Time: Fri Sep 05 05:03:34 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA12925; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:02:32 -0700 (MST) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA23055; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:56:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 04:56:33 -0700 To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Right Way Practitioner Responds (fwd) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, is a codified version of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. As such, it is for federal citizens and resident aliens, NOT for Citizens of the several states of the Union. Quoting: "B. Who is Protected; Standing" "853. Generally" "Rights under 42 USCS § 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941." [42 USCS § 1983, n 853, "Civil Rights", p. 600] Check it out for yourself! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com At 07:34 AM 9/5/97 +0000, you wrote: > >*Jus Dare* >Right Way Practitioner Responds > >From: "Terry Anderson" <teasr@mail.zipcon.net> >Organization: TEASR Enterprises >Subject: Right Way to Prison? > >> *Jus Dare* >> Right Way to Prison? >> >> From: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com> >> Subject: Re: [jus-dare] Right Way - L.A.W. ><...> > >> I am quite familiar with Right Way Law and know a number of >> people who have both studied with Rick S. and attempted to use >> his methods and paperwork. Likewise I have heard many reports >> of wins and pending wins. Alas, however, I have NEVER met one >> single person who has actually won and can prove it. On the >> other hand, I personally know and closely followed the case of >> one fellow who went directly to prison using Right Way's >> strategy in a Willful Failure to File trial. >> I knew another fellow who was working very closely with them >> and >> filed several Title 42 suits, worked them them some 2 years and >> never won a thing. With considerable friends and connections >> around the country, as I said, all I can seem to come up with >> is "reports" of wins -- no one with a published decision or a >> judgement, much less an actual settlement check. > >I'm told that the typical win in a Title 42 lawsuit includes a >gag order which prohibits the plaintiff from divulging ANY >information about the settlement. What RWL is suggesting for >those prosecuting such suits is that they keep others informed >about the proposed settlements during the negotiations so that >when nothing more is heard, they can assume that the settlement >is better than the last amount divulged. I do not know if any >suits have actually been prosecuted through a jury trial, but I >suppose RWL could, and would, tell anyone such information if >they asked them. > >> I should say that I've listened to tapes of Rick S. chatting >> with a friend, and I have no doubt, based upon what I heard, >> that Rick S. himself can handle himself in a legal setting, is >> totally commited to fighting the good fight and no doubt has >> backed the gov't down himself a time or three. >> >> Now this is not to question in any way the sincerity or motives >> of anyone. I myself have chased down a few ratholes before >> having to admit to myself that a particular hole was going >> nowhere. But, Right Way has been around quite a while now and >> if the strategies were working consistently, > >No doubt that dealing with our INjustice system is largely >'cut-and-try' at best. Smith and company will research a >proposed 'procedure' and try it in a real situation to see what >results. Yup, even they have gone to jail for trying stuff! But >when they find something that 'works,'they will let others in >the club know about it - always with the proviso that there are >no guarantees. What works in this court may not work in that >court. Nice to have a legal system like this, isn't it?! But I >think on the whole they have done a lot of good research and >have some credible procedures and information to offer anyone >willing to look and learn. And you're correct - whoever uses the >suggested procedures should be WELL prepared through practice >(best if under pressure from a friend or spouse who can get in >your face and act mean and belligerant!) before they go to court >and use them. Not everyone is up to the task, and those who >'blink' first - lose! > >I don't think anyone will ever come up with the 'silver bullet' >procedure for any given court situation. When the judges act >like a god in their courts and dole out whatever they please, >regardless of law and written court rules (e.g. the IRS case on >your web page where the judge overruled the jury decision!!), >there is no real way to counter that except possibly to not ever >admit jurisdiction to them. To the best of my ability, that is >the way I plan to go. They'll put on a show - a bluff - but in >the end, my case will be dismissed if I never allow them >jurisdiction over me. > >Will I be jailed? Maybe. Will it look like I'm going to lose big >time if I don't do such and such? Likely. But if I stay the >course, they have no recourse (remember: no guarantees!!) but >to dismiss and probably make it look like some procedural error >makes it necessary. Is this the silver bullet? Probably not, but >lacking anything better for the moment, and since they seem to >have most of the guns, it's my plan. > >I think you'll agree with me that anyone who contemplates the >patriot 'walk' is well-advised to count the cost first and then >prepare, prepare, prepare. Quite often preparation comes of >necessity while under the intense pressure of a legal situation >for which you know not what to do or which way to turn. Losing >the battles in court seem to be the norm while preparing to win >the war. I wonder if those who fought at Valley Forge pondered >what in the world they were doing there, freezing, hungry, tired >and still having to muster the strength to fight again and >again. I'm certainly thankful that with God's help those >patriots ultimately prevailed. With God's help, we will, too. > >>well, the way things spread in the desperate ranks of the >>patriot/tax movement, I have to thing Rick S. would be holding >>his seminars in the Kingdome to a packed house and the battle >>against the feds in court would have been reduced to a slam >>dunk by now. I fear such is not the case, but I'm all ears for >>anyone who has some case specifics they'd like to share. (much >>like James DeArman of Michigan did on another recent thread). >> >> Thanks, however, for your sincere interest and input. >> >> Harold Thomas > * * * * * > >*Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." >This list deals with the perversion of the Supreme Court. > >To subscribe, send the message "add yourmailname.server" >in the body of a message to jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net >or contact Dave Delany <freedom@hancock.net> > >Order the booklet _Jus Dare: Perverse Web of the Supreme Court_ >$8.00 postage paid, from > >Dave Delany's Freedom House PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 >*Jus Dare* is a service of Hearthside Family Publications. > > ======================================================================== 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