Time: Thu Nov 07 13:20:46 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
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