Time: Tue Nov 26 09:58:37 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Name? Whose NAME? I'm confused David!
Cc:
Bcc:
Paul Mitchell comments infra:
<snip>
>> >>On my next exercise into the commercial building [ecclesiatical extortion
>> >>rooms] dubbed the "courtroom" are some interesting comments I am going to
>> >>try to add some real life to the "party".
>> >
>> >(Snipped for brevity)
>> >
>> >>Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd
>> >
>> >Ralph, although I have benefited from your research,
>> >I cannot agree with your belief that this will make
>> >any difference in a modern court. My readings of
>> >early Massachusetts common law and reform indicate
>> >that misnomers were eventually cast aside as a method
>> >to defeat the advance of process, just as the rigid form
>> >of pleadings was discarded in the early eighteenth
>> >century "Americanization" of English common law.
>> >
>> >There were many early cases where charges were defeated
>> >by misnomers such as identification of occupation, class
>> >status, mispellings, etc. The court came to view this as
>> >"weaseling" out of the charges to the detriment of the
>> >other party's right to speedy and lawful redress. Reforms
>> >were instituted to allow "cure" of such deficits (even so far
>> >as a lack of a current oath of office by a sheriff serving
>> >the warrant) and even after the case had been adjudicated.
>> >
>> >Once it was established to the court's satisfaction that
>> >the party produced in court was the same as the party
>> >against whom the charges were levied, the case could proceed.
>> >Your arguments are based on the view that you are not the
>> >person as identified on the paperwork, a technicality if
>> >you are the person who performed certain actions leading to
>> >the bringing of charges against you. I could see where a
>> >judge might find such arguments frivolous.
>>
>> Misnomer is a Plea in Abatement,
>> always has been.
>>
>> The term "frivolous" is their signal
>> that you are right. It is showing
>> up all over the country right now.
>
>What if an argument is actually frivolous?
>This is inverted reasoning.
Let the jury decide.
That's what they are
there for.
>
>>
>> I hope this isn't confusing.
>
>It is.
>
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Technicalities may save one's a-- but they do nothing
>> >to force a re-examination of the underlying substantive
>> >issues at play, which affect us all.
>>
>> There is a substantive issue here,
>> which is that opposing parties
>> cannot use your real name, if they
>> are already warring against you.
>> Warring on the several states is
>> defined as treason in the Constitution;
>> this is yet another reason why it is
>> important to be a State Citizen who
>> is expressly not a federal citizen --
>> only these People have standing to
>> enforce the treason provision against
>> the belligerents.
>
>I assume you mean a federal citizen as distinct from a citizen of the
>United States, which I am by birth.
A "federal citizen" is a synomym
for "citizen of the United States".
Confer at "federal citizenship"
in Black's Law Dictionary.
A "Citizen of the United States",
as that term is utilized in the
U.S. Constitution, refers to a
Citizen of ONE OF the States United.
See qualifications for serving as
President, Senator, and Representative.
If you were born in one of the several
Union States, then you are not a
federal citizen; you are a Citizen of
the Union State in which you were born,
unless you exercise your Right to
expatriate from this status and to
assert your allegiance to a different
political class.
I am referring to nomme de guerre
when I discuss warring against
the several States, and using
fictional "names" on the face
pages of indictments, complaints,
and other legal process.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>--Andrew Lehr
>
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>> I admit that I
>> >would prefer to see arguments based on jurisdictional
>> >questions. - Of course, in jolly old England during the
>> >Middle Ages, if the accused refuse to recognize the
>> >jurisdiction of the court, they piled rocks on top of
>> >him until he submitted or was crushed. (Many actually
>> >endured death, rather than risk conviction and forfeiture
>> >of their inheritable estate to the Crown.
>> >
>> >Marcia A.
>> >
>> >REPOST:
>> >
>> >(Source: William E. Nelson, Americanization of the Common Law -
>> >The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, 1760-1830,
>> >Harvard University Press, c1975.)
>> >
>> >TECHNICAL RULES OF PLEADING (MISNOMERS, ETC.): The technical
>> >rules of pleading were a long standing complaint of the common
>> >law court system. Reform in this area occurred primarily in the
>> >courts on a piecemeal basis, as the court gradually began to
>> >relax the formalities of technical pleading in individual cases.
>> >The first step at a modern system of pleading was taken in 1776,
>> >when the Superior Court adopted a rule that prior to joinder in
>> >demurrer, any plaintiff could "have leave to amend his Writ and
>> >declaration upon paying the Deft. his costs" to the date of the
>> >amendment or "agreeing to a Continuance at the Defts. Election."
>> >[Court Rule, WSC, 9-76, copied in note apended to Briscoe and
>> >Gale, MSJC, 10-89, in Francis Dana, Minute Books.]
>> >
>> >The new rule was not immediately accepted by the lower courts,
>> >until the legislature in 1784 provided that judicial proceedings
>> >should not "be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed for any kind
>> >of circumstantial errors or mistakes...not through defect or want
>> >of form only" and explicitly confirmed the power of the courts
>> >"on motion...[to] order amendments." [Laws of 1784, ch. 28,
>> >Section 14.] The rule and the statute, however, did not apply to
>> >misjoinder of parties, particularly in contract actions.
>> >
>> >By the mid-1780s, it was clear that misnomers and errors in
>> >additions were freely amendable, and there is no record of a case
>> >after 1784 being dismissed on the basis of these two
>> >technicalities. Other technical errors could also be cured by
>> >amendment: mistake in a party's residence [Bowers v. Brown, BrCp,
>> >6-80]; failure to have the writ properly attested [Howe,
>> >Lectures, 118, citing Ripley v. Warren, 2 Pick. 592 (1824)];
>> >error in the ad damnum of a writ (Danielson v. Andrews, 1 Pick.
>> >156 (1822)]; and an error in the plaintiff's statement of his
>> >claim [Holmes v. Holmes, 2 Pick. 23 (1823); Cumings v. Rawson, 7
>> >Mass. 440 (1811).] In fact, mere technical formalities often did
>> >not even require amendment [Kennedy v. Carpenter, SCP, 7-28;
>> >Jacks v. Ward, ECP, 9-89.]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ===========================================================
>> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail