Time: Thu Nov 07 20:15:00 1996
To: donelle@snowcrest.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: take the high ground NOW!!
Cc: 
Bcc: 

<snip>
>>>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:

<snip>

>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>===========================================================
>>>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