Time: Thu Nov 07 06:50:37 1996 To: ewolfe@wnstar.com (Ed Wolfe) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: take the high ground NOW!! Cc: Bcc: >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 06:04:31 >To: Nancy Lord >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: take the high ground NOW!! >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