Time: Mon Nov 11 06:49:23 1996
To: PatriotUSA@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Ray Looker
Cc:
Bcc:
Hello Mark,
Please share this entire
message with Pastor Paugh.
I have appended some important
essays to the end of this
message. The "Karma" article
you can share, but the other
one is somewhat confidential;
I would appreciate it if you
kept the latter "under wraps,"
so to speak. Thanks.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 07:06 AM 11/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Mitchell,
> I contacted Pastor Butch Paugh by phone on Sunday morning and told him about
>your offer. He is going to be contacting you early this week. These people
>are innocent and do not belong in jail. Pastor Paugh will be broadcasting on
>SW radio 5.85 monday evening at 11:00 pm est to update the situation there.
> Pastors Paugh, a close personel friend of Ray Looker, is their only contact
>with the outside. He will be seeing Mr looker on Tuesday. I asked Pastor
>Paugh to assure Mr. Looker that we are praying for him and stand behind him
>one hundred percent. It brings tears to my eyes to know that these freedom
>fighters are so wrongfully prosecuted. If there were more people in this
>country like Ray Looker, it would be a much better place to live.
> God bless you Mr. Mitchell, and thanks for responding.
>
>Mark
>
>oh, by the way, Arizona Republic... I like that.. Maybe I'll start
>something like that in Florida.
>
>
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
For Immediate Release November 2, 1996
"Karma and the Federal Courts"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
All Rights Reserved
(November 1996)
The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around.
When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your
house.
And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of
the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal
"District Courts" in the federal court system.
One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for
the state zone.
Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction,
"inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase
"District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts
for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District
Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.
We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the
United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance
Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].
Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of
statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are
assigned to them expressly by statutes.
When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling
statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.
This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District
Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the
United States District Courts (USDC)!
How about them apples?
Remember this carefully:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ).
Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English).
Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be
inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in
Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).
So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has
permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and
Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 1 of 3
into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction
whatsoever.
This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but
now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without
bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by
the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own
corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of
judicial tyranny.)
By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been
invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the
United States by moving their talents state-side. They should
return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on
available supplies of soap and water.
Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too
far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which
surround the federal zone.
This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its
limited Honors and tarnished glory.
Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18
U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to
issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by
18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to
issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants
civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both
refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO
(Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.
So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did
Congress need to enact two separate statutes?
The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the
DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really,
when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which
penetrates the deception.
Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to
prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal
government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been
prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War;
furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction
whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from
Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive
law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive
law. See Title 1 for details.
What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when
any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such
things as any regulations which have been published in the
Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18
U.S.C. 3231.
Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 2 of 3
It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the
credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case
in any way.
Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18
U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to
produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with
silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal
deadline has run, you are in court.
But which court? Guess ...
... the answer is the District Court of the United States.
What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge
in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States
District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a
request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests
must be litigated in the District Court of the United States
(DCUS).
Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum
for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum
for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then
the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of
Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C.
552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!
Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it.
It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this
writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt
some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by
Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been
intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was
intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of
the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is
called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head-
on, collision.
Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...
... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!!
Love it.
Common Law Copyright
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
November 2, 1996
# # #
Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 3 of 3
CONFIDENTIAL
Post Conviction Procedures
in the United States District Court
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
all rights reserved
(November 1996)
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
("JSSA"); this can be used to prove that the grand and
trial juries were not legal bodies. The 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 (her) to rule.
Step 5: file Final Notice and Demand for proof of Power (of
attorney), Standing (of "United States of America"
("USA")), 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 U.S.C. 3231 (there are
none); this invokes the DCUS. For proof, see 5 U.S.C.
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 (only the DCUS), so
this is how you activate the collateral attack.
Congress has no policy for jury selection and service
in the USDC! See 28 U.S.C. 1861 for proof.
Step 8: when they default beyond deadline stated in the 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 collateral 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), or other competent federal court
(there is none), to Preside on the DCUS. This is your
big move; Ninth Circuit has docketed Wallen's Notice
and Demand for same as a Mandamus (deMAND = MANDamus).
Step 11: execute and file an Affidavit of Non-Waiver of
Extradition, because each defendant was 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 becomes a respondent, so he (she) 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, just like that. No trespassing on this
case, period.
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 (DCUS), 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. Jury can issue declaratory relief.
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
the Circuit Court to prepare it.
Step 15: quite obviously, if the certificate of necessity is
finally prepared, with or without Mandamus to 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 for details).
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 or townshipcourt, where you will probably get
justice, at last. File a FOIA request now for the
Reservations which Congress attached to the human
rights treaties; these are archived in the State
Department, Secretary of State's office.
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), or in a State
Superior Court, once the U.S. Attorneys fail to prove
that the USDC has any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever
(it has none).
I am standing by. This will give everyone lots of hope. These
moves are very powerful, however, so we don't need or want whimps
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