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


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by KatNip on September 30, 1998 at 19:54:41:

In Reply to: Re: Paul Mitchell's letter to Dan Meador, 9/29/98 posted by Jeff Ganaposki, civilly dead, and free on September 30, 1998 at 19:09:51:

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need not be formally rescinded as a prerequisite to a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--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!




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]