Time: Sun Nov 10 13:02:16 1996
To: joyce@mlode.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: answers
Cc:
Bcc:
Joyce,
We have attempted to file many
affidavits under cover of a
Notice and Demand for Mandatory
Judicial, pursuant to Rule 201(d)
of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
and at least 3 federal judges that
I know of, have "denied" them as
if they were motions. This is
felony obstruction of justice,
which warrants an immediate
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c),
using the official Judicial Complaint
Form published and distributed by
the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of
Appeal. It is also practicing law
without a license, a high misdemeanor
in violation of 28 U.S.C. 454. The
correct method of objecting to a
Notice and Demand for Mandatory
Judicial Notice is a Motion to Strike
by the opposing party.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 11:48 AM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul....
> I have not seen the Jackie Payne affidavit. If you have it I would love
>to see it. I have never heard of Jackie Payne.
I will scan it and send it to
you in .BMP format (Windows
bit map).
> I noticed that when you approach the court, you work within the
>dictates of adminstrative law.
No, I use Law, Equity, and Admiralty
as appropriate to the situation I am
facing. Congress blended the rules
for Law and Equity some time ago.
These blended rules are known as
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Admiralty rules are found in the
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty
and Maritime Claims, cited at FRCP Rule
9(h).
Am I correct to assume that all your
>actions are "at law."
no, see above.
If so, I would like to tell you what has been
>learned recently.
tell me anyway ...
The big secret is EQUITY jurisdiction, where the law
>in question often stands moot.
Law is always pertinent, because
"due process of law" is a fundamental
Right, which cannot be waived without
a knowingly intelligent act done with
sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.
Moreover, waivers of fundamental Rights
will never be presumed. So, to litigate
any question of "equity" automatically
mandates due process of law. The
"contract" in question either doe, or
it does not, exhibit one or more waivers
of fundamental Rights.
If an injury has occured under the 'law'
>it becomes almost immaterial.
Juries decide materiality,
as of U.S. v. Gaudin, S.Ct. (1995).
See opinion by Justice Thomas.
The big issue is the injury. A friend of
>mine is having wonderful luck challenging mortage forclosures under
>regulation "Z" by challenging in Equity.
What is "regulation Z"?
> I believe in equity the need to exhaust all your adminstrative remdies
>does not exist.
There is an obligation to minimize
damages, however, and if the cost
of defending a suit would exceed
the cost of settling, the plaintiff
might be liable for barratry. So,
it always helps to make offers in
compromise; this is considered
"exhaustion of remedies."
Equity offers an exciting and new way to challenge any
>injury.
It may be exciting to you,
but it is certainly not new.
> It it done by the declaratory judgement process.
Juries can aware declaratory relief,
particularly in civil settings.
See 28 U.S.C. 2201.
Discovery in
>equity is also an adventure.
I prefer FOIA, because there
is no requirement that the
requester demonstrate relevance
or materiality; in standard
discovery, there is such a
requirement.
> It is of course, done by affidavit,
A case is usually opened with an
affidavit, but neither FOIA nor
standard discovery require affidavits.
There is always "subpoena" and
"deposition," "requests for admissions",
and "demand for production of documents".
and
>usually involves an infringement of your natural rights, thereby often
>making it a 14th amendment infringement.
The 14th was found to be a bogus
amendment by two decisions of the
Utah Supreme Court: Dyett v. Turner
in 1968, and State v. Phillips in
1975. See Full Faith and Credit
Clause.
It's difficult for the court to
>refuse to produce the information requested.
I disagree, particularly when the judge
is biased, incompetent, and/or corrupt.
I believe the court has to
>prove it has jurisdiction under the constitution to take the action
>against you.
Good belief you have. Actually,
the matter of subject matter
jurisdiction must be proven on record,
or the court is ousted of jurisdiction.
There are a ton of cases on this point,
which I can share with you, if and when
you are ready.
> I'm new to equity.
Yes, I can see that.
There is so much to learn about it and so little
>information around on it.
Try "Words and Phrases" in the
law library.
Most of what I'm learning is coming from old
>books and old cases that I can get my hands on.
> Comments?
Yes. See supra.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail