Time: Sat Apr 12 14:01:20 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12320;
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:23:38 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08199;
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:23:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 14:00:57 -0700
To: Douglas Whitehouse <tulsa@jps.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: regulations etc.
At 09:50 AM 4/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>a few questions:
>
>1. Is there a supreme law school archive of information other than the
>supreme law library?
Yes, it is on my private computer network,
and I am your "server." You tell me what
you want, and I fetch pertinent document(s)
from that library. It is 5 gigabytes and
growing daily.
>
>2. 1 USCS S 1, n 12 states : Sovereign as "person"--In comman usage, term
>"persons" does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will
>ordinarily not be construed to do so.
>
>does this apply to all titles in the US code?
Not exactly. Frank Brushaber was a Citizen of
New York state, and a resident of the Borough
of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and yet
he was an "individual" who was treated as a
nonresident alien, because he received "income"
from a source inside the "United States," namely,
a dividend issued by a domestic (federal zone)
corporation, chartered by Act of Congress.
So, in this sense of the term "individual,"
he was a "person", because "person" is defined
to mean and include an individual, trust,
estate, partnership, association, company,
or corporation, pursuant to 7701(a)(1).
I believe the statute to which you refer
uses the term "sovereign" to refer to the
federal government, under the Supremacy Clause,
and not to the Sovereign People, of which
Brushaber was obviously a Member in good
standing, by virtue of his undisputed statement
of Personal status. See Brushaber's original
pleadings, and the decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>3. Where do I find info on how to have a case moved from an administrative
>court to a court that can rule on issues of law.
Look up the removal statutes applicable to
that particular court. If you cannot find
them, do the following:
1. Submit written NOTICE AND DEMAND for
proof of jurisdiction in the particulars,
with allegation that forum lacks jurisdiction.
2. Be sure to add a reasonable deadline (30 days
if you have just started, 10 if you are engaged
already).
3. Submit written AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT if and when
the opposing party fails to submit proof of
jurisdiction, specifically: the statute(s) and/or
constitutional provisions which grant original
jurisdiction to the forum in question.
4. Right after the deadline, petition the court which
DOES have jurisdiction for a Warrant of Removal,
since the court you are leaving has no jurisdiction,
as a matter of record, and the court you are petitioning
does have jurisdiction, pursuant to your presumption
and your choice of the proper forum. Remember, once
the record shows that a court lacks jurisdiction, it
is procedurally proper for you to cease and desist
from requesting any further relief from that court,
even for the smallest things (e.g. continuance,
postponement, etc.) In other words, the court which
DOES have jurisdiction will "pull" the case to it;
the court without jurisdiction has no power to "push"
the case away from it, other than to dismiss.
5. You may have to pay an additional fee to process the
petition in 4 above, but this is a price definitely
worth paying, particularly if you are the defendant,
because such costs are recoverable. If you are the
plaintiff, then you should not have chosen the
wrong forum in the first place (this should be obvious,
but may not be, particularly if you are just starting
out in this maze once called "Bleak House" by author
Charles Dickens).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
My understanding is the
>administrative court rules only on facts and cannot decide issues of law.
>When does something in an administrative court become an issue of law?
There are 3 valid jurisdictions:
1. Law
2. Equity
3. Admiralty
The court you are talking about is probably
a contractural forum, in which you grant
jurisdiction by entering pleas, or appearing,
or doing something of which they take silent
notice. See the Howard Freeman classic essay
entitled "The Two United States and the Law,"
in the Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
He refers to these de facto forums as
Legislative Tribunals. Another word for
them is statutory courts. I would remove
all administrative actions into the local
state Superior Court (the forum in Arizona
and California; other states call them
"district courts"), because there is nothing
which state or federal governments do which
is not governed by their respective constitutions,
and constitutional questions are always decided
at law. Judicial power is granted by Law, i.e.
the respective constitutions, which emanate
from the People.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>4. Is the CFR only applicable in an administrative court? How does one
>address the title and statute of a charge?
You will find lots of debate from various
places on this question, but my research
shows that the CFR is a supplement to the
Federal Register, which is governed by
the Federal Register Act. There are two
ways the feds can provide actual notice to you:
1. they actually serve the document(s) on you
-or-
2. they publish the document(s) in the FR.
Without having received actual notice, you
can ignore the regulation(s) in question.
If you like, I can share with you a lot of
cites from adminstrative law on the force and
effect of administrative regulations.
There is a doctrine which says that a reg
which has been around a long time has
"implied legislative approval." Think on
that one for a while! I don't necessarily
agree, because regs often over-extend a
statute. The most flagrant example are
the regs in 26 CFR 1.1-1 et seq. They
create liabilities where none exists in
the Internal Revenue Code as such, e.g.
upon "citizens of the United States" and
upon "residents of the United States" [sic]
(whatever THEY are).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
========================================================================
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