Time: Tue Nov 26 10:03:31 1996 To: timr@efn.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Title 18 on military bases only? Cc: Bcc: At 08:58 AM 11/26/96 +0000, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> 18 USC 1513 contains explicit language >> extending this statute with "extra-territorial >> application." Now, you might ask yourself, >> why is this qualifier not found in more >> statutes within Title 18? So, at least >> this one statute can be enforced within >> the several States of the Union, unlike >> the others which have no application >> outside the federal zone. So, I agree >> with LeRoy, but only in part, because of >> the obvious exception found in 18 USC 1513. >> Confer at "inclusio unius est exclusio >> alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary. >> See also U.S. v. Lopez, S.Ct. (1995); >> this is the really big case on this >> subject. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >[snip...] > > Paul: > > Do you have the case cite handy for the Lopez decision? I "know" I >have it somewhere, but when asked for it this morning, couldn't find >it!*&%! > > And on another subject, re your above comment which itself was spawned >by the comments from Chuck regarding Title 18 and 42 actions only being >applicable to the "federal zone." My reply to this is basically, ok >fine! So in the world of the purist it/they only apply to the 10 mile >square area of WDC and the occasional, but rare, properly ceeded area >within a state. We are only men, not gods and though our nation is a >nation of laws, not men, the laws themselves were written by men. And >save those which accidentially recognized and codified the natural law >of God, we are left with a codification or law-making process which, >even in the more ideal world of the common law, is still quite >imperfect. > > This never ending, always begining imperfection, results in a life of >comprimises between the ideal of heaven on earth, and man's laws as >imperfect reflections of God's will. So all our actions "in law" will >be AT BEST, some compromise between the ideal and man's law, and at >worse a total imersion in man's law (statutory jurisdiction). The facts >are that we in this fight are battling an enemy which is immersed in the >statutory and void of God's law, but they also have the enforcement >mechanisms in place (granted, taken through usurpation, not law) and to >use enforcement of the law requires a compromise between the ideal and >the disgusting. LeRoy himself may claim this or that about the common >law vis-a-vis statutory law and its applicability ONLY in some specifice >geographic area, but the fact is that even LeRoy, used a FEDERAL >BUILDING, GOVERNMENT resources, a judge paid by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT >and allowed them to come all together to have his case heard under >alleged common law. Why? Simply, because it was the best of a bad >situation; i.e., a compromise. > >18 USC and 42 USC (and other USC's) are useful weapons in the arsenal >needed to fight these bastards. In a war, if you run out of ammo for >your weapon, or there is a need for a more powerful one and the enemy >just happens to have what you need, do you NOT take advantage of their >supply just because it belongs to the enemy? Not hardly I would >suggest! And this fight we are in requires the same mind-set and if 18 >USC is a weapon which I can employ to bring a judge out of his >statutorily acquired immunity, then I absolutely will use it, and would >recommend others do too. > > >> >> Do NOT appeal this case. In the 1st place, when you appeal, you as the >> >> appeallant are certifying that EVERY MATERIAL FACT IN THE RECORD IS >> >> TRUE; all you are "appealing" is some procedureal error. The whole >> >> appeal process was developed by judges, for judges and was designed >> >> specifically to protect judges from an angry populace for mistakes on >> >> the bench. >> >> >> >> In the 2nd place, appeals are not a right under the Common Law and in >> >> fact there are rules and Supreme Court Case law which specifically state >> >> that Citizens do not have a "right" to an appeal -- it is a process >> >> which can be withheld or allowed at whim. >> >> >> >> Certiorari on the other hand is a process whereby the Judge gets to >> >> certify the record as being complete, and then it is sent up to the >> >> reviewing panel where both procedure and facts can be reviewed. Once >> >> the Certiorari is in, then you submit various writs of errors to the >> >> reviewing panel. >> >> >> >> However, my guess is that this STILL won't do you any good as my guess >> >> is that you filed the case in the "United States District Court" under >> >> 42 USC >> >> 1985 or 1983? The Common Law as preserved in the Constitution must be >> >> brought into the court properly and via procedure. The United States >> >> District Court is a court of the territories and doesn't have >> >> jurisdiction to hear the case you are trying to bring. They admit the >> >> case of course, but then when they decide to judicially >> >> rape/pillage/plunder, they can, since the venue and jurisdiction are >> >> both wrong to begin with. >> >> >> >> We do Deprivation of Constitutionally secured rights suits regularly and >> >> we teach the process too. Drop me a line if you want to. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> =========================================================== >> 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