Time: Mon Oct 28 17:05:28 1996
To: <defense@mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: mindspring.com: no data known)
Cc:
Bcc:
>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:01:29 -0700 (MST)
>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@primenet.com>
>To: [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: mindspring.com: no data known)
>
>The original message was received at Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:01:20 -0700 (MST)
>from ip185.tus.primenet.com [198.68.42.185]
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
><defense@mindspring.com>
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>550 <defense@mindspring.com>... Host unknown (Name server: mindspring.com: no data known)
>
> ----- Original message follows -----
>
>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:01:20 -0700 (MST)
>To: "John Burr" <john.burr@qmail.eonetworks.com>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Silence Creates Estoppel
>
>At 03:37 PM 10/28/96 U, you wrote:
>>Fine with me Paul, I do believe that
>>People v. boxer is significant. The fact
>>that Boxer did not answer establishes presumed fact.
>
>Yes, indeed, based on several cases, e.g.:
>U.S. v. Tweel: "Silence can only be equated
>with fraud where there is a legal or a
>moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left
>unanswered would be intentionally misleading."
>An unrebutted affidavit is the truth of the
>case, for all time. The facts we established
>are no longer presumed, but conclusive, by
>virtue of her silence, which invoked estoppel,
>which renders the affidavits *conclusive* fact.
>This is basic American law never repealed.
>People may "believe" that the case is not
>significant, but then they are denying the
>impact of the authorities which are cited
>therein, are they not?
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
> But that does not
>>establish by what authority they are
>>operating under emergency...just that
>>they indeed are...
>>Do you have John Nelson's material?
>>
>>John Edward
>
>They don't have an authority,
>because warring against the
>several States is defined as
>"treason" in the supreme Law.
>
>You said it: they are operating
>under "emergency," but they have
>no authority for doing same.
>
>Thank you!
>
>This is the same as a burglar
>breaking into your house, as
>opposed to your breaking into
>your own house, when neither
>of you has the key. One has
>authority, the other does not.
>
>Burglars get arrested; you get
>to repair the damaged window.
>
>Feds have it reversed: we get
>arrested, and they (the burglars)
>get to wear black robes.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>P.S. Yes, I have read John Nelson's
>material. Are we going to keep
>going around and around in the same
>circles here, ladies and gentlemen?
>This really IS getting boring.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>Date: 10/28/96 3:18 PM
>>To: John Burr
>>From: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>>
>>=======================================================================
>>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>>=======================================================================
>>Let's agree to disagree on this one.
>>
>>How 'bout it, guys (and gals)?
>>
>>I stand on the authorities cited in
>>People v. Boxer, to which Senator-elect
>>Boxer fell totally and completely silent.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>>
>>At 02:41 PM 10/28/96 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
>>>=======================================================================
>>>>Do you know who passed the very first presidential decree <executive order,
>>>>Paul Mitchell? A. Lincoln. How could he have done this if the Legislature
>>>>was a viable entity within the constitutional parameters under which it was
>>>>created? Answer: He could not. Now, tell me how he could if you disagree
>>>
>>>Do you know WHY he could do that?
>>>
>>>JMichael
>>>>
>>>
>>>Under War Emergency Powers and Of Perrogative, see 2nd Treatese of Civil
>>>Government by John Locke, Chapter 14.
>>>
>>>John Edward
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>>===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>===========================================================
>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