Time: Wed Nov 27 14:36:49 1996 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:23:12 -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 ======================================================================= Lyle, Would you care to elaborate on the important differences between procedural and substantive due process for us here? Thanks. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 02:27 PM 11/27/96 -0500, you wrote: >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >======================================================================= > > >This may be getting off on a semantical merry-go-round. The right, >privilege or immunity against self-incrimination is protected, regardless >of what you call it. >Also, the due process clause of the 5th (and 14th, even more so) is >widely misunderstood. Coke, Blackstone, the founders, et al all >understood it to mean judicial process due, i.e., indictment or >presentment and proper service of writs before life, liberty or property >could be deprived. It is purely procedural and all "substantive due >process" decisions under the 14th were created from whole cloth by >judges. They have no constitutional foundation. > >--Andrew Lehr > > > >On 27 Nov 1996, John Burr 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