Time: Sat Sep 06 16:12:28 1997
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 16:11:23 -0700
To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: Many Major Points to Consider!!
Cc: [address in toolbar]
Karl,
Some thoughts off the top of my head:
1. You never did rebut the Motion to Dismiss, did you?
2. Sensenich is a Magistrate; we have a comprehensive
brief which carefully evaluates the legal history
of the magistrate statutes; she technically cannot
preside on this case anyway.
3. The ORDER of September 5, 1997, assumes facts not in
evidence, namely, that Smolar is an Assistant U.S. Attorney,
and that Clarke is an Esquire, employed by DOJ, etc.
4. You have until October 4, 1997, to file a brief in response
to the Defendants' motion to dismiss: notice "Defendants'",
meaning that the court considers all defendants to have
filed the motion to dismiss.
5. Thus, you might petition this court for a declaratory
judgment, ruling as a matter of law what actually does
constitute the "defendants' motion to dismiss". Your
prior pleadings make a careful and justifiable case
for proving that the "motion to dismiss" [sic] was not
filed by IRS or Chafin, right? There is your pressure point.
6. Take advantage of the judge's ORDER, by "flowing with it."
In other words, the ORDER exhibits certain presumptions,
and errors. You can request clarification, as part of
your motion for declaratory judgment on what constitutes
the "motion to dismiss". Are you with me on this point?
7. The October 4, 1997, deadline comes quite some time AFTER
your final FOIA appeal deadline, does it not? This will
give you plenty of time to contemplate a COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, naming the following
defendants:
United States
Internal Revenue Service
Gavin Chafin
Donald J. Lee
Ila Jeanne Sensenich
Jessica Lieber Smolar
In anticipation of such a move, I would prepare with FOIA
requests to Lee and Sensenich, using Gilbertson's points
to justify such a request, namely, the blanket FOIA
exemption for the entire judicial branch is overly
broad, with the Oath of Office provision is a constitutional
provision.
8. Once such a FOIA suit is filed, you can force recusal of Lee
and Sensenich, via 28 U.S.C. 455. This is exactly what
Gilbetson did, and U.S. Attorney went out of his way to
inform that judge that a law suit had been filed against
him. His name was "Rosenbaum"; see Gilbertson's OPENING
BRIEF and also his COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF. You will need to pay another docket fee, in order
to docket and prosecute this FOIA suit.
9. If necessary, you can also request an extension of time
on the October 4, 1997, deadline, but you then run the risk
of having such a request denied.
10. The motion to dismiss can be arbitrated, by suggesting
that your suit against the United States should be dismissed,
but your suit against the other two named defendants should
proceed, because they have not really appeared. Also,
you can arbitrate dismissal with prejudice versus dimissal
without prejudice, and yield on a remedy "in the alternative,"
namely, do not oppose "dismissal without prejudice" of the
case against Defendant United States.
11. Don't forget: you can also play some hard ball by arguing
that the Magistrate is biased by reason of the fact that
she is paying taxes on her judicial compensation. This
is particularly offensive in your case, because the IRS
is a named defendant, and that means that she already
has a contract with a real party of interest. This is
another EXCELLENT ground for recusing her, and every other
federal judge who comes along.
12. The way you deal with #11 above is either to demand immediate
recusal, or to give her the chance to rescind her W-4 within
a specific deadline, just as Mike Kemp did in his federal case.
I believe I already sent you Kemp's demand to rescind W-4,
didn't I? Your authority is Lord v. Kelley. You need to
read this case. See Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF in the
Supreme Law Library ("SLL") for the correct citation, at URL:
http://supremelaw.com
13. You still have a procedural window open on the possibility that
this judge will deny the motion to dismiss. But, you have not
yet cured the defects in your original complaint, specifically,
you have failed to identify, in so many words, the statute
which grants original jurisdiction over your case to the USDC,
and you failed to specify any actual damages.
14. In light of #13 above, you should consider an affidavit of
probable cause, testifying to the existence of fraud in the
pertinent statutes which grant original jurisdiction to
the USDC v. the DCUS. You can attach "Karma and the Federal
Courts" as an exhibit. You can also cite the document on
which you relied for advice about which court to invoke;
you told me, in so many words, that you followed that
government form, when you filed in the USDC, didn't you?
There you have it: their "form" is one of several sources
of the fraud which they have committed against you.
So, things are not looking all that bad, actually.
Think about these point, and get back to me. You must be
prepared to dig in right now, and be willing to respond with
a blockbuster "response to the defendants' motion to dismiss."
To force that point, I would consider a rather prompt and
short Motion for Declaratory Judgment, forcing this judge
to identify which document it considers to be the
"defendants' motion to dismiss," and to issue a ruling
on whether, or not, it truly IS a motion to dismiss by
all named defendants (plural) or not. If she rules that
it IS a motion to dismiss by all named defendants, you can
fight that ruling, because it assumes facts not in evidence.
These "little" motions need to go in right away, and I think
you now realize why.
Enough for now. Chew on these points for a while, even if
you need the rest of the weekend to do so. I would like
you to get these "quick" motions in the mail tomorrow,
if you can. Tell the judge you cannot respond to the
document which she calls "defendants' motion to dismiss"
if Defendant IRS and Defendant Chafin have file NO SUCH MOTION.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: echo back
At 04:27 PM 9/6/97 -0400, you wrote:
>First, bookmark the lawsuit index:
>http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/govt/lawsuit/
>Hit it. Go to the bottom. Click on the last 2 entries, recv'd today.
>
>I'm annoyed. Really seriously annoyed. I swear, she doesn't actually
>read anything. I'm wrong because I'm wrong and all the case
>citations, proof in the law, and everything else just doesn't matter.
>I'm wrong, so I'm wrong, so I lose. Might makes right, and the judge
>has the might at this point.
>
>Punt her out with demand for recusal?
>
>Damnation, I'm irritated. It doesn't help that I did probably $1K
>worth of damage to my van today, hitting and killing a doe on a
>backwoods highway. Just yet another screwup to deal with.
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : 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 toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://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