Time: Wed Sep 03 17:37:44 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA01104;
	Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:20:42 -0700 (MST)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Sep 1997 20:20:33 -0400
Date: Wed,  3 Sep 1997 20:20:32 EDT
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: Multiple recipients of list <drctalk@drcnet.org>
Subject: SLF: MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION

>Subject: SLS: MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION
>
>Dear Clients,
>
>Karl Kleinpaste and I have an update to 
>share with you, at URL:
>
>  http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/govt/lawsuit/
>
>
>Go to the latest document in Karl's on-line docket:
>
>  MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION, filed 9/3/97
>
>
>Here is a summary of the argument:
>
>
>Mr. Clarke, alleging to be the U.S. Attorney representing
>all named defendants, has not produced credentials.
>
>Therefore:
>
>1.  He does not occupy the office of United States Attorney;
>
>2.  As a result of 1, he cannot represent Defendant United States;
>
>3.  Even if he had proven he lawfully occupies the office
>    of the United States Attorney, said office has never
>    been granted Power of Attorney to represent Defendant IRS,
>    by Act of Congress;
>
>4.  Similarly, even if he had proven he occupies said office,
>    it has never been granted Power of Attorney to represent
>    private litigants like Defendant Chafin;
>
>5.  IRS is not a department, bureau, or organization within
>    the United States Department of the Treasury, so the
>    statutes which Clarke has cited, grant no Power of Attorney
>    to the office of United States Attorney to represent IRS.
>
>
>Therefore, none of the named defendants, including the
>United States, the Internal Revenue Service, and Mr. Chafin,
>has yet made ANY proper appearances, setting the stage for 
>a default judgment.  
>
>However, Plaintiff Kleinpaste is now insisting that a
>STAY OF PROCEEDINGS is proper, pending discovery of
>documents requested under the FOIA, or formal admission
>that the requested documents do not, in fact, exist.
>
>Failure to take the requisite oath of office is grounds
>for ouster via Quo Warranto;  see Gilbertson's OPENING
>BRIEF for a thorough exposition of this legal history.
>Silence also activates estoppel by acquiescence, pursuant
>to Carmine v. Bowen.
>
>Plaintiff Kleinpaste has now provided the USDC with ample legal 
>justification for permitting a FOIA suit to proceed in the DCUS,
>pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), and the transfer statute
>at 28 U.S.C. 1631.
>
>Hang on to your hats!
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>http://supremelaw.com
>
>copy:  Supreme Law School, The Internet

      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail