Time: Wed Nov 13 11:51:39 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Another way to lo [redacted for privacy]
Cc:
Bcc:
So, where's the FUNNEL!
I WANT MY FUNNEL!!!
Is this anything like
a pig in a python?
Just asking ... 8-]
/s/ Paul Mitchell
P.S. "Where's the beef?"
asks I Pobot, I, butting
in againly notwithstandingly.
1001,HLT
At 10:21 AM 11/13/96 U, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>Tom replied:
>================
>John,
>
>At 09:17 AM 11/12/96 U, you wrote:
>
>>Read the entire deal and then fire off your comments...
>
><O.K.>
>
>>This is where the Bill of Particulars comes
>>in...or Plea in Abatement...it challenges and argues the Law prior to
>>arraignment or plea, prior to jurisdiction and venue.
>>While discovery is after a plea has been entered as Randy has stated.
>
>I had not fully contemplated the idea of challenging/arguing law prior to
>establishing jurisdiction. On the face that is what is going on with
>abatements.
>
>>Once the law is settled the jurisdiction is determined based on the law and
>>its application to a man or entity of your type, status, character. My
>friend
>>Marc made a model as follows...
>>
>>The court procedure is a funnel divided into 5 sections. The judgment or
>>result of the case comes out at the bottom. see diagram
>
>Reducing the scope of the action is consistant with my observations about
>the nature of how a court operates.
>
>> The proceeding down the funnel is a one way trip boys and girls...once you
>>pass a level it is harder to go back and force the court to address that
>>issue...as the court does not have to at that point.
>
>This is certainly true. The key word is HARDER, not impossible. You can
>back up i.e. mistrial, trial de novo, dismissal, etc.
>
>>For instance...you pass
>>through the jurisdiction level and are in fact, and then bring up
>>jurisdiction, the court can hear it, but the issue does not have as much
>force
>>and effect as if it was challenged at the correct time.
>
>Perhaps it is better to say that the burden shifts against the litigant, or
>that the court naturally resists reversing course? The issue has the same
>force, it just requires EVEN MORE effort on the part of the litigant to make
>sure the issue is not brushed aside.
>
>>If you move straight
>>to jurisdiction or arraignment you circumvent the issue of law and character
>>and you WAIVE the challenge to the Law. This is where we want to stop the
>>whole thing....at the issue of law. That means knowing how to argue and
>plead
>>the law. Which most people do not....including attorneys.
>
>Is the issue waived permanently? Can it be reversed?
>
>
>John replies:
>
>[Unless of course...as just happened in a casewhere a writ of error coram
>nobis was filed and the oppossing counsel severly traversed into the issue of
>law that we stated in the writ...we are now going to force the court to hear
>the traverse...this is new to me [us]...we do not know if this will
>work...updates to follow. As for now..if you do not challenge the law first
>and go past that level...you can try tobring it up but the court will not hear
>it as you had your chance and have waived the issue. I like your
>strategy...but I feel that it applies after or during arraignment or plea.
>Attacking the opposing counsel is a good strategy...attacking the court is
>[imho] should be done if the attack on the counsel fails.]
> *******
>
>Yes, I do believe that is the crux of the problem. They are joining the
>Free Citizen with law foreign to him.
>
>Generally, I agree right along the line, but I can't bury my head in the
>sand considering the results I've had "STIFF-ARMing". I wish we had more
>data on the success of NSA, Plea in Abatement, BofP's, "STIFF-ARM".
>
>The reason "STIFF-ARM" works is it relies upon the Prosecutor's notion of
>self-preservation and less upon the strictness of the law. Perhaps, this is
>why using Behold!s BofP in a "STIFF-ARM" setup doesn't destroy the strategy,
>whereas Behold!s strategy is severley compromised by incorporating
>"STIFF-ARM"?
>
>~Tom Clark
>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail