Time: Wed Nov 13 11:19:03 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Pony Express
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Dear Mike,

When did you mail your Pony Express package?

It was not in my mailbox this morning.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:58:56
>To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Pony Express
>Cc: Richard McDonald
>
>Mike,
>
>Great!  Thanks!!
>
>Let's start thinking about
>"federal questions."  My
>latest one, for application
>in state cases, is the research
>which Richard McDonald and I
>have done on the subordination
>of Union States (de facto versions)
>beneath the District of Columbia,
>by accommodation of the bankruptcy
>secretly declared in 1933. This means,
>for example, that there must be two
>sets of state district courts, one
>de jure and the other de facto.
>In California, they are even titled
>differently:
>   
>   Superior Court of the State of California
>
>and
>  
>   superior Court of California state
>
>There are cites in 31 CFR which support
>this finding: 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2.
>So, if the Corporate State and its agents
>have moved against you, and if this Corporate
>State is a political subdivision of the
>District of Columbia, then you have an
>important question, a la the Buck Act,
>to remove into federal court.  Having said
>this, I can confidently say that all the
>research is done to prove that the correct
>court, into which you should remove your
>case, is the District Court of the United States,
>NOT the United States District Court.  
>
>Since there are no judges currently qualified or
>competent to sit on the DCUS, you stand a 
>very good chance of effectively staying your
>case indefinitely, or until such time as this
>collateral challenge to the federal courts is
>worked out, probably via some grand compromise.
>
>I am willing to stipulate that federal citizens
>do not have standing to make this challenge;
>that would be an acceptable compromise to me,
>but I have no idea if it would be an acceptable
>compromise to the Supreme Court, particularly
>since these findings require quite a full 
>disclosure of the Saran Wrap fraud which has
>been stretched out over the entire Union.
>
>More on this later.  I am sharing this with
>Richard McDonald, who will be happy to assist
>us at this very point.
>
>Did you send me the indictments and other
>pertinent papers?
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>>Paul:
>>	Though the Express is not riding today, it is in their hands.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail