Time: Wed Feb 26 16:29:15 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18462;
Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:08:12 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:28:09 -0800
To: john <johnq@qnet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Fundamental Principles
Cc: <tarheel@zekes.com>
References: <2.2.16.19970220111425.37af2d64@zekes.com>
Hello John,
I believe one of the great strengths of Tarheel's brief
is the proof it offers that the corporate States
are now operating as United States (federal
government) territories, which are subject
to the municipal jurisdiction of the Congress,
and not to the common law of the de jure Union
states. For the difference in spelling, confer
at 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2, where both the de jure
"states" and the de facto "States" are listed,
side-by-side. It's rather shocking, when you
realize what they are trying to do.
It is so fraudulent, it makes my hair stand on end!
It is clearly a blatant violation of the Guarantee
Clause in the U.S. Constitution (4:4), and also
the Supremacy Clause (6:2), and it forms the basis for
an action against any judge for perjury of oath,
and subornation of perjury. See 18 U.S.C. 1621
thru 1623, inclusive, the federal criminal codes
governing perjury in violation of an oath. Please
note, in particular, that Section 1623 has an
extra-territorial application, to wit:
"(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct
occurred within or without the United States."
[18 U.S.C. 1623(b)]
There are only a few of these codes which have
extra-territorial application, e.g. 18 U.S.C. 1513
(the federal witness statute). Confer also at
inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, in Black's
Law Dictionary (any edition). You are allowed to
infer that the omission of these extra-territorial
qualifiers was intentional.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
p.s. "CFR" is Code of Federal Regulations,
in case you don't already know.
I have taken the liberty of re-formatting the
brief and appending it to the end of this messsage.
Nice work, Tarheel!
At 11:47 AM 2/26/97 -0800, you wrote:
>I'd like to see it, Tarheel. Reply to johnq@qnet.com
>God Bless,
>johnq
>
>On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Tarheel wrote:
>
>> This morning my friend was taken before a magistrate
>> judge for proceedings without counsel. He was told
>> that if he would submit to wearing a jail uniform voluntarily
>> just once he would be released without bail, if he did
>> not he would be required to post $500.00 bond. Fro the
>> record, he has never submitted to any orders, or worn
>> the demanded uniform.
>>
>> He served the magistrate with the document which was predicated
>> and prepared upon the issues in my post of yesterday under this same
>> subject line, and the Magistrate acknowledged service and promised to
>> reply in writing. He was returned to his cell, and his own clothes were
>> again taken away, and he again notified the jailor that constituted theft.
>> In less than an hour he was notified that he was being processed for
immediate
>> release OR without any signatures except to claim his property.
>>
>> If anyone wishes to have a copy of the document as served, reply
>> with a request as to whether you want it as straight e-mail, or as
>> an attachment. (6 pages).
>>
>> Regards to All
>> Your Servant,
>>
>> Tarheel
James _____________________
Citizen in unlawful Custody
Graham county jail
Graham county, Arizona
General Courts of Justice
Graham county, Arizona
STATE OF ARIZONA ) Re: Alleged Citation No. _______
Plaintiff )
) VERIFIED CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION;
v. ) NOTICE OF UNLAWFUL CUSTODY;
) NOTICE OF CRUEL AND
) UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
__________________ )
Citizen in Custody )
____________________________)
To: All Arizona Public Servants, Judicial, Executive, and
otherwise:
James _________________, (hereafter Demandant) a Lawful Christian
Man, and hereditary Citizen of these united States of America,
here and now, gives Notice of current violations of strict
limitations upon governments embodied in the organic documents of
this Confederation of American States known as the United States
of America which acts and omissions are violations of His own
rights as one of "We the People"; Demandant Claims His due
procedural protections; and Demands all officers of the STATE OF
ARIZONA take mandatory notice of the facts and averments herein,
and immediately show cause as to how His current imprisonment and
restraint of Liberty is by proper jurisdiction, or that in the
alternative He be released from all restraint and alleged charges
with prejudice against the State.
STATUS OF DEMANDANT
The Demandant is a fifty-eight year old Citizen of the united
States of America. He was born in 1939 A.D. of American parents
in the Minnesota state Republic, one of the state Republics
formed pursuant to the Northwest Territories Ordinance, and He
denies any evidence exists to indicate His bona fide intent to
relinquish His state Citizenship. Demandant denies that He is
under the disability of federal territorial residency or
citizenship. He is a free and lawful Christian Man of Caucasian
linage. He denies that He has ever required or received any
enfranchisement, emolument, or statutory privilege from any
American state, and if prima facie evidence of any such licence
should appear, He unconditionally denies that He has ever
exercised or executed any such privileged use. Demandant denies
that He is a member of any military force, organization, or
militia company, either active or inactive, and further denies
that any state of emergency exists which would warrant federal or
martial law Rules to be applied to Him.
I. CITATION STATUTES DO NOT APPLY
Demandant gives notice that the citation of charges alleged
against Him is fatally defective, as they allege that Demandant
has trespassed upon federal territory with knowledge of this
alleged federal ownership of the alleged situs, as well as allege
Demandant's knowledge of Demandant's alleged status of a member
of some indefinite enfranchised association, firm, company or
corporation. Demandant refuses and denies these alleged facts
because they are false and fictitious without benefit to him, and
are a breach of the ninth Commandment of God, that is, "You shall
not give false testimony". Demandant denies that any event
alleged against Him has occurred upon or within an insular
possession of the United States, Arizona or the territories.
Demandant denies His body is property of Arizona or any federal
territory.
II. DEFECTS IN THE STATE'S PROCESS
Demandant asserts that Arizona and federal territorial law is
foreign to Him, and denies that He has a complete understanding
and knowledge of this foreign law, but Demandant claims that the
plain reading of the Arizona Revised Statutes under which He is
being detained and charged indicate a complete lack of lawful
jurisdiction over Demandant's body and a lack of territorial
jurisdiction over the land on which the alleged offence occurred.
Demandant gives notice that He is in jail custody unlawfully
charged for the statutory offence of misdemeanor third degree
trespass as alleged by the arresting officer to have occurred on
the premises of the Safeway store in Thatcher, Arizona.
Demandant denies any knowledge, notice, belief or stipulation
that the location of the alleged offence is owned by the
statutorialy defined State of Arizona. Demandant is being held
unlawfully in jail custody, having been summarily arrested,
without warrant, by a Thatcher Police officer for alleged
violation of ARS 13-1502 while Demandant was on private property
NOT belonging to or owned by the statutorily defined State of
Arizona, nor was the said private property a federal territory
pursuant to the United States Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 17
or United States Constitution Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 2. Demandant
denies that the Arizona legislature, or the Arizona Supreme Court
authorize or allow officers of Arizona the standing of "Person"
by which to prosecute in ARS cases where property owned by the
state is NOT the subject of a crime. See the prima facie Arizona
and federal law below. Demandant denies He has any beneficial
connection to the State of Arizona for any business or commercial
purpose whatsoever, further He denies he has any valid and
properly executed voter registration, Public Utility service,
property tax account, or any commercial licence within the United
States, Arizona, or the territories, and further denies that He
is a member of any association whatsoever which is subject the
ARS or federal law.
ARS Title 1
ARTICLE 2
GENERAL RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1-211. Rules of construction and definitions.
A. The rules and the definitions set forth in this chapter shall
be observed in the construction of the laws of the state unless
such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent
of the legislature.
Legislative Intent.
The cardinal rule in statutory interpretation is to determine the
intent of the legislative body. Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of
Phoenix, 136 Ariz. 22, 663 P.2d 1013 (Ct. App. 1983).
1-213. Words and phrases.
Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and
approved use of the language. Technical words and phrases and
those which have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in
the law shall be construed according to such peculiar and
appropriate meaning.
1-215. Definitions.
In the statutes and laws of the state, unless the context
otherwise requires:
24. "Person" includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm,
association or society, as well as a natural person. When the
word "person" is used to designate the party whose property may
be the subject of a criminal or public offense, the term includes
the United States, this state, or any territory, state or
country, or any political subdivision of this state which may
lawfully own any property, or a public or private corporation, or
partnership or association. When the word "person" is used to
designate the violator or offender of any law, it includes
corporation, partnership or any association of persons.
32. "State" as applied to the different parts of the United
States, includes the District of Columbia, this state and the
territories.
34. "United States" includes the District of Columbia and the
territories.
"Person."
The legislature unambiguously included the state as a "person"
within certain limited situations in the general definition: the
state is a "person" only when its property may be the subject of
a criminal or public offense. State ex rel. Dep't of Health
Servs. v. Cochise County, 166 Ariz. 75, 800 P.2d 578 (1990).
13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification.
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:
1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real
property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any
other person having lawful control over such property, or
reasonable notice prohibiting entry.
(Bold emphasis added to the foregoing)
III. UNITED STATES TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT APPLY
"The term "United States", as used in this title, in a
territorial sense, includes all places and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, except the Canal Zone." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5
No actions concerning this cause have occurred on or near the
District of Columbia, any territory or possession of the United
States, or any insular possession.
"The term `special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States', as used in this title [18 U.S.C. Secs. 1
et seq.], includes:
(1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the
jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel
belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any
citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or
possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of
the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the
laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the
waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters
connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the
same constitutes the International Boundary Line.
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United
States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction
thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the
United States in which the same shall be, for the erection
of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful
building.
(4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano,
which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered
as appertaining to the United States.
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United
States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation
created by or under the laws of the United States, or any
State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while
such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any
other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any
particular State." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 7.
None of the events concerning this cause occurred within the
"special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States." None of the events concerning this cause occurred on the
high seas or any other waters, nor on an island, rock, or key
containing deposits of guano. None of the events concerning this
cause occurred upon an aircraft in flight, nor a vessel on a
water. None of the events concerning this cause occurred on any
land reserved or acquired for the use of the United States.
"United States.- The term `United States' when used in a
geographical sense includes only the States and the District
of Columbia." 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(9).
"The Act...is not a constitutional law, except so far as it
operates within the United States, but without the limits of
any State." U.S. v DeWitt, 76 US 593.
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not
extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have
force only in the District of Columbia, and other places
that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national
government." Caha v U.S., 152 US 211.
IV. DEMANDANT NOT IN COMMERCE
The Demandant is not a "person" in any way involved in commerce,
or to whom the US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl.3 applies:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excises...
3. To regulate COMMERCE with foreign nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian tribes."
The defendant is not in violation of any Act of Congress:
"No Citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." 18
U.S.C. Sec. 4001(a).
V. COERCION AND CRUEL PUNISHMENT INFLICTED
Notice is hereby given that during His detention and restriction
of liberty in the Graham county jail, coercion and cruel and
unusual punishments have been inflicted upon Demandant in order
to force him to acquiesce to the jurisdiction being asserted
wrongfully over him. These punishments include but are not
limited to confinement for more than three consecutive days
without access to facilities for bodily elimination, constituting
a danger to Demandant's bodily functions, and denial of access to
counsel of His choice prior to and during administrative or
judicial hearings.
VI. COURT OUGHT TO DISMISS
When a court has no jurisdiction of a cause of action, and where
a court cannot proceed to try a cause of action, such court, on
its own motion, should dismiss the cause, and/or quash the
indictment.
Notice is given that it is a Maxim of American Law that no
governments are authorized to impede or violate the fundamental
Rights of the People, nor to obstruct Justice, and public
servants who do so under color of office are without the
authorization and protection of lawful government, and are
therefore liable in their private capacities for the wrongs they
do. Officers who have knowledge of these wrongs and who fail to
correct or prevent these wrongful acts are accessories and
accomplices likewise liable, further;
It is another maxim of American Law that any judge or justice who
becomes aware of facts which indicate unlawful restraint of
liberty, and then fails to institute process in the nature of
Habeas Corpus on his own initiative, is thereby in default of his
judicial duties and oath of office.
I, the below signed Demandant, reserve all rights and remedies of
every nature whatsoever, and without any waiver whatsoever.
Further Demandant affirms and asserts this Notice to be the whole
and complete Truth.
I hereby certify and affirm, calling God the Father to witness
and judge the Truth of every element of this document, and upon
my own competent knowlege and sincere belief hereupon stand to
Serve the Truth, and Justice, so help me God.
Dated: ______________________ Anno Domini
Respectfully submitted,
James ________________________________
Demandant, Citizen in unlawful custody
# # #
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail