Time: Wed Nov 27 11:41:34 1996
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:16:39 -0800
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: U.S. v. Troescher

=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
=======================================================================
See John S. Wise, 
"Studies in Constitutional Law," 
posted separately, for some
clarification on this point.

I snipped the footnotes,
because the entire document
would not fit into my email
editor (OPEN TEXT FILE).

I regard "due process of law"
as a fundamental Right, guaranteed
by the Constitution for the United
States of America, as lawfully amended.

Taking the entire Constitution as 
a whole, I believe that it is proper
to say that it guarantees certain
Rights, Privileges, and Immunities.
John S. Wise is an excellent authority
on the differences among these three
things.

In a loose sense, "Privileges and
Immunities" as that phrase is used
at 4:2:1 is embraced by the term "Rights",
in the most general sense of the latter.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


At 08:11 AM 11/27/96 U, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>In response to Paul and Ralph,
>
>The 5th Article of Amendment does not only speak of self incrimination, but
>that of due process...which if I remember is an unalienable Right guaranteed
>by this article to wit:
>
>"ARTICLE 4
>SECTION 2. The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
>immunities of Citizens in the several states. 
>
>Privileges and immunities from reading the remainder of this section would
>entail the following in part, the privilege of non-extradition unless by the
>request and order of the executive office of the state, this is just one
>privilege...there could be many others that could be granted by the executive
>power of the State or the Federal government."
>
>Article 5 of Amendment to wit:
>
>"AMENDMENT 5 (1791) 
>
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
>unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
>except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
>in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
>any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
>or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
>be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
>without due process of law; nor shall private property be
>taken for public use, without just compensation."
>
>Now is due process of Law a privilege?  If as you claim, that the ability or
>choice of one to not be compelled to be a witness against himself for fear of
>self incrimination is a privilege...then it would stand to reason the
>eveything listed in the 5th is a privilege and not a Right.  I find this
>difficult to swallow.  The decision made by the 9th in that case may be
>correct, as they were dealing with slaves and denizens and NOT Citizens, and
>since it is well established in American Jurisprudence, the Laws of Nations
>and Natural Law, that slaves can not own property and have NO Rights, but only
>privileges...I would agree with the decision.  But my point is that the
>courts/tribunals are slowly changing the terms, and what was once a Right
>yesterday is today a privilege...I have heard of the privilege of freedom of
>speech, religion, assembly,  bear and use arms.  
>
>The problem is this, these are Rights for Citizens, and they possessed these
>Rights long before the Magna Carta and Constitution, man possessed these
>Rights and Liberties when in a state of Nature and did not give these up when
>he agreed to enter into and form society...on the contrary he entered into the
>social compact to protect these very Rights that you and the 9th would like me
>and all others to believe are "Privileges", from outside incursion, this is
>the end to why governments were formed.
>
>I submit, that if the 5th only conveyed Privileges, then it would have said
>so.  I personally would not submit one bit to the enemy alien force that is
>occupying and warring with my fellow countrymen and land.  I have a duty to
>resist.  The problem is that a true Citizen knows who he is and what his
>Rights are and how to defend them.  A Citizen knows the Law, its history,
>application, and knows the terms and art and can play the game.  Most people
>who claim they are Citizens do not know, and are therefore not Citizens.
>
>So though I agree the 4:2:1 lays out privilieges and immunities, I disagree
>that that section, which lays out priviliges, has an application in Art 5 of
>Amendment.  In article 5, there are either Rights listed and secured in that
>sentence or clause, or they are Privileges as you claim, it is not proper to
>change the subject mid-sentence.  That is all
>
>John Edward
>------------------------------
>Date: 11/26/96 7:36 PM
>To: John Burr
>From: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>>=======================================================================
>>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>>=======================================================================
>><snip>
>>>Here is the Case referenced in the Troescher Decision...I love how these
>>>idiots claim a Right secured by the 5th Amendment is a Privilege!!!!!!! 
>They
>>>are going to declare and rename the Bill of Rights to the Bill of
>>>Privileges!!!  What is wrong with this picture??!!
>>>
>>>John Edward
>>
>>John Edward,
>>
>>I must disagree with you only
>>to this extent:  the Privileges
>>and Immunities Clause is not to
>>be confused with privileges which
>>are granted by statute and not
>>otherwise available.  I believe
>>the Fifth Amendment "Privilege"
>>falls under the Privileges and
>>Immunities Clause (4:2:1).
>
>
>OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Does it say "Bill of Rights" or "Bill of Privileges"?
>
>A Right I have forever!  It is Unalienable!
>A Privilege may be taken away!
>
>Is the fifth amendment subject to be taken AWAY from ME?
>And by WHOM may I ask is in control of the PRIVILEGE???????????
>Privileges are what the the 14th amendment folks, folks "born in the United
>States" and folks naturalized "into the United States" via a "birth
>Certificate" are "subject" to.
>
>I disagree!!!!!!
>
>
>the best
>
>Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd
>citizen of the United States nunc pro tunc
>Citizen of the State of Kansas (equal footing with the original States)
>domiciled in the Territory of Alaska
>Born of natural born parents of the Posterity
>Sovereign State in Fact
>
>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not
>your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May
>your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our
>countrymen.
>                Samuel Adams
>
>Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains
>and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may
>take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.
>        Patrick Henry:  Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23,1775
>
>My Homepage is:  http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html
>
>
>
>
>
>

====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com      
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail