOW, WILL YOU STOP MAKING FALSE AND OFFENSIVE
>STATEMENTS HERE, PLEEEEEEEZE!!!!!!!!
>
>If you don't believe me, ASK HIM YOURSELF!!!!
>
>I am going for a walk.
>
>Please excuse me ...
>
>for several days.
>
>
>10-4
>
>
>>We must re-establish some new form of commonlaw process for addressing
>>these matters. Our original ideas for doing a commonlaw court online is
>>still one of the best, imho. And as this discussion again unfolds, I
>>would really like for leroy himself to be in communication with us.
>>
>> I have asked Tom Clark to assist me in gaining access to avenues
>>of communication with leroy. I am hereby asking you respectfully for the
>>same assistance.
>>
>> Please help me in these efforts.
>>
>>Charles Stewart . . .
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>===========================================================
>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>===========================================================
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail