Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Everything you know about the united states and its laws is wrong !

  1. #1
    Iridium Bigjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,415
    Thanks
    3,154
    Thanked 1,932 Times in 1,159 Posts

    Everything you know about the united states and its laws is wrong !

    Better read at the source link stupid 30000 words

    EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS LAWS IS WRONG ! — THE “UNITED STATES” IS NOT THE “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”


    August 24, 2014 · by JohnHenryHill · in Original Articles · 8 Comments
    Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG !
    The “United States” is NOT the “United States of America”
    by John-Henry Hill, M.D.
    April 26, 2013; Revised August 24, 2014
    “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” — Thomas Paine
    If you wish to open and/or download this 106 page essay as a Microsoft WORD document, please click here: The_US_Is_Not_the_USA__8-24-2014

    Preface
    Almost everything you think you know about the government of the United States of America (the Union) and its laws is WRONG. Not just a few things– but rather almost everything!
    When the Union of the various states was formed, the American people were NOT illiterate peasants. They understood very well the meanings of the words and terms used in the Constitution; and they knew the difference between the Common Law, Equity (Contract) law and Admiralty law – which are the ONLY types of law allowed by the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders and the people in general understood in such great detail the concepts on which the Union was to be founded that they put us to shame by our ignorance

    The Importance of Definitions
    In order to communicate more effectively many professions have developed specific vocabularies containing very precise definitions. The vocabulary in every-day English as used by the public changes greatly over relatively short periods of time. Conversely, in order to maintain precise meanings of words, the vocabulary of certain professions is very stable – words tend to retain their meanings over long periods of time. For example, in medicine the phrase “heart attack” is often used by the public. However, for a medical doctor the term “heart attack” means little – instead he would refer to a very specific cardiac event, such as a “myocardial infarction” (death of heart tissue due to insufficient blood and oxygen), an “arrythmia” (irregular heart beat caused by abnormal electrical conduction within the heart), a “ventricular fibrillation” (a specific type of arrythmia – called a “can-of-worms” electrical conduction phenomenon – in the lower-left pumping chamber of the heart which renders the pumping action completely ineffective), or some other specific term. Similarly, a very precise and stable vocabulary has developed for law and the legal profession – what some have called “legalese”. Indeed, in law many definitions have remained fairly static over centuries – and when a new term is used or a new meaning is given to an existing term or word, that term is usually explicitly defined within that new statute. The problems arise when the definitions of specialized terms used by a profession depart from the definitions used by the general public, so that the terms become misleading or totally inaccurate.
    For example, the term “client” in ordinary English refers to a customer. However, in law a “client” is a man who is mentallyincompetent to act on his own behalf in court. In ordinary English a “person” refers to a man, woman or child. In law, a “person” is defined as a legal fiction and a corporation. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. by John Bouvier. Published 1856.) Likewise in law a “human being” is defined as a “monster”; a “citizen” is defined as an “officer or employee”; the word “must” means “may”; the word “including” is inclusive – meaning it means only the items following the word “include”; and even the term the “United States” has at least very different THREE legal definitions within the U.S. Code and Supreme Court decisions.
    Examples:
    1.) SHALL – The following court decisions leave no doubt about the legal meaning of “Shall”. “Shall” means MAY – thus, when a statute states that you SHALL do something, it is in truth stating that you MAY or MAY NOT do that something. You are NOT obligated to do it: the choice is yours!
    As against the government the word “shall” when used in statutes, is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court
    “Shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt. George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may” …. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 Atlantic 136
    2.) AUTOMOBILE and MOTOR VEHICLE – There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle.
    “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
    “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
    The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word automobile.'”; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
    The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
    Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
    “Driver” is defined as a person operating a vehicle in commerce. (that is, being paid for doing so)
    Transportation” is defined as the movement of goods or people in a vehicle engaged in commerce. (A “carrier” is defined as a business engaged in the movement of goods or people in commerce – that is, being paid to do so.)
    “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
    Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or for hire. State and the federal governments have the authority to regulate commerce within their respective jurisdictions because any business (corporation) is a “creature of the state”. Since a corporation is a “legal fiction” created by the state, that corporation’s use of public roads for financial gain may be regulated by the state via legislated statutes. (The legal concept of financial “gain”– often called simply “gain” – is important to understand, as it means profits derived from investments and/or from the labor of other people; it does NOT mean money earned by a man’s own labor) However, under the Common Law (still the primary law in America, superseding all statutes) and numerous Supreme Court rulings, a man traveling upon a public road in a private automobile who is NOT being paid for doing so is exercising his Common Law right to travel; and is NOT subject to any legislated acts (statutes) or any regulations derived therefrom – and therefore is NOT subject to speed limits, car registration, or any of the other regulations derived from legislated statutes (acts). In Common Law, legislated statutes (acts) are NOT Law; these statutes only gain the “force of law” upon the CONSENT of each individual man. Under the Common Law a man commits a crime ONLY if he injures another man or that man’s property (technically, in law a man’s rights and his body are considered his own property); or causes a “disturbance of the peace”. Under the Common Law a man has the unlimited right to enter into a contract or, conversely, to NOT enter into a contract..No contract forced upon a man is considered valid, but instead is considered null and void ab initio (from its beginning). The key factor is that a man may WAIVE some of his rights under the Common Law by entering into a CONTRACT with another party for “consideration” – the mutual exchange of things of approximately equal value. A man’s rights under the Common Law are waived to the extent specified in that particular contract; and the ancient maxim under Commercial Law then applies: “The contract makes the law.” In short, this maxim means that the terms within the contract upon which two parties voluntary agreed become the Law on which disputes regarding that contract will be settled. Applying for and receiving a state-issued “Driver’s License” is such a contract – in which you voluntarily admit that you are a “driver” operating a “motor vehicle” engaged in commerce. Therefore, by obtaining a state-issued driver’s license, you voluntarily confirmed that you are a driver engaged in commerce and thereby submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the state’s statutes and regulations. Of course, even though you may possess a driver’s license (perhaps you are a taxi driver) you may not have been getting paid for transporting people when the police stopped you for “speeding”. However, because you have a “driver’s license”, the PRESUMPTION exists that you are engaged in commerce and therefore subject to statutes and their jurisdiction. And since you probably do NOT rebut this presumption to the court (in a written, sworn affidavit prior to going to court), this unrebutted presumption is accepted as a fact in law by the court. Two maxims of law apply here: “A presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.” And “He, who does not object, agrees.” But let us not get too far ahead of ourselves.

    ************************
    The United States v the United States of America
    The Constitution was a commercial compact (a CONTRACT in the form of a TRUST) between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment
    “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” — Thomas Jefferson
    The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution: common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.
    Jurisdiction has many facets dealing with the various aspects and modalities of law and justice, i.e., Tort (Civil) law, Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law, Real Property law, Statute law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional law, to name a few of the fields of jurisprudence. The court must be sitting in the proper jurisdiction to render Justice. No court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.
    Most local courts today sit in the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law utilizing the Uniform Commercial Code as the authority for their moving.
    1865 – 13th Amendmentpeople could volunteer into slavery by accepting federal benefits.
    1868 – a privately owned, foreign (British) corporation called the “United States” was created and incorporated in Delaware.
    1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a “citizen of the United States” and a ‘person’, both subject to the federal government jurisdiction as “agents/officers” and/or “employees” of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any “U.S. citizen” or “person” of their “privileges and immunities” as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms “”privileges” and “immunities”, as opposed to “rights”. As “persons” or “citizens” (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.
    Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States,AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”
    It defined a new legal entity: a “citizen of the United States” as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States AND 2.) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, that is, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a “U.S. citizen”. Consequently, any man claiming the status of a “U.S. citizen” is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.
    1871 – the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed by Congress, creating a municipal government as a privately owned corporation that took control of D.C. In subsequent statutes in 1882 and later passed by Congress, the federal government became, in fact , the private, foreign corporation called the “United States” incorporated in 1868 and based in Washington, D.C. Further, in subsequent statutes the term “United States” meant ONLY the “District of Columbia”; NOT the various states of the Union under the Constitution.
    1913 – the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.
    1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens, aka, “U.S. citizens” as defined in the 14th Amendment
    1933 – President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts. Since 1933, debts are never paid; they are simply “discharged”
    March 9, 1933 – ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. (YIKES! Read that again.)
    1933 – President Roosevelt signed HJR 192 June 5, 1933 passed by Congress– since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.
    1938 – The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), decision made contracts the rule in the courts. This ruling voided the long-standing . Swift v. Tyson,16 Pet. 1, 41 U. S. 18 (1842) No other law or court decisions prior to 1938 could be cited in future court cases. In effect, Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts under the Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law codified as statutes. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy, that is private commercial law created through contracts.
    1946 – government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.
    1965 – silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea under the Common Law, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.
    1966 – The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)
    The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.
    One of the very first section of STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.
    In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:
    (1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
    (2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
    (3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. The word “person” is a fictional legal entity. A man (or woman) is real and not a legal fiction and therefore by definition is not a “person”.
    NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS in the STATUTES DO NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES (legislated acts) !!!
    Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
    Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
    If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

    1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …
    2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …
    3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …
    4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …
    5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …

    Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes (called acts or statutes). A crime by definition is an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.
    So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?
    There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.
    13th Amendment


    There is much more at the
    link stupid 30000 words

  2. #2
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Everything you know about the united states and its laws is wrong !

    From page 32 of BigJon's post https://johnhenryhill.files.wordpres..._8-24-2014.doc

    District Courts of the United States are Article III courts. United States District Courts are legislative courts:

    Vagueness, once fully documented wherever it occurs, will be shown to conflict directly with the stated legislative intent of the Act of June 25, 1948.

    The stated legislative intent of that Act is clear enough: “The provisions of title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, of the United States Code, set out in section 1 of this Act, ... shall be construed as continuations of existing law ...” [bold emphasis added].

    Moreover, “No loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any of such courts on the effective date of this Act shall result from its enactment.” [bold emphasis added]
    See Miscellaneous Provisions, Act of June 25, 1948, C. 646, §§ 2 to 39, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, as amended.

    In good faith, Appellant constructs these Miscellaneous Provisions to read: “No loss of Rights and no interruption of jurisdiction shall result from its enactment.”
    What, then, is meant by the term “existing law”?

    If Congress had intended to abolish the DCUS, they would (and they should) have said so. The period between 1789 A.D. and 1948 A.D. spans 159 years of judicial history! Hiding a herd of elephants under a rug would be easier than hiding the DCUS under a pretense.

    To reiterate these all important points: Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Repeals by implication (or magic carpets) are decidedly not favored. The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law; without it, courts cannot proceed at all in any cause. Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., __ U.S. __ (1999), No. 98 470, May 17, 1999 A.D.

    In 1946 A.D., two years before the Act of June 25, 1948, the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the several DCUS. These courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Inside the several States of the Union, the DCUS are the only federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases that arise under the Lanham Act.
    This is the existing law!

    The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

    Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);
    O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

    To the extent that the Act of June 25, 1948, was written and enacted to justify or otherwise foster the notion that all violations of Congressional acts predating that year can now be prosecuted in the USDC a legislative court that was broadcasted from the federal Territories into the several (48) States on that date then that Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for at least four reasons:

    (1) it exhibits vagueness on this obviously important point;

    (2) it violates the ex post facto prohibition;

    (3) it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and elsewhere; and,

    (4) it violates the well established principle that statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal courts must be strictly construed.
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  3. #3
    Iridium Bigjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,415
    Thanks
    3,154
    Thanked 1,932 Times in 1,159 Posts

    Re: Everything you know about the united states and its laws is wrong !

    If you click on THIS LINK it will take you to the URL.

    Much easier than downloading a whole doc file.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Bigjon For This Useful Post:

    monty (29th July 2017)

  5. #4
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts

    Re: Everything you know about the united states and its laws is wrong !

    District Court of the United States (DCUS) v United States District Court (USDC) Paul Andrew Mitchel Supreme Law Library

    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/karmacts.htm

    "Karma and the Federal Courts"

    by

    Paul Andrew Mitchell
    All Rights Reserved
    (November 1996)

    The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around. When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your house.

    And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal "District Courts" in the federal court system.

    One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for the State zone.

    Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase "District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts for the State zone; and the phrase "United States District Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.

    We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].

    Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are assigned to them expressly by statutes.

    When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.

    This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”), but does not mention the United States District Courts (“USDC”)!

    How about them apples?

    Remember this carefully:
    Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ).
    Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English).

    Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).

    So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the State zone, and into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

    This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of judicial tyranny.)

    By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the United States by moving their talents State-side. They should return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on available supplies of soap and water.

    Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which surround the federal zone.

    This is the United States District Court (“USDC”), in all its limited Honors and tarnished glory.

    Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.

    So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did Congress need to enact two separate statutes?

    The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really, when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which penetrates the deception.

    Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War; furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive law. See Title 1 for details.

    What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request immediately, for such things as any regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18 U.S.C. 3231.

    It won't hurt to submit similar FOIA requests for the credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case in any way.

    Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal deadline has run, you are in court.
    But which court? Guess ...

    ... the answer is the District Court of the United States. What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States District Court (“USDC”) is not the proper forum to litigate a request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests must be litigated in the District Court of the United States (“DCUS”).

    Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C. 552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!

    Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it. It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.

    Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 musthave been intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head-on, collision.

    Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...
    ... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!!

    Love it.

    Common Law Copyright
    Paul Andrew Mitchell
    Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
    and Citizen of Arizona State
    All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
    November 2, 1996

    # # #

    For a related essay, read "Sedition by Syntax" by Ralph Schwan, in the Supreme Law Library.

    Return to Table of Contents for

    Paul Andrew Mitchell

    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


  6. #5
    Iridium
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    7,710
    Thanks
    3,772
    Thanked 2,254 Times in 1,607 Posts

    Re: Everything you know about the united states and its laws is wrong !

    The rule of law is only an illusion. There will be no change in how this United States of America is governed that will come from the information above. We're past the point of fixing what's going on today
    If you're offended by any of my posts tough shit!
    "Politicians Are Like Diapers, They Should Be Changed Often, And For The Same Reason"
    If you're not prepared for what's coming it's already too late!
    Niggers will never be satisfied!!

  7. #6
    Iridium monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    8,940
    Thanks
    7,785
    Thanked 8,331 Times in 5,107 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua01 View Post
    The rule of law is only an illusion. There will be no change in how this United States of America is governed that will come from the information above. We're past the point of fixing what's going on today
    I don't disagree, but Mitch Paul Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell almost brought down their house of cards. http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnos...n-sell-v-.html

    Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
    The only thing declared necessary in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is the #2A Militia of the several States.
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a freeState”
    https://ConstitutionalMilitia.org


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •