Time: Sat Nov 02 09:47:44 1996 To: Bernie Oliver <patriot@rtd.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Our "justice" system at work??? Cc: Bcc: Nancy Lord, Richard McDonald, Neil Nordbrock Bernie, Motions in limine like this are now in grave jeopardy because of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Gaudin (1995), in which the Supremes held that juries are empowered to decide matters of relevance AND materiality of evidence. Moreover, the matter of "motivation" calls for a conclusion of law, as well as matters of fact, which the jury should also be allowed to decide. See supra. Finally, the "legal basis for such filing" is the whole core of the case. If this motion is granted, you are up to the state appellate court on a Mandamus, to compel the state court to consider "the legal basis for such filing." See also U.S. v. Powell, the third published decision (I believe), in which the Ninth Circuit threw out all their prior precedents on the question: can criminal defendants read the law into the record, before the jury? Answer: after U.S. v. Cheek, they certainly can. See last footnote on last page (where they were hiding it). You have a mistrial in the making, if this motion is granted. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>Lest anyone think that the prosecution in my case has any intentions of >>changing it's tactics, the following is an exact (complete with typo) from >>Mr. John Evans, prosecutor for the AG's office. It is a motion in Limine, >>Re: Admissibility of article describing commercial liens. >> >> "The State of Arizona, by and through the Attorney General >>Grant Woods and his assistant, JOHN R. EVANS, and urges the court to allow >>the State to present evidence regarding the motivation for Mr. Oliver to >>file the liens and to prevent Mr. Oliver from presenting any testimony that >>there is a legal basis for such filing. >> Respectfully submitted this 11th. day of October, 1996, >> >> >> Now that is rich! Evans wants to vilify me like he did at the grand >>jury hearing and me not be allowed to defend myself (like at the grand jury >>hearing). I wouldn't have had the juevos to have even filed that one. It >>should also be noted that I only filed *one* lien against the judge-- not >>*liens* and it was perfectly legal. >> >> Guilty until proven innocent. >> >> >>Bernie Bernie, We also have devastating briefs which attack the competence of the grand and trial juries, for exhibiting class bias against state Citizens who are not also federal citizens. Since they are all pulled from voter registration lists, and since those lists consist of federal citizens only, you have a federal question and should remove this case immediately into the District Court of the United States. For more on this, you will need to retain me as your assistant Counsel: $500 retainer and $75.00 per hour, charged against the retainer. I am a professional with a lot of experience in cases like yours. I will be happy to assist you in any way I can, but I cannot work pro bono or on contingency. I must say this to you at the outset. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. There is a vicious lie circulating that I am a deep cover government agent. I submit to you the affidavit of non-governmental affiliation which I filed in U.S.A. v. Broderick in Los Angeles, United States District Court. Copy available upon written request. [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release July 27, 1996 Juries in Check Around the Nation Payson, Arizona The founders of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- have just issued a ground-breaking formal challenge to the process of selecting grand and trial juries everywhere in America. Paul Mitchell, one of the co-founders, has recently documented a serious flaw in the laws enacted by Congress to select jurors for grand and trial jury service. These laws are found in Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1861 and 1865, the federal Jury Selection and Service Act. On the one hand, Congress has said that all citizens should have the opportunity to serve on both kinds of juries (section 1861). On the other hand, Congress has also said that jury candidates must be federal citizens (section 1865). Citizens of the several Union states are not mentioned in these Acts of Congress, and the omission was intentional. Grand juries are convened to consider probable cause for issuing indictments, or formal charges, against people suspected of criminal behavior. Trial juries are convened to try those people and to determine their guilt or innocence. Both kinds of juries are now assembled entirely from voter registration lists, which consist of federal citizens only. In many states, it is a felony to falsify information on a voter registration affidavit. Ever since the Civil War, Congress has been pushing hard, through force and fraud, to get all Americans into a second, inferior class of citizenship known as federal citizenship. This class did not exist in the law before the Civil War. Prior to that war, there was only one class of citizenship, a class which today is called state Citizenship. This is the class that is mentioned in the qualifications for serving in the Congress and the White House. The term "United States" in those provisions means "states United", and the "C" in Citizen is a capital "C", not a lower-case "c" as in the case of federal citizens. Unfortunately for Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, several times, that class discrimination in the selection of grand or trial jurors is a ground for proving that a jury is not a legal body. This means that any jury which exhibits class discrimination cannot issue lawful indictments, nor can it issue lawful verdicts. There are two "classes" of citizens in America. In fact, several courts have already ruled that one can be a state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, regardless of the Civil War and its ugly aftermath. "We are prepared to stipulate that federal citizens have no standing to challenge the obvious conflict between these two statutes," says Paul Mitchell, the author of several court briefs which are racing through the Internet at present. "But, when it comes to Sovereign state Citizens, the class discrimination is unmistakable, and unconstitutional." At an introductory lecture last week in Mesa, Arizona, members of the audience were enthralled by the prospect that government indictments against state Citizens will soon be thrown out. "The correct procedural move is to petition the court for a dismissal, or a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of the challenge," explained Mitchell. A stay is a procedural "freeze" on any further hearings, until the controversy is settled. Final resolution means that the matter will be finally decided by the United States Supreme Court, probably after two or more federal appeals courts decide the matter with opposite results. This will almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme Court. Sample briefs can be obtained from the Supreme Law Firm by contacting co-founder Paul Mitchell at email pmitch@primenet.com. With minor changes, the two briefs can be adapted to any state or federal prosecution, no matter at what step in the proceedings. Mitchell is even prepared to utilize their logic in habeas corpus petitions, in order to release state Citizens from federal prisons. Their indictments and convictions were decided by juries that were not legal bodies. # # # Contact: Paul Mitchell, Mail: 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Counselor at Law Tucson [zip code exempt] Supreme Law Firm ARIZONA REPUBLIC (520) 320-1514 Email: pmitch@primenet.com
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail