Time: Sat Nov 23 05:07:27 1996
To: Jack Hammer <jh@teleport.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Yes, the Constitution
Cc: 
Bcc: liberty lists

At 01:29 AM 11/23/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Ted:
>
>In the post below you lament that few people really understand what's in
>the Constitution. I agree that few people have really studied it, but I
>think that actually that's the way it should be, for in analyzing it in
>legal terms, one must finally conclude that it does not have any legal
>authority whatsoever. Aside from its massive faults, it cannot be shown to
>be a compact or contract, nor really is it even a trust, for it does not
>name benefactors, beneficiaries or parties, nor is it even signed as such.


It is a contract, because state
and federal officials take an
oath to support it, an obligation
which they are presumed to shoulder
knowingly, intentionally, and 
voluntarily.  Furthermore, the
beneficiaries are listed in the
Preamble:  they are the People
and their Posterity.  The oaths
of office must be signed and 
recorded.  See, for example, the
pertinent forms within the House
of Representatives pay office, to wit:
"if you don't sign this form, you
will not get paid."  Pretty clear 
to me, particularly when 5 USC 3331
is an act of Congress requiring these
oaths of office as a condition of
federal employment.  Even IRS agents
are required to take the oath, on
their Appointment Affidavits, an
OMB-approved form.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



>
>In reality it served at one time as an agreement to provide a coherent
>money system between the several states, and was a nice agreement for the
>cooperation and common defense for the states, but to assume that it
>should have any realistic authority over me, my family, progeny, or even
>my ancestors is absurd. And given the allowance of tender laws, the
>document is more an instrument of tyranny than personal salvation. And
>furthermore, just try to bring it up when you're being charged with
>something in court and see how long the judge will listen to you without
>convicting you of contempt.
>
>The Constitution is simply more statuory black letter maxim and irrelevant
>in pure common law terms. Proof of this is that it forbids us to question
>the validity of the public debt (Section 4, 14th AMendment), but we do
>anyway, don't we? And why? Because we have individual consciences, because
>we are sentient, questioning beings. Neither does it allow us to question
>legislators for things they said on the floor of the House, but we do
>anyway, don't we? A few words on paper prohibiting an inquisition of those
>who purport to rule us aren't enough to quell an entire dynamic, are they?
>Nor are they enough to secure our rights, either, are they?
>
>So if it is justice we are looking for, the Constitution's ashes would be
>more welcome I think than its promotion for general reading. What we
>really need is the ability to seek and find the principles of law as they
>apply to each indvidual case. I would rather see people sitting on common
>law juries than reading the Constitution. If you're going to read about
>the real law, read Lysander Spooner, or Roscoe Pound, or John Marshall. Or
>Alexis de Tocqueville. That's where you'll find justice, not in the
>Constitution.
>
>We need common law indictments judged by common law juries, picked from
>the country, at random, by lot. We need to put someone like Lon Horiuchi
>on trial for murder in a common law court, or we need to indict Congress
>for fraud in creating the Federal Reserve System, or examine Thomas
>Paine's call for the death penalty for legislators who pass tender laws,
>and do it by rules of the common law, just like the Constitution suggests.
>
>-jac
>
>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 PATRIOTZ@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>         In accessing the competentcy of those who claim to be
>>     learned in the law (lawyers and judges),  the following facts
>>     speak for themselves.
>>
>>                                     * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>>        In October, 1924, [over 70 years ago] Dr. John J. Tigert,
>>     United States Commissioner of Education, made the challenging
>>     statement:
>>
>>           "I do not believe there are more than a very limited
>>            number of persons, perhaps a hundred who really know
>>            what is in the Constitution of the United States."
>>
>>      The report of the Committee on American Citizenship,  presented
>>      at the meeting of the American Bar Association,  Denver, Colorado,
>>     July 14-16, 1926, contained the following remarkable confession:
>>
>>           "Lawyers are being graduated from our law schools by the
>>            thousands who have little knowledge of the Constitution.
>>            When  organizations seek a lawyer to instruct them on the
>>            Constitution, they find it nearly impossible to secure one
>>            competent."
>>            Publishers forward, The Constitution Explained, Harry Atwood,
>>            1927, presently produced by W.I.R., Carson City, Nevada.
>>
>>      If constitutional illiteracy was the case in the first three, how much
>>      more despairing America is in the last decade of  the twentieth
>>      century. It is a general condition for the nation  at large, and in the
>>      midst of the ignorance, the nations  fundamental law has been spoiled.
>>      The People lament this historic malady:
>>                                       (from the Oklahoma Writ of Mandamus):
>>
>>                                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>       Question: If you want a lawyer who will help you defend your rights,
>>       Where are you going to find one???
>>
>>        Patriotz@aol.com (Ted Pedemonti)
>>
>>
>
>-jac
>
>jh@teleport.com
>
>                         HOW TO JOIN HAMMERNET
>
>  Receive the most interesting e-mail and get to know the best writers on
>the Internet.   Saints and flamers,  they're on the Hammernet!  Hammernet
>strives  to address the most  important issues of  the day  and provide a
>forum for discussion.
>
>                          Here's how to join.
>
>Send an e mail message to:
>
>                         majordomo@teleport.com
>
>with the following in the text area of your message:
>
>                          subscribe hammernet-l
>
>and/or, for the digest version:
>
>                       subscribe hammernet-l-digest.
>
>                It's as easy as that! (-l is a lower case L)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                  ><###'>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail