Time: Sat Dec 07 14:04:37 1996
To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LeRoy Schweitzer
Cc:
Bcc:
I am stepping out for a bite to eat,
and will return in about an hour
(about 3:00 p.m. MST).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 01:54 PM 12/7/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Paul:
>
>A very quick personal note. I have been contacted by Nick Repac who has
>been arrested just south of Amarillo tex now in custody on charges
>steming from Colorado Jefferson Cty indictment on Fraud and Forgery and
>Attempted theft steming from warrents arising from employed Schweitzer
>like procedures.
>
>He has requested habeas corpus assistance. I am gernally in agreement. ]
>
>Time is short and I do not have time to elaborate here due to facility
>closing in 6 min.
>
>I will call you his evening and hopefully discuss this and some other
>relevant matter. Would appreciate your standing by to accept that call
>on line ending with 13 and/or 15
>
>Dale Robertson
>>
>=======================================================================
>> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT,
>USA
>> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry
>Rushing
>>
>=======================================================================
>> A three-judge panel has been invoked
>> in People v. United States et al.,
>> the Petition for TRO and Injunctive
>> Relief in re: the Montana Freemen
>> FBI standoff. This case was removed
>> from Garfield county court into the
>> District Court of the United States,
>> where it awaits assignment of three
>> temporary federal judges whose compensation
>> is not being diminished by federal
>> income taxes. See Evans v. Gore.
>>
>> Also, since we are attacking the
>> Jury Selection and Service Act, the
>> 3-judge panel can be invoked because
>> a question has arisen concerning
>> congressional apportionment. If state
>> Citizens are not being counted in the
>> apportionment decisions, those
>> congressional districts are not lawful.
>> This is one of the subject matters which
>> qualifies for a 3-judge panel.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>> At 02:19 AM 12/7/96 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Mr Richardson.
>> >
>> > So good to hear from you. My comments below. Your last
>> >message flowed thusly:
>> >
>> >Charles Stewart wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Part 2; of 2nd Letter from Charles Bruce to LeRoy Michael
>> >>
>> >> LMS: Under Title 28 U.S.C. 32284 is our three justice panel with
>> >> Bible roots. Whenever matters of right to possession of private
>> >> property are heard it is auto-matic right to three justice panel.
>> >> It eliminates double jeopardy. And nisi prius. Nisi prius is
>> >> statutory. Statutory is Talmudic.
>> >>
>> >> CBS: I am sure that your quote of 28 USC 32284 is accurate.
>> >Tim R. Began:
>> > Its actually SECTION 2284,
>> >
>> >Charles S. Responds:
>> > Right. I mis-read Chief Justice Schweitzer's "S" for a 3.
>> >Sorry. Your message here has identified this error. Thanks.
>> >
>> >Tim R. Continued:
>> > "which states:
>> >
>> >"Sec. 2284. Three-judge court; when required; composition; procedure
>> > (a) A district court of three judges shall be convened
>when
>> > otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action
>is
>> > filed challenging the constitutionality of the
>apportionment
>> > of congressional districts or the apportionment of any
>> > statewide legislative body.
>> > (b) In any action required to be heard and determined by
>a
>> > district court of three judges under subsection (a) of
>this
>> > section, the composition and procedure of the court shall
>be
>> > as follows:
>> > (1) Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the
>> > judge to
>> > whom the request is presented shall, unless he determines
>> > that three judges are not required, immediately notify the
>> > chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other
>> > judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge.
>> > The judges so designated, and the judge to whom the
>request
>> > was presented, shall serve as members of the court to hear
>> > and determine the action or proceeding.
>> > (2) If the action is against a State, or officer or
>agency
>> > thereof, at least five days' notice of hearing of the
>action
>> > shall be given by registered or certified mail to the
>> > Governor and attorney general of the State.
>> > (3) A single judge may conduct all proceedings except
>the
>> > trial, and enter all orders permitted by the rules of
>civil
>> > procedure except as provided in this subsection. He may
>> > grant a temporary restraining order on a specific finding,
>> > based on evidence submitted, that specified irreparable
>> > damage will result if the order is not granted, which
>order,
>> > unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall
>> > remain in force only until the hearing and determination
>by
>> > the district court of three judges of an application for a
>> > preliminary injunction. A single judge shall not appoint
>a
>> > master, or order a reference, or hear and determine any
>> > application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or
>> > motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter judgment on
>> > the merits.
>> > Any action of a single judge may be reviewed by the
>> > full court at any time before final judgment."
>> >
>> >Tim R. writes more:
>> > Now, although LeRoy is a VERY interesting man, and very educated
>> >in some aspects of the law, I ask YOU to answer how exactly does the
>> >above allow for us to invoke a 3-man judge panel to hear a common-law
>> >case? I realize that its probably just me, and with some more
>> >education I too could understand the above -- please help.
>> >
>> >Charles S. Responds:
>> > Well first, I am not the one who wrote it. Chief Justice
>> >Schweitzer
>> >was. I am not as knowledgeable on these matters as is he. And I am
>not
>> >even sure that he is correct on the matter. But I would guess from
>his
>> >track record that the probabilities are very high that he is.
>> > From his handwritten and quickly composed letter, obviously
>> >taking pains to cram many thoughts into few words to save space, it
>> >appears to me that he was merely referring to the pattern set forth
>> >in the Code above (which you so generously typed in) as a pattern
>> >upon which the federal system is imitating an early original
>> >commonlaw pattern.
>> > I now see no reason to suppose that the Chief Justice was
>> >looking to this Code Section to "Allow for us to invoke a 3 -man
>> >judge panel", as you wrote. I note with regret that I did originally
>> >erroneously choose the word "Allow" in the sentence structure upon
>> >which I responded to his letter. I now realize that was an error, for
>> >me to indicate that we were looking to them for our authority. I now
>> >and I am sure Chief Justice Schweitzer has always recognized, we do
>> >not look to the US Code for our authority for how to proceed under
>> >commonlaw. But it does show that their Babalonian system has our
>> >commonlaw roots. His point I believe here is that we can kick the
>> >Babalonians out of the temple of this once Christiamn CommonLaw
>> >Republic.
>> >
>> > Yourself being a clerk for the Oregon Court, I am surprised
>> >that you indicated that you were uneducated and in error on the
>matter.
>> >Your obviously fully up to speed. Or were you being sarcastic?
>> >
>> >I hope that you don't mind my taking this discussion public.
>> >
>> >Charles Stewart.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ====================================================================
>> [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
>> [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
>
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
>> We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
>> Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
>> ====================================================================
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail