RIGHT OF AVOIDANCE...Re: Paul Mitchell's letter to Dan Meador, 9/29/98

Subject:

Comments:
: However, "A writing [e.g., Social Security application] : is void 'ab initio' in the case of fraud in the inception, and : need not be formally rescinded as a prerequisite to a : RIGHT OF AVOIDANCE [emphasis KatNip's]." Bonnacci v. : Massachusettes Bonding and Insurance Co., : 56 C.A.2d 657, 644, 137 P.2d 487 (1943). : --------------------------------------------- : : :... 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 : : DEBT INSTRUMENTS. : : 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 : : "NOT GUILTY." : : : : 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 : : ACTIONS? : : 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" : : TO PROTECT. : : 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, : : BETTER DEFENSE- : : 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 : : PUBLIC TREASURY. : : 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 : : THINGS. : : : 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. : : GO FIGURE!

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: