Time: Wed Nov 13 21:06:25 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Help Needed Now for a Fallen Patriot
Cc:
Bcc:
Mike,
Thanks. The Internet is buzzing
quite loudly right now with lots
of red herrings, disinformation,
and general noise. You would not
believe the huge number of people
who continue to send me things which
they ask me to "evaluate" or
"comment upon" or "review" or
just "read." When I was in Montana,
some 14 megabytes of email backed up
in my inbox, and I almost lost all
of it, if it had not been for the
execellent tech support I have
received from the folks at Primenet.
So, have a heart and save me from
the temptation to have me review
each and every idea which comes along.
I am on a special path here, call it
the Non-Violent Warrior's path, if you
will. But I must stay the course, because
I have very good reasons to believe that
professional provocateurs are being
dispatched to scuttle the discoveries
I have made about federal law, and
which I am implement in some very
powerful judicial procedures.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 09:26 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul:
> It was sent to me free gratis, and as I said I am not competent
>to evaluate it. I thought you *legal eagle* types were always swaping
>ways to screw the government. :)
> No, just for your perusal, if it appears worthwhile, I don't have
>a problem with the *freight.* I understand the way it works. I'm just
>putting it before you in an attitude of hopeful puppy-like eagerness to
>help. Pat me on the head and tell me to go play in traffic if it is just
>a distraction. You're the expert- boy, do I hope that you're the expert.
> By the way, answering your *when did it post* message, Pony
>Express got it Monday evening, but I doubt that it went out. We have no
>direct processing, it goes seventy miles to B'ham every evening, and I
>doubt they transported Monday night. It oughta be there tomorrow, given
>the distance between us.
>
>In Liberty,
>Mike
>
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Do you want me to evaluate it?
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>> At 09:26 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>> >FYI- I'm not competent to evaluate this.
>> >Mike
>> > by ntpcl.pcl.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-13621)
>> > with SMTP id AAA184 for <minutemn@pcl.net>;
>> > Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:27:01 -0600
>> minutemn@pcl.net; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:36 -0500
>> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:36 -0500
>> >From: DotHB@aol.com
>> >Message-ID: <961113092436_1949403892@emout18.mail.aol.com>
>> >To: minutemn@pcl.net
>> >cc: DotHB@aol.com
>> >Subject: Re: Help Needed Now for a Fallen Patriot
>> >
>> >MIKE -
>> >
>> >This is a message I received from Kay Stern (Missouri Militia??)
>> >I don't know if this is the same Peter Stern (of TV fame) but he is
>> >an attorney. Anyhow, they sent this to help.
>> >
>> >Dot Bibee
>> >=============
>> >
>> >Subj: Re: FW: HELP NEEDED NOW FOR A FALLEN PATRIOT
>> >Date: 96-11-12 19:52:10 EST
>> >From: pstern@dnet.net (Peter Kay., Stern)
>> >To: DotHB@aol.com
>> >
>> >10:58 PM 11/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>CAN YOU HELP THIS GUY ?
>> >
>> >>From: DotHB@aol.com[SMTP:DotHB@aol.com]
>> >>Sent: Sunday, November 10, 1996 2:25 PM
>> >>To: minutemn@pcl.net
>> >>Cc: DotHB@aol.com
>> >>Subject: HELP NEEDED NOW FOR A FALLEN PATRIOT
>> >>
>> >>Dot!
>> >
>> >The solution is that California has passed a medical pot bill.
>> >
>> >Use of the 10th Amendment and equality between states is a timely and strong
>> >position.
>> >
>> >A Motion to vacate under FRCP 26 and 60 would open the matter back up.
>> >
>> >Further strength from putting in a Habeas based on new info is a second
>> >document.
>> >
>> >Third...did anyone look at the original indictment and or warrant to see if
>> >they were proper?????
>> >
>> >Attachment Converted: C:\EUDORA\GRDJURY.SAM
>> >
>> >[edoc]
>> ><:#556,9360>As pertains to Grand Jury in the instant matter, the following
>> >citations on Grand Jury procedure MUST be met, or the Grand Jury process is
>> >tainted, the purported indictment(s) void;
>> >
>> ><:#836,9360>1. Was the grand jury conducted pursuant to the Supreme Court's
>> >decision in United States v R. Enterprises Inc., 111 S.Ct. 722, 726 (1991)?
>> >Was every proper witness and clue examined in every proper way?
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>No! I don't think so! Avra Lee wasn't called.
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>2. Had the grand jury, in substance, abdicated? Costello v United
>> >States, 350 U.S. 359, 365, 76 S.Ct. 406 (1956).
>> >
>> ><:#1114,9360>3. Grand jury could only indict on proof sufficient to warrant
>> >conviction.
>> >Charge to the Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. No. 18,246 (C.Ct.D. Conn. 1867)
>> >{not provide the U.S. Attorney\prosecutor a speaking forum, a place to bring
>> >personal vendettas, a means of intimidating enemys, or a means of institution
>> >of a politically motivated fishing expedition}"
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>It appears that this is McCullough's last hurrah!
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>4. Did the grand jury act as a shield between the government and
>> >the defendant?
>> >Wood v Georgia, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 1373 (1962).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Not hardly...especially if they did not see ALL the evidence!
>> >
>> ><:#557,9360>5. Was the grand jury acting independently of either the
>> >prosecuting attorney or the judge?
>> >Stirone v United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.Ct. 270 (1960).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Want to take bets on this one?
>> >
>> ><:#836,9360>6. Did the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment act as a
>> >safeguard designed to protect this defendant from opressive governmental
>> >practices?
>> >United States ex rel Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 79 S. Ct. 1 (1955).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>It does not appear so in this case!
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>7. Was there a significant infringement of the grand jury? United
>> >States v Larrazolo, 869 F.2d 1354, 1359 ((th Circuit 1989).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Based on McCullough's conduct (stealing their evidence) I doubt
>> >it!
>> >
>> ><:#557,9360>8. Was the grand jury degraded into a rubber stamp and the
>> >testing of the prosecutor's evidence into an empty ritual? United States v Al
>> >Mudarris, 695 F. 2d 1182, 1188 (9th Circuit 1983).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Probably!
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>9. Was there prosecutorial misconduct in front of the grand jury?
>> >
>> >United States v Samango, 607 F.2d 877 (9th Circuit 1979).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Ref: The evidence being swiped by McCullough...you bet!
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>10. Did the prosecutor express an opinion on the weight and
>> >sufficiency of the evidence?
>> >United States v Wells, 163 F. 313 (D. Idaho 1909).
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>11. Did the grand jury have freedom of deliberation? In re
>> >Grand Jury Subpeona, 920 F 2d 235, 241 n. 8 (4th Cir. 1990).
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>12. Did the prosecutor usurp the function of the grand jury?
>> >United States v Isgro, 751 F. Supp. 846, 849-850 (9th Cir. 1990).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>It appears like it!
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>13. Was the grand jury composed of a fair cross-section of the
>> >community?
>> >United States v Pottorf, 769 F.Supp. 1176, 1186 (D. Kan. 1991).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Can't tell.
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>14. Was the grand jury free from outside influence? Matter of
>> > Grand Jury Investigation, 748 F. Supp. 1188, 1194 (E.D. Mich. 1990)
>> >
>> ><:#558,9360>15. Was there improper influence on the grand jury? Application
>> >of Jordan, 439 F. Supp. 199, 210 (S.D. W. Va. 1977).
>> >
>> ><:#278,9360>Based on McCullough's conduct, you bet!
>> >
>> ><:#835,9360>16. Did Congress have the constitutional authority, in the first
>> >place, to enact the so-called 'law' or 'statute' the United States Attorney
>> >is trying to manipulate the grand jury into bringing an indictment on?
>> >Charge to the Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. No. 18,258 (C.Ct. W. D. N.C. 1875)
>> >
>> ><:#556,9360>I don't see it...but that's an argument for another time. The
>> >above is more than sufficient to quash the indictments and kill this whole
>> >thing.
>> >
>> >[Embedded]
>> >00009224
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ===========================================================
>> 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