Time: Mon Oct 28 22:21:40 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: LLAW: LeRoy
Cc:
Bcc:
At 08:52 PM 10/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Paul,
>
>If you were directing that question to me...I think you missed my point.
>Which is that the knowledge of the folks on this list has been at LeRoy's
>(and the others involved disposal) and they have used it as they sees fit.
>
>The only realm that I can see as not being pursued is bringing in an
>Independent Grand Jury to investigate the matter. And try to force some
>prosecution against criminal and ursurper activity if it can be shown by the
>claimants.
>
>As you say, I don't know what else to do that hasn't already been done. I'm
>all ears myself.
>
>~Tom Clark
Such a remedy can be requested of
the District Court of the United
States in People v. United States,
which has been removed from the
Garfield county district court.
However, we need a 3-judge panel
to sign the Warrant of Removal.
So, without a judge, there can be
no judicial remedies, not even an
ORDER to convene a federal grand
jury, properly qualified and
competent to hear the matter.
No judge, no remedy.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>><snip>
>>>>Well why don't we try discussing getting Leroy out of that stinking cell.
>>>
>>>As far as litigating throught the established courts...I think it is safe to
>>>say that all we can really do is send LeRoy our ideas on what he might try.
>>>LeRoy is not one who is lacking ideas on how to conduct his defense.
>>>
>>>What does LeRoy need then for us to do for him what he cannot do himself?
>>>Not a lot on the litigation side. Quite frankly, there have been a lot of
>>>folks to offer advice to LeRoy. I've corresponded with him since he's back
>>>at Yellowstone, and I can't add anything to the course he has chosen to
>>>take. It's outside of my expertise.
>>>
>>>Outside of that what can we do? Well, Ralph has a darn good website that
>>>documents what has transpired. In fact, Ralph and Paul have been taking
>>>things that LeRoy has dug up and moving forward with those.
>>>
>>>Of course you and I have tried to spark some action to get a jury in on
>>>this. I advocate a Grand Jury, and you have advocated a straight pre-Magna
>>>Charta/Norman law common law jury.
>>>
>>>I must say my effort has gained modest support, even though I spammed the
>>>patriot community on the Internet with it. Heck we've been featured in
>>>Media Bypass and other papers for what we've worked out here and it has come
>>>to little. Short of knocking on every door I come across, I don't know what
>>>else a man can do?
>>>
>>>I certainly don't have much to offer LeRoy when others with more experience
>>>are helping him.
>>>
>>>~Tom Clark
>>
>>
>>Let me pose a few questions to you:
>>
>>1. if the United States District Courts (USDC)
>> have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, but
>>
>>2. LeRoy et al. are being "prosecuted" in this court, and
>>
>>3. if the plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have
>> no standing to sue in this court, but
>>
>>4. the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are the named plaintiffs, and
>>
>>5. if the U.S. Attorneys on the case have no powers of
>> attorney to represent these plaintiffs, but
>>
>>6. they are representing the plaintiffs UNITED STATES OF
>> AMERICA anyway, and
>>
>>7. if there are no regulations for the statute which grants
>> criminal jurisdiction to the District Court of the
>> United States, and
>>
>>8. if the District Court of the United States (DCUS) is not the
>> same forum as the United States District Court (USDC),
>> according to several standing decisions of the
>> U.S. Supreme Court, and
>>
>>9. if the lack of regulations proves that the statute
>> granting criminal jurisdiction only has application
>> to federal officers, employees, and agents, and
>>
>>10. if Congress has enacted a policy for convening juries
>> which contradicts itself, and which policy only
>> applies to the District Courts of the United States,
>> and not to the United States District Court, and
>>
>>11. if Congress presently has NO policy concerning
>> jury selection and service in the United States
>> District Court, where all these pseudo-criminal
>> actions are being brought, and no regulation for
>> the policy it has enacted; and
>>
>>12. if all federal grand and petit juries have issued
>> indictments/verdicts which are null and void for
>> exhibiting class discrimination against state
>> Citizens who are not also federal citizens, and
>>
>>13. if the District Court of the United States cannot be
>> convened with any federal judges who are currently
>> having their compensation be diminished by
>> federal income taxes, and
>>
>>14. if the case of People v. United States was recently removed
>> into the District Court of the United States, on an
>> injunction remedy, and
>>
>>15. if the petition for injunction invokes a 3-judge panel, and
>>
>>16. if the 3-judge panel is also needed to adjudicate the
>> apportionment of Congressional districts, which are
>> affected because the disenfranchised state Citizens
>> cannot and do not vote, without also committing
>> perjury (a class 6 felony in some states); and
>>
>>17. if one qualified federal judge cannot be found whose
>> compensation is not being diminished by federal income
>> taxes, then 3 such judges certainly cannot be found
>> whoses compensation is not being diminished by federal
>> income taxes; and
>>
>>18. if the Supreme Court of the United States just reached
>> a stalemate on a case involving Social Security taxation
>> of federal judges' salaries, brought by 16 federal judges
>> who don't want their compensation diminished any more; then
>>
>>what do you do now?
>>
>>I am all ears.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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