Posted by MARTIN on September 21, 1998 at 02:17:14:
In Reply to: Re: Affidavit Notice posted by Two Cities on September 20, 1998 at 20:48:19:
From The Book of the Hundreds
http://www.jeffry.com/jural.htm#The Book of the Hundreds
Come Now, This Good and Lawful Christian Man, grateful to Almighty God for My Liberty, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ, and Myself by Visitation, to excercise Ministrial Powers in this Matter, to invalidate and expurgate your records;
Your records contain the follwing Marks of Fraud
Mark: Your records do not have upon their face, My full Christian Appellation in upper and lower case letters and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse, et uxor, nor do your records, herewith invalidated and expurgated, apply to Me and My House;
Mark: Your records are foreign to My Venue, which no Oath, Promise, or Law Attaches Me, My Family or My House; thereto; and,
Mark: Your agency and its agents are not established in the Georgia Constitution, are not not recognized in this state, and are, therefore, persona non grata ; and,
Mark: Your records have no foundation in Law; for the reason, they are not from an office recognized by the People or General Laws in this state; and,
Mark: Your records lack jurisdicyional facts necessary to place or bring Me, My Wife, My Family or My House, within your venue; and,
Mark: Your records are unintelligible to Me; based upon the following: They are not written in Proper English; being such, they cannot be recognized lawfully in this state, for the reason; they violate Our general customs and usages; and have no existence, effect, force or operation outside the venue from which they originate; and,
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, lawful authority for your presence in My Venue; and by established custom of Coverture in this state, My Wife cannot contract, be noticed in any capacity, recorded as chattel property in any system of records, sent or given any process without My Consent; and;
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, the lawful authority or necessity for your invasion of My Privacy, My Family, and My Dominions; and,
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upon their face; your authority to novate, violate, dispage, or trespass upon Me, or My Family, in any way; and,
Mark: Your records have no Warrant in Law and not Judicial in Nature; and,
Mark: Your records are not sealed with authority known and recognized in Georgia and are therefore, a trespass into My Authority, My Dominions, and My Family; and,
Mark: Your records fail to disclose any connection between Myself and your agency; and,
Mark: Your records are defective and negatory, upon their face, due to insufficient Law.
*Ex Dolo malo non orito Actio*
Whereas, pursuant to to constitutional due process requirements and The General Laws of Georgia, said Alien Enemy agency is not a State Judicial Office having power to issue orders or judgements of any kind:
And whereas, according to the custom in this state, The General Laws of Geogia, The Law of Nations and The Law of War, said Alien Enemy agency cannot invade or upsurp My Authority, patria potestas, or Dominions with contempt for the General custom in this state:
It is best to research all views including the occupying Alien Enemies reasons for Occupation of the states. I would rather not do My reseach from a prison cell so I only research and do not follow any law type advice from anyone.
=== Appearance cures all defects of process.====
One does not quote the law or constitution of the Occupying Alien Enemy.
Report of The Joint Comittee on Reconstruction, June 20, 1866. (excerpts)
The right to thus occupy an enemy's country and temporarily provide for its government has been recognized by previous action of the executive authority, and sanctioned by frequent decisions of this court. The local government being destroyed, the conqueror may set up its own authority, and make rules and regulations for the conduct of temporary government, and to that end may collect taxes and duties to support the military authority and carry on operations incident to the occupation (Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 ).
The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession is one of the incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer. We therefore do not look to the Constitution or political institutions of the conqueror for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession, during its [182 U.S. 222, 231] military occupation, nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws of war, as established by the usage of the world and confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts,- in fine, from the law of nations.... The municipal laws of a conquered territory or the laws which regulate private rights, continue in force during military occupation, except so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of the conqueror.... He, nevertheless, has all the powers of a de facto government, and can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new ones....
US SUPREME COURT
APPLICATION OF YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)
The answer is plain. The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law applies to 'any person' who is accused of a crime by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
No exception is made as to those who are accused of war crimes or as to those who possess the status of an enemy belligerent.
Indeed, such an exception would be contrary to the whole philosophy of human rights which makes the Constitution the great living document that it is.
The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology.
They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs.
They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment.
No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest [327 U.S. 1, 27] army in the world, can ever destroy them.
Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.
'Mr. Sweet. Please explain what you mean by military commission.
'Gen. Crowder. That is our common law of war court, and was referred to by me in a prior hearing. (The reference is to the discussion of Article 15.)
This war court came into existence during the Mexican War, and was created by orders of Gen. Scott. It had jurisdiction to try all cases usually cognizable in time of peace by civil courts. Gen. Scott created another war court, called the 'council of war,' with jurisdiction to try offenses against the laws of war.
The constitution, composition, and jurisdiction of these courts have never been regulated by statute. The council of war did not survive the Mexican War period, since which its jurisdiction has been taken over by the military commission.
The military commission received express recognition in the reconstruction acts, and its jurisdiction has been affirmed and supported by all our courts. It was extensively employed during the Civil War period and also during the Spanish-American War.
It is highly desirable that this important war court should be continued to be governed as heretofore, by the laws of war rather than by statute.
' S.Rep.No.229, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 59; cf. S.Rep. 130, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 54-55. (Emphasis added.) See also Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate on Establishment of Military Justice, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182-1183.
MARTIN;(persona non grata)
Post a Followup