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