Time: Thu Nov 07 06:04:17 1996
To: Nancy Lord
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: take the high ground NOW!!
Cc:
Bcc: Dean, Electra, Neil Nordbrock, Richard McDonald
Starr v. United States et al., DCUS
Application for Order to Show Cause
Dear Nancy & Althea,
The exact same thing happened in U.S.A. v. Wallens.
Here is the sequence I now recommend. We must
stay the course, however; flinching will
scuttle this plan:
Step 1: file challenge to Jury Selection and Service
Act; this can be used to prove that the grand and
trial juries were not legal bodies. judge will probably
freak out, or balk.
Step 2: if judge denies the motion to stay, pending
final resolution of challenge to constitutionality
of JSSA, petition for reconsideration and possibly
also clarification
Step 3: reserve your right to refuse any ORDER on
this question for fraud and other causes; you must
do this within 5 days of any ORDER
Step 4: if judge does not rule, go to Circuit Court
of Appeals for a Mandamus to compel him to rule
Step 5: file Final Notice and Demand for proof of
Power (of attorney), Standing (of "United States of
America"), and Jurisdiction (of USDC), with 10-day
deadline; this will setup estoppel if they default.
Step 6: with Step 5, file FOIA request for published
regulations promulgating 18 USC 3231 (there are none);
this invokes the DCUS. See 5 USC 552(a)(4)(B). Also
request powers of attorney for Office of U.S. Attorney
to represent plaintiff USA. Also request all Acts of
Congress granting standing to USA; there is none.
Step 7: the petition for clarification should point out
that JSSA makes no mention of the USDC, so this is
how you activate the collateral attack. Congress has
no policy for jury selection and service in the USDC!
Step 8: when they default beyond deadline for Notice and
Demand for Proof of Power, Standing, and Jurisdiction,
file Notice of Removal and of Petition for Warrant of
Removal to 3-Judge Panel in the DCUS; you will petition
that court for TRO and permanent injunction to force a
stay, for lack of criminal jurisdiction in the USDC.
Step 9: at this point, beginning with the removal
petition, switch parties: defendants become the new
plaintiffs; United States et al. become the respondents;
use the same docket number, but remove "CR" because that
is a fraud (USDC has no criminal jurisdiction, which you
will establish via equitable estoppel); if Clerk balks,
pay for a new docket number (don't make trouble here).
Step 10: there is currently no federal judge who is
competent or qualified to sit on the DCUS, because they
are all paying federal income taxes on their compensation;
so, file Notice and Demand on the Chief Judge of the
Circuit Court of Appeals for a Certificate of Necessity
to be served upon the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States for Temporary Assignment of 3 judges
from the Court of International Trade (an Article III
forum) to Preside on the DCUS. This is your big move;
Ninth Circuit has docketed Wallen's Notice and Demand
as a Mandamus.
Step 11: execute and file an Affidavit of Non-Waiver of
Extradition, because the defendants were unlawfully
extradited into a foreign jurisdiction (the territorial
USDC court) without an express waiver, in violation of
the Tenth Amendment; give the other side a tight
deadline to rebut, and invoke estoppel by acquiescence
if they fall silent (they will).
Step 12: petition the DCUS for an Order to the Office of
the United Attorney to show cause why its alleged agents
should not be charged with a laundry list of federal
crimes, such as piracy, extortion, perjury, and so on.
Import state law to show that they also violated numerous
state laws, e.g. trespass, entrapment, etc. USDC judge
become a respondent, so he is automatically recused from
the criminal action. This is a warning also to any
replacement that may be assigned to the USDC case:
if s/he steps in, s/he is a new respondent.
Step 13: the petition for OSC must demand a trial by competent
and qualified jury, so re-file the jury challenge in the
new court, because you want real relief from that court,
including declaratory judgment on probable cause for
charging all federal employees with the laundry list
mentioned in 12. See the All Writs Statute for ideas.
Step 14: this is the big one (which I have not done yet);
if Circuit Court does not prepare the certificate of necessity
to be served on Rehnquist, then Mandamus will lie in the
Supreme Court of the United States to compel them to prepare
it.
Step 15: quite obviously, if the certificate of necessity
is finally prepared, with or without Mandamus to the the
Circuit Court, you are then waiting on Rehnquist to act;
if he does not, Mandamus will lie in the Supreme Court of
the United States again to compel him; he recuses himself
as a respondent, and you go with a quorum of 8 judges, or
7 to create a stable voting block (6 is the legal minimum
for a quorum; see Title 28).
Step 16: if all of this fails, two international human
rights treaties guarantee effective judicial remedies
for violations of fundamental Rights, notwithstanding that
the violations were committed by persons acting in their
official capacities; Congress reserved to the localities
standing to compel the United States to provide effective
judicial remedies; you have the option, then, to remove
the action to a local common law court, where you will
probably get justice, at last. File FOIA now for the
Reservations which Congress attached to the human rights
treaties; these are archived in the State Department.
Step 17: at an appropriate moment in this sequence,
a Habeas Corpus petition will lie, but it would be best
to get such relief from the DCUS, so you are on better
grounds to stay the court with the Certificate of
Necessity for Temporary Assignment of 3 competent and
qualified judges, so you will then have a panel to
rule on the Habeas Corpus. But, it is not absolutely
necessary that the Habeas Corpus be filed in the DCUS;
you could also file it with the Circuit Court of
Appeals (since they have authority over the USDC judge).
I am standing by. This will give everyone lots of hope.
These moves are very powerful, however, so we don't
need or want wimps to take these on. The United States
will begin to act very strangely when these briefs
start to flow, so get ready for the unexpected. One
judge freaked out and made some really stupid rulings,
e.g. the affidavit is hearsay, and the decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court have no legal significance. Yes!!
Another judge just fell totally silent in the face of
the jury challenge. Silence is victory; remember that!!
I can send you copies of almost all of these moves,
except the Mandamus to the Circuit Court, and the
Mandamus to Rehnquist. I trust that you can write
that yourself.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail