Time: Thu May 29 06:24:04 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA09280;
Thu, 29 May 1997 05:55:49 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA08139;
Thu, 29 May 1997 05:54:54 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 06:22:46 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Outpost of Freedom [sic] rejects Dyett v. Turner!
From: outpostoffreedom@azi.com
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 21:02:20 -0700
Subject: Reject Notification
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Sorry, but your message is rejected by
the moderator of our list server.
[rejected message follows]
Dyett v. Turner, Utah Supreme Court (1968)
recites a plethora of unrebutted historical
facts which prove the 14th amendment [sic]
was never lawfully ratified. See Full Faith
and Credit Clause for authority. The
certification by the Secretary of State under
Pres. Andrew Johnson assumed facts not in
evidence.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 06:38 PM 5/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
> ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom)
> Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom)
> Distributed on: 28-MAY-97, 18:37:52
>Original Written by: IN:rikmeier@indy.net.
>=======================================================
>
>
>> The States predate the Central Govermnent as Sovereign Bodies. In the
>>Treaty of Paris, which secured our Freedom and ended our Revolutionary War,
>>Britain recognized not one nation comprising of 13 colonies, but rather 13
>>independant nations.
>
> Britain's recognition of the existence of these independent nations
>was required of Britain at the point of a sword. A belief system cannot be
>imposed at the point of a sword and Britain does not necessarily believe
>that these states exist independent of Britain. As some people are
>searching now for assets confiscated from their relatives in Europe under
>Hitler's quest for power some people in Britain - or simply sympathetic to
>the crown - may search for ways for Britain to increase her influence over
>these states - or simply to extract the value of the assets here.
> Britain also recognized Scotland as a sovereign nation in March
>1328. One of the terms of the treaty that established the relationship
>between those two states was England's requirement that the heir to
>Scotland's throne be married to an English princess, Joanne of the Tower.
>The English settled for a promise - that the marriage would take place when
>the then-3-year-old heir reached the age of majority (13 years) - that was
>secured under a penalty of a surrender of cash to the English crown if the
>marriage failed to materialize. It was, then, of vital importance to the
>King of England to retain a measure of influence in Scotland but he would
>settle for an enormous payment of money.
> England's aim in the wars from 1296 to 1328 was to rule the whole of
>the British Isles under one throne. Has that ever changed? The British
>have extended their authority to every continent in the intervening
>centuries; some of their colonies have ejected England's rule and England
>has withdrawn from other lands by mutual agreement. Scotland is no longer a
>sovereign state - conquered from the inside by agreement - and Ireland still
>fights for the northeast quarter of its land.
> England also left one vital seed of influence here when our families
>overthrew the crown in 1779. That seed survived and is now called the
>American Bar Association. The ABA is an exclusive association whose members
>hold enough offices in all branches and levels of government in these united
>states to effectively nullify the doctrine of Separation of Powers.
>> The States Confederated themselves under the Articles of Confederation, an
>>agreement that they would mutually defend each other, but retain their
>>Seperate Independance in all other manner. The Articles of Confederation
>>proved to be so much of a hassle, a Continental Congress was formed to fix
>>the problems, the Result, was our present Constitution which changed the
>>goverment completely.
>
> As a matter of clarification of the details, the officers of the
>confederate
>government were not secure in their meeting places; the states had
>retained the right to refuse to provide security for the meetings of the
>confederate government. At one memorable meeting in Philadelphia -
>the seat of the confederate government - the colonial congress was
>unable to conduct its business because the city or Pennsylvania
>had a different political agenda at that moment in the revolution. The
>"more perfect Union" established by those men who represented US
>(as we were at that time) in the "Constitution for the united States of
>America" resulted. (capitalization as per original documents to the best
>of my recollection).
>
> Your math books describe Unions. The Union of any number of Sets
>refers to everything that is included in all of the Sets. The Union of the
>States refers to all of the lands, people, resources, laws, beliefs,
churches,
>clubs... everything there is within the borders of the Member States.
>Intersections, on the other hand, refer only to that part of each of the
several
>Sets that is the same as a similar part of all of the other several Sets.
>Our States, under present "conventional wisdom", are Subsets of the federal
>government rather than several entities; under the original federal
>constitution
>the federal State is a Subset of all of the several States; thus, the
federal
>Government is the Intersection of the States; the Union is the sum of the
>States themselves. In the natural order of such a relationship, the federal
>government,
>as the mere Intersection of the States rather than the Union itself, holds
>some few
>common powers of government that the States have and the States retain the
>remainder of the powers of government.
>
> Perhaps the 14th Article in Amendment to that original constitution
>reversed that established natural order of sovereignty. Perhaps, on the
>other hand, something else reversed the established order; something
>else such as "spin", personal ambitions taking precedence over personal
>integrity, a people luxuriating in their freedom.... Perhaps there was even
>a plot hatched by a money lender, who taught his children how to be money
>lenders, that resulted, eventually, in a contract for the transfer of
ownership
>of the assets of the United States Government's assets to a private
>corporation known commonly as The Federal Reserve.
>
> (NOW how do I accept the label of "asset to the community" as an
honor
>when the community's assets belong to a bank?! I suppose it depends
>upon the source of the label.
> (I'm an annual "account receivable" to the IRS until they deposit my
>check
>into the Federal Reserve to pay for the cost of the federal government's
debt.
>My accountant, and every accounting authority that has crossed my path,
>refers to Accounts Receivable as "assets". The IRS agrees with them.
>(Try making your check payable to The Treasury of the United States of
>America; the letter you will receive from the IRS, with your check, will NOT
>refer you to your constitution; it will refer you to IRS rules which require
>you to deliver your funds to the IRS. hmmmm....)
>
> The Federal Reserve owns a good deal more of these assets every year
>and the U.S. Congress continues to borrow from the Fed. Once again, I
>refer you to your basic math book where you were taught that a PLUS
>SIGN indicates an increase and a MINUS SIGN indicates a decrease.
>Any time the U.S. government enacts a budget that spends more money
>than the U.S. government will exact from US by way of its taxes there is
>a deficit. The government borrows that amount from The Fed, a private
>corporation doing business as a bank. The bank loans that money to
>the government every year.
>
> A "balanced budget" is not a worthy goal; our representatives
need to
>be searching for a government that does not deal in debt but pays its
>own way under the controlling terms of its constitution.
>
> Whatever has been the cause of the reversal in the order
established by
>those men in the constitution for the union of these states, the reversal
>is real, and it needs to be defined and redressed while we still have a
>few good men who can do it. The discussion here is the best I've seen
>towards that end; provided it remains well-moderated and open, I expect
>to see it produce some wonders, in the minds of its readers, as well as
>many of the answers to those wonders. A few good men who have the
>answers to their questions will pick up their telephones and talk, with
>conviction in their voices and compromise in their toilets, to the people
>who will return the natural order to the governance of these lands.
>
>>> If you Jaywalk - Give us money.
>>> If you drive too fast - Give us money.
>>> If you shoot a firearm in the city limits - Give us money.
>>>
>>
>>A City needs money to operate. You obviously don't desire that every penny
>>paying your police force is from the federal government. Not to mention
>>the City Works Department that fixes the pot-holes in the road. Their are
>>many little things that the City does that you may not realize or take for
>>granted, keep in mind who is paying for the street-lights, the Stop-lights,
>>the people who repair them.....
>>
>>Fines from those menial infractions goes to the City to pay for these
>>things and alleviates the need for undue taxation, in the form of property
>>taxes, or lessens them to a great degree.
>
>>>
>>> And since you got a ticket, you had to give the city money. How does
>>> that give "restitution" to the people of the city?
>>
>>By Lowering their taxes to pay for City Operations.
>
>Cincinnati 1997; City v. Sylvia Stayton.
> The defendant was found guilty by a jury of 12. The charge was
>obstruction
>of justice. She paid a fine of $500. At last report she "intends to"
appeal.
>Mrs. Stayton, a grandmother who lives, and raised her children, in the
suburbs
>saw a vehicle parked in a city-owned space where the city had placed a
>timing/collection device commonly known as a "parking meter". The meter
>indicated that the paid parking time had expired and the vehicle's owner was
>violating the rights of the city to collect money from that plot of land.
Mrs.
>Stayton took it upon herself to secure the city's right and the vehicle
owner's
>continued security by inserting the coin of the land into the city's meter
>according to the instructions for inserting coins into the device.
>
>What is:
>1) Justice
>2) a jury
> a) jury nullification
>3) wrong with this picture.
>
>1) A government that pays its bills by way of fines is perverse. The
fees for
>parking are reasonable and should pay for the cost of keeping the parking
>space available for paying customers. The spaces should be provided
>NOT to produce income but to provide spaces. Any PROFITS from the use
>of the provided spaces should go to pay for government operations.
>
> Apparently, Cincinnati is unable to operate on a good day - some
number
>of people must meet with complications in their plans or the city will
come up
>short of funds to pay its bills.
>
>2) A jury is the highest power in a courtroom - even if the judge SAYS he is
>the highest power. A wise jury will ignore this and allow the judge to
>continute with his proceedings.
> A jury is chosen from a random selection of "The People", the same
>"[the]
>People" who, "in order to create a more perfect Union", established and
>ordained "[that] constitution for the united States of America". The People
>established the means by which the laws are made; the People have the
>final say - the last vote - in the making of law. After the
representatives in
>the legislature have argued and coughed and beaten each other up and
>created a law there is an administrator (alias President, Governor, Mayor,
>Chairman, etc.) who approves of their timing and the result of their
>arguments at the time when the rules of order and the demands of their
>responsibilities required them to quit arguing -when voted to leave the
>decision to the administrator. If he signs the bill into law and the new
>law violates the moral imperatives of the jury, then
> a) the jury is required to acquit the defendant of any wrong doing and
>release the prisoner; the jury is also required to tell the government (aka
>the court) that the law does not meet with our approval and is, therefore,
>null and void. The jury must nullify any laws that get past the processes
>of government by which laws are created. (jury nullification: See Crown
>v. Wm. Penn, 1600's).
>
>3) How on earth did the City of Cincinnati find 12 people who would declare
>Ms. Stayton guilty of obstructing Justice for properly inserting the legal
>coin of the land into the properly-appointed deviced that were placed there
>specifically for the purpose of receiving the coin of the land?
> These events seem to indicate acts of fraud perpetrated by the City
>of Cincinnati rather than the honest exercize of lawful authority.
>
> Fines are levied as punishments for minor illegal activities, NOT as
>sources of revenue. Proceeds from the fines may be used as the government
>chooses but consider the implications of the proposition that fines could
>be used as a means to increase revenues.
> From this day forward, and person who causes my telephone to ring
>will be assessed a fee of $.25 (twenty five cents) for each time the phone
>rings. Caller ID and a tape machine will monitor the telephone. The act of
>causing my phone to ring will indicate the callers agreement to these terms.
> There it is, then. I have now established the conditions for the
>use of my phone. I can sue violators, file liens and collect their
>payment... or can I? Would any judge (government officer) allow my terms to
>bear any weight? I would hope not!
>
> In the same way, governments may enact laws that exceed their moral
>right and offend the dignity of all parties. Would any judge allow such a
>law to bear any weight? City v. Stayton 1997 indicates that a judge DID
>allow the ordinance to stand; the jury was responsible to evaluate the law
>for the people of Cincinnati in the same way a judge would quickly and
>naturally evaluate the terms of my telephone agreement. In the same way as
>my telephone agreement is offensive to the dignity and rights of anyone who
>would ring my phone there is some element of law in Cincinnati that is
>offensive to the dignity and the rights of anyone who inserts legal coins in
>Cincinnati's parking meters.
>
>
>>The limits of the township end in the Charter, which can be ratified or
>>amended upon request by the people of that locality. If the City Charter
>>say's that Satalite dishes are eye sores and they are not allowed, you can
>>petition to have that clause removed for violating your personal rights and
>>freedom. If the people of the City agree that it is an eyesore, you can
>>comply or move.
>
> The city's Charter is approved by the State's legislature as the
>last act of
>government that is required to establish a new city government.
>
> The U.S. government's Charter was established by similar means; a
>quorum of representatives of the states agreed that each of the states
>was properly represented, a quorum of the body politic of each of the
>states agreed that they were properly represented, the reprepesentatives
>approved of the Charter and a new State was formed.
>
> As a city government is required to operate within limits
established by
>the State within which the city is located, so the federal U.S. government
>is required to operate within the limits established by the people of the
>several States. Those limits are set forth rather clearly in the charter we
>call The Constitution.
>
>It's pretty easy to forget that we also have our State constitutions to
>consider....
>
>>The 14th Amendment extends the complete Constitution to the lowest level of
>>government. Before the 14th Amendment, the States had the legal right to
>>abrograte your rights.
>
> The states are bound by their constitutions; the state
>
><<< Continued to next message >>>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail