Posted by Jeff Ganaposki, civilly dead, and free on September 30, 1998 at 19:09:51:
In Reply to: Paul Mitchell's letter to Dan Meador, 9/29/98 posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 30, 1998 at 01:03:30:
:... was created by an Act of Congress,
: and that Act was the Act of June 25, 1948. Whether that
: Act is constitutional, or not, is another matter.
DID THE ACT STATE "BE IT RESOLVED" OR "BE IT ENACTED?"
: 2. 28 U.S.C. 132 thus has all the attributes of Public Law
WAS IT A RESOLUTION OR AN ACT OF CONGRESS?
BETTER YET - WAS IT "LAW" DEFENDING PROPERTY
RIGHTS OR WAS IT "POLICY" DEFINING INTERNAL GOVERNMENT?
I SUSPECT IT IS MERELY A RESOLUTION, INTERNAL TO GOVERNMENT,
HAVING NO BEARING ON THE "PEOPLE" UNLESS IN CONTRACT
WITH THE U.S.
: If you had to argue this point to the Supreme Court tomorrow,
: do you think you are now prepared to do so, without any
: additional study and research, particularly if that high court
: was about to issue a major precedent with which we must all
: live, for the rest of our lives here on planet earth?
SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY AND EMERGENCY OF 1933,
AND THE SUBSEQUENT SURRENDER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
BY THE PEOPLE IN 1935 (F.I.C.A.) THERE HAVE BEEN
FEW "LAWS" ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND A PLETHORA
OF "POLICIES" DEALING WITH WARDS OF THE STATE,
PAUPERS, AND BANKRUPTS TRADING WITH REPUDIATED
AN IMPAIRED PAUPER CAN'T RAISE "CONSTITUTIONALITY" ISSUES.
SEE 1900'S CITES ON PAUPERS, VAGABONDS, AND TRAMPS.
: For example, where "Act of Congress" is defined, is
: the term "includes" restrictive or expansive, and how
: much of your argument depends on a restrictive meaning?
: How much of your argument fails, if "includes" there
: was intended to be expansive? See Title 1, U.S.C., for
: clarification vis-à-vis "Enacting Clauses". The Act of
: June 25, 1948 is a proper Enacting Clause [sic].
TO IMMUNIZE YOURSELF FROM ANY CONNECTION WITH
GOVERNMENT, YOU HAD BETTER BE PREPARED TO LIVE
LIKE THE AMISH - NO "PUBLIC" UTILITIES,
NO ADDRESS, NO RECORDING OF "PRIVATE PROPERTY"
AND NO CLAIM TO CITIZENSHIP OR ACCEPTANCE OF
PUBLIC CHARITY (SOCIAL SECURITY).
: 3. The U.S. Supreme Court has given us notice that it places
: some value in the opinions of experts.
PERSUASION BY BAFFLEGAB IS PREFERRED OVER FACTS.
: (i.e. USDC = Article III). Would either
: of us be able to convince a federal court that we are experts,
: or expert witnesses? This is not an idle or loaded question.
THERE ARE NO ART.III JUDGES PAID WITH REAL MONEY -
ALL ARE "SPECIAL MASTERS" UNDER ADMIRALTY RULES.
: (and has already
: generated, if my reading of the judicial history on this
: point is correct).
IF YOU WANT TO "UNDERSTAND" THE LEGALITY OF AMERICAN
COURTS, READ THE DEFINITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CHAIN
OF WORDS: 1) ARRAIGN AN ASSIZE 2) PLAINT 3) NISI PRIUS
4) TRESPASS 5) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND
WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IS AKIN TO A CAPTAIN'S MAST
VERSUS A COURT MARTIAL.
YOU ARE OFFERED A STREAMLINED PROCEEDING CALLED THE
ARRAIGNMENT (ARRAIGNING THE ASSIZE), AND
IF YOU CONSENT, AN ASSIZE AND JUDGE WILL "INVESTIGATE"
YOUR PLEADING OF "NOT GUILTY".
BUT ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE PROCEEDING, CALLED
A NISI PRIUS COURT, THE VERDICT IS DERIVED FROM
THE COURT'S INVESTIGATION -NOT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED!
THAT'S HOW A JUDGE CAN BAR WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE
FROM BEING PRESENTED TO THE JURY.
FURTHERMORE, THE CLUE IS IN THE DEFINITION OF THE
PLEADING OF "NOT GUILTY" - IN COMMON LAW, IT'S FOR
"TRESPASS!" YOU ARE NEVER ACCORDED THE "PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE" IN A TRESPASS CASE. WHY?
HOW COULD YOU BE SO STUPID AS TO NOT KNOW YOU WEREN'T
ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY? YOU CAN'T PLEAD INNOCENT -
FREE OF ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WRONG DOING- AND ARE
PLEADED AS "NOT GUILTY" - THAT THE PROSECUTION CAN'T
PROVE A CRIME.
HOW DID 99% OF COURT PROCEEDINGS BECOME TRESPASS
99% OF AMERICANS SURRENDERED THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS
TO THE "CREDITOR" WHOSE AGENT IS THE SEC'Y OF TREASURY.
IF YOU HAVE AN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT, VIA
SS NUMBERING, YOU ARE A "PERSON LIABLE" TO PAY THE INDIVIDUAL
INCOME TAX. FURTHERMORE, ACCORDING TO EZEKIEL 18:13
YOU ARE SELF-CONDEMNED TO DEATH.
: 5. At this point, I need to make strategic decisions about
: how to argue this point, and what to do with those arguments.
: Now pending before the 8th Circuit is an Application for
: Leave to Intervene by Right, filed by me as Relator on
: behalf of the People of the United States of America.
: To date, the 8th Circuit has not ruled on this motion.
: I can, within the next 30 days, draft and file with
: that Clerk, a NOTICE AND DEMAND that they rule on that
: Application for Intervention. If they deny it, or if
: they ignore it, I have a cause of action before the
: U.S. Supreme Court in that case.
WORTHLESS - PAUPERS HAVE NO "PROPERTY RIGHTS"
SEE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE-
1) GOV'T INSTITUTED AMONG MEN TO SECURE RIGHTS.
2) GOV'T POWER IS BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
Q1: IF YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, WHAT CAN THE GOV'T PROTECT?
Q2: IF YOU GAVE CONSENT, HOW CAN YOU COMPLAIN?
: My defense of Mr. Gilbertson in that case
: was a frontal attack on the vagueness in the IRC,
1) ACCUSED IS GIVING NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF ALL
SIGNATURES FOR GROUNDS OF FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION,
WITHHOLDING OF MATERIAL FACT AND MISTAKE.
2) THE ACCUSED NEVER KNOWINGLY (ETC) SURRENDERED
HIS UNALIENABLE RIGHTS NOR HIS PROPERTY TO THE CREDITOR
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ACCESS TO CHARITY FROM THE
3) THE ACCUSED DENOUNCES THE SCHEME TO BURDEN THE
PEOPLE WITH THE IMPOSSIBLE TO PAY DEBT INCURRED BY
USURY, AN ABOMINATION FORBIDDEN BY GOD'S LAW, AND
A CAPITAL OFFENSE, RE:EZEKIEL 18:13.
4) AS A CHRISTIAN, A RELIGIOUS MAN, THE ACCUSED IS
CIVILLY DEAD, WITH NO CONNECTION NOR CITIZENSHIP
WITH THE PROSECUTING PARTY.
: 13. If Congress was attempting to perpetrate their legislative
: democracy inside the 50 states, because everyone and his brother
: was already a federal citizen,
CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY ARE TWO SEPARATE
: it would make sense, in this
: important and essential historical context, for Congress to
: do more than merely change the name of constitutional courts to
: territorial United States District Courts, because this
: assumption by Congress, albeit rebuttable, allowed for this
: change to do more than merely change the name of the court;
: it permitted Congress to treat everyone and every thing
: within the 50 states, AS IF everything/everyone were already situated
: inside the federal zone, where Congress DOES already have
: exclusive legislative jurisdiction, and that exclusive
: legislative jurisdiction allows Congress to convene
: legislative courts, does it not?
: 14. For better or worse, the (hidden) Pandora's Box that is
: within Pandora's Box, is the existence of (hidden?) Federal Reserve
: Bank liens on all assets within the 50 states.
YES - THE FED ACT DOES IMPOSE A PARAMOUNT LIEN UPON
THE DEBTOR. BUT WHY DOES THAT MAKE "YOU" A DEBTOR?
IF YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SEC'Y OF TREASURY
UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935.
: Howard Freeman
: mentioned this several times in his writings; I have found
: evidence of this very thing, in California state laws.
: Are you prepared to rebut the assumption which follows
: from a $6 trillion federal debt? I am. How? Answer:
: Dyett v. Turner recites historical facts PROVING that
: section 4 of the so-called 14th amendment is NOT LAW!
IN ONE SENSE, ALL "POLICY" LAWS ARE FOR THOSE WHO
BY THEIR NATURE, IMMORAL / DANGEROUS.
ANY SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN WHO IS TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY WITH THE ENEMIES' PAPER TOKENS, AND RECEIVING
AND FORM OF INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, OR GAIN IN KIND,
IS SELF-CONDEMNED AND OBVIOUSLY EXPLAINS WHY THERE
WILL N-E-V-E-R BE "DIVINE" INTERVENTION UNTIL
WE CLEAN UP OUR OWN SMELLY AFFAIRS.
P.S. IN ALL CASES I PERSONALLY KNOW OF,
THE ACCUSED WHO WENT TO "CLUBFED" HAD 2 THINGS IN
COMMON - A SSN ON RECORD, AND AN OPEN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT
WITH THE FEDS.
ALL THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO SUCCEEDED IN STOPPING THE IRS,
ALL HAD 2 THINGS IN COMMON - NO SSN, NO BANK ACCOUNT.
Post a Followup