Time: Wed Jul 09 12:56:56 1997
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 12:50:30 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Open Letter to Schweitzer, Broderick, et al.
#1: Bring the jury challenge in all 10
federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
(we have it in 3 Circuits right now,
2 formally, and 1 working coming up)
#2: Bring the jury challenge in all 50
states of the Union (details available
upon request)
#3: Bring the jury challenge in all counties
within the several states of the Union
Those are my priorities, in order.
Have you seen the filing yesterday in the
Pima County Consolidated Justice Court:
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DEMAND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF FORMAL CHALLENGE TO JUROR
AND VOTER QUALIFICATIONS?
It was broadcasted to SLS this morning, early.
I am standing by.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 09:16 AM 7/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>We all understand the actions displayed by the folks mentioned in your
>letter are actions brought forth by frustration and the fact that this
>illegal government has agencies that continue to harrass our People with no
>remedy allowed in their courts.
>The de-facto government applies liens and levies on People without "due
>process". This same government allows (permits) IRS (foreign agents) to
>deplete our People's bank accounts...levy their compensation for
>Labor...seize their property and sell it at auction....drive our people to
>the brink of insanity...lead some to the frustrated state of
>suicide....etc.,
>Paul...do you have an answer? We are willing to listen.
>
<snip>
>
>----------
>> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> To: Recipient list suppressed
>> Subject: SLF: Open Letter to Schweitzer, Broderick, et al.
>> Date: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 5:55 AM
>>
>> Dear America,
>>
>> I am addressing this letter to all of Us,
>> but particularly to LeRoy Schweitzer,
>> Elizabeth Broderick, and Cliff Turner,
>> who have been fond of recommending frequent
>> commercial liens against government agents.
>>
>> After studying the matter carefully for
>> more than a year, I now conclude that your
>> methods suffer from a fundamental flaw:
>> they deprive your opponents of due process
>> of law, which causes them to be imperfect
>> at best, and invalid at worst.
>>
>> These commercial liens which you are encouraging
>> people to file, on the basis of some criminal
>> allegation(s) against government employees, seem to
>> suffer from the following fatal flaw: EVERYONE
>> has the Right to remain silent in the face of
>> criminal allegations. That Right is unalienable,
>> under the Fifth Amendment. See Miranda v. Arizona.
>>
>> For you to imply that you are "perfecting" a
>> commercial lien against anyone, government
>> employee or not, is to create the fiction that
>> you have converted their silence into an
>> admission of guilt, and then converted that
>> "admission" into a lien, when their silence is
>> un-lien-able. Waivers of fundamental Rights
>> can never be presumed, ever!
>>
>> For this, I believe you are asking for, and
>> will deserve, endless trouble, and I must
>> honestly advise future clients that such an
>> approach to "perfecting" commercial liens is
>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> In fact, the evidence now coming forth is that
>> bogus commercial liens are the leading edge of
>> a widespread property conversion racket being
>> orchestrated inside the Department of Justice.
>>
>> Once people fall for tendering documentary
>> drafts/warrants to "assign" this "credit,"
>> DOJ has them right where DOJ wants them:
>> bank fraud and mail fraud. The PROMIS successor
>> inside DOJ has tentacles into most, if not all,
>> banking computers. This software is extremely
>> powerful. It leads them straight to assets which
>> DOJ then attacks, and forfeits, using this method.
>>
>>
>> After evaluating the case of U.S.A. v. Knudson
>> in Nebraska, it was again made painfully obvious
>> to me that these allegations will require jury
>> verdicts, if they are ever going to be perfected,
>> or collectible. Hence, my thrust in that case
>> was to bring it back around to a jury trial
>> on the merits.
>>
>> I suggest that you all give more serious consideration
>> to this matter, because I believe it will place your
>> clients on legal grounds which are much more solid
>> than what they have now.
>>
>> See the Seventh Amendment.
>>
>> If you don't want to hear this, then go your own way;
>> after looking carefully at Knudson's paperwork,
>> I cannot endorse what you have been recommending to
>> clients in the past. Broderick's alleged commercial
>> lien against the County of Orange, California state,
>> was rubber-stamped with "U S CRIMINAL COURT" [sic].
>> Her "associates" in Arizona even gave me a phone number
>> for this court. When I called it, the individual who
>> answered said, "Corporation Counsel, Department of
>> Justice. May I help you?"
>>
>> Need I say any more?
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> Counselor at Law and federal witness
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail