Time: Thu Nov 14 18:25:15 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>, Mike Kemp
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Macon Atlanta news update
Cc:
Bcc: Richard McDonald
>Paul,
<snip>
> Let me know if I can help with Mike Kemp. I'm so glad
>you are able to assist him. He is a very dear friend of mine.
>I would do an 8th amendment brief, because it's a misdemeanor,
>and he could die in jail in his condition.
>
>Your friend,
>Nancy
Hi Nancy,
Eighth Amendment issues can be
raised in the District Court of
the United States, provided that
we can invoke the U.S. Constitution
against the State, without falling
back on the 14th Amendment. I want
to stay away from federal citizenship,
because my overall strategy is to
win formal judicial recognition of
the legal status of state Citizens
who are not also federal citizens.
So, I don't think the Eighth will
fly in the State court; but it will
in the DCUS. Once we are planted
on common law grounds, we can argue
that there is no corpus delicti.
We're going to remove his case into
the District Court of the United States
on several federal questions: U.S.
funding of the crime/drug task force,
and corporate State accommodation of the
federal debt beginning in 1933. We can
say pretty much anything we want about
the federal question(s) involved, because
we will remove the action into a court
which has no competent or qualified judges
to preside, at least for quite some time,
so the case will just sit there, effectively
in a stalemate. From that point, we will
activate the Notice and Demand for Temporary
Assignment of a competent and qualified judge.
My first one of these was actually docketed
at the Ninth Circuit. Then, we crank up
the volume with a Petition for Order to
Show Cause why certain federal "practices"
should be held unconstitutional, with a
Demand for Jury Trial. This then leads
us back to my favorite one: the frontal
assault on the Jury Selection and Service
Act. Mike likes the sound of all of this.
I think I will also throw in a routine
Motion to Continue, pending preparation by
the new Counsel of Choice, pursuant to the
Sixth Amendment (effective assistance is
a fundamental Right). That will delay the
sentencing, so we can bring in the howitzers.
Bye for now.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Tom Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> =======================================================================
>>>> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>>>> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>>>> =======================================================================
>>>> Greg, et al.,
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >I don't know how many were following this trial. And I wonder who
>managed to
>>>> >buy the jury.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how much the jury got to hear? At any rate, I saw one piece of
>>>> court paperwork (transcribed for the Internet) alleged to have been filed in
>>>> behalf of the defendants. I must say I was less than pleased with what I
>>saw.
>>>>
>>>> The document in particular sought court ordered discovery outside the
>>>> possession of the plaintiff and outside the scope of the complaint (in my
>>>> opinion, at least). To most folks I imagine that it seemed like a big
>>>> cover-up, but to me I wondered what in the heck the defense was doing. The
>>>> defense should've known -- despite the "feelings" amongst the militia -- THE
>>>> RULES AND PROPER BOUNDS REGARDING DISCOVERY.
>>>>
>>>> Was it counsel's tactic to write up paperwork knowing it would get denied
>>>> with the intent of getting the militia riled over a percieved injustice? I
>>>> can't say, but whatever the reason, I knew that the Georgia Bombers were in
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>> I am not saying that Starr and company were shafted by their defense team,
>>>> nor I am saying the defense team was incompetent. I am saying that I -- as
>>>> someone who dearly wanted to see Starr and company acquitted -- observed
>>>> paperwork that allegedly came from the defense team that I considered to be
>>>> "frivolous".
>>>>
>>>> I guess my point of bringing this up is that "patriots" (accused or not)
>>>> really need to be careful of the possibility of being manipulated by
>>>> "patriot attorneys". In particular to this case, I will go so far as to say
>>>> that I don't think the jury had to be bought off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~Tom Clark
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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