Time: Tue Jul 01 05:07:39 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA17387;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 05:05:50 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA15392;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 05:05:39 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 05:03:57 -0700
To: kilometers@Juno.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan
References: <3.0.2.16.19970629150742.3ed7580e@pop.primenet.com>
Ask, and you shall receive.
Seek, and you shall find.
Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
Those are not my words, but the words
of my Boss. He is 110% reliable!!
Try it!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 01:12 AM 7/1/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>
>The BIGGEST problem still remains. We know what they did and how they
>did it.
>HOW do We The People UNDO it without going into a full scale knife, gun,
>chemical, racial, nuclear, biological and monetary (depression &
>starvation) war?????????
>
>At this point in time........only an ACT of God would be able to correct
>the horrendous amount of correction this nation would require to fix it.
>You'd simply have to do away COMPLETELY with the United States District
>of Columbia and all its COMPACT states. Without a doubt, regardless of
>how may books and laws and such that a person is able to quote......It
>does nothing to FREE the people of their bondage. Even at that, most of
>the sheople in the downtown Government offices would slice up their own
>families in order to perserve their STUPID populace given wealth. I
>don't mean to sound negaive........but, I learned in Viet Nam........if
>you intended not to be killed....... you simply had to kill the
>opposition. You cannot be nice or forgiving to an oppenent. I don't
>care what the Bible brained people of the United States say, if you turn
>the other cheek on the Government, it'll knock your butt out and molest
>you in the process, then find scientific reasons why raping you was
>justified.......and they'll molest you like a child molester in order to
>gain more revenue and control in order to find enough reasons to justify
>why they molested you in the first place. Kind of like.......tell a lie
>to cover another lie.
>
>All or most all the justices and judges in the Unied States are yellow or
>degenerate. Most are so pathetically inclined to kiss but to the evil
>torment that has taken over the world that the congress and lawyers who
>are mostly part of the Grand Lodges that the justices and judges belong
>to that they don't have to make threats in public. The get the messages
>through.........thru the Lodges.
>
>FACE IT............AMERICA IS A SHIT CAN AND IT'S TIME TO EMPTY IT.
>
>================END OF REPLY=========================
>
>
>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:07:42 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in tool bar] writes:
>>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>> "Sedition by Syntax"
>>
>> written by
>>
>> Ralph Schwan
>>
>> The Upright Ostrich
>> December/January, 1985-1986
>>
>> edited by
>>
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>> Counselor at Law and federal witness
>> Founder, Supreme Law School
>> website: http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>> Are you a citizen of the United States? Be
>>careful! I'll tell you something that the United
>>States Government will never want to tell you:
>>That's a "trick" question. The federal (feudal?)
>>government will ask you that trick question quite
>>often.
>> It would be better to put the question like
>>this: Are you a citizen of the United States, or
>>a Citizen of one of the United States of America?
>>Do you think the two are one and the same thing?
>>Your education via government schools serves you
>>poorly. Recall some fourth grade grammar, then
>>check the Constitution for the United States of
>>America, particularly the Preamble in that
>>important document. Hereafter, we will refer to
>>this Constitution as the "U.S. Constitution".
>> Let's use a simple example: Consider "the
>>house of Mr. Jones." We'll rewrite it to read,
>>"Mr. Jones' house." See the apostrophe? It
>>tells you something about the relationship
>>between Mr. Jones and his house. In most words,
>>you would add both an apostrophe and an "s"; but
>>when a word ends in an "s", you do not need to
>>add another. Ah, yes, you do remember that rule!
>>Then, a citizen of the United States could be
>>rewritten as "United States' citizen", but never
>>as "United States citizen". Right? Right!
>> You now graduate to the fifth grade.
>> Now, for more grammar. Examine the term
>>"United States". Is it a singular noun (one
>>thing), or is it plural (more than one thing)?
>>By the U.S. Constitution, it is singular and
>>plural! We know that, because the terms "their"
>>and "them" are used as pronouns referring to the
>>"United States", e.g. treason against the "United
>>States" is "levying War against them" or
>>"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
>>Comfort". You probably memorized the names of
>>the "United States" in fifth grade. Was it
>>boring for you?
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 1 of 8
>>
>>
>> But, the term "United States" is also used
>>in the singular sense. It is one Nation. A
>>Nation is a natural thing. This one exists
>>because of the boundaries of the states. IT is
>>never defined in other terms. The term "United
>>States" is a geographical name -- one thing, one
>>Nation. The United States are one Union. The
>>United States is one Nation. Are you confused?
>>You isn't? I are!
>> Because "United States" is a noun ending in
>>"s", it can be either singular or plural.
>>"Jones' house" could mean the house of one person
>>(Mr. Jones), or many persons (Mr. and Mrs. Jones
>>and their 12 children). But, in either case, as
>>we learned in fourth grade, the apostrophe must
>>follow the "s".
>> Were you born in the United States? The
>>preposition "in" shows that "United States", in
>>that question, is a place -- a geographical place
>>named "United States". It is a singular noun.
>>You can only be born in one place; so, the term
>>"United States" is one place. When the term
>>"United States" is singular, it refers to a
>>natural place, a nation, a land.
>> When "United States" is a plural noun, it
>>refers to the "Union" of the several states.
>>Unions are things that are "Un-natural"; they
>>are things, not places. Unions, as We the People
>>said, need to be perfected; nations cannot be
>>perfected. Unions, all unions, exist by
>>agreement; Nations exist naturally.
>> The only requisite for citizenship is your
>>"place" of birth. Every Person is a natural
>>Citizen of some Nation. Nature is so important
>>to citizenship, that Persons wishing to change
>>citizenship must be NATURAL-ized. For those who
>>appreciate 2000-year-old terms, "naturalized"
>>means "born again". But, that's not important.
>>Just remember that original citizenship exists
>>because of places, not agreements. If you want
>>to get fancy, look up the definition of "Jus
>>soli" in a legal dictionary, like Black's Law
>>Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with pronunciations).
>> If you were born in the United States (the
>>"Nation", in the singular sense), you are
>>automatically a Citizen of the United States,
>>i.e. the United States, one place, one Nation.
>>Would you also like to join the "Union", the
>>United States (in the plural sense), "them"?
>>Sorry, only states can join this Union. People
>>cannot join this Union, although they can serve
>>in Congress. Carefully read the qualifications
>>for serving in the U.S. Senate and House of
>>Representatives; both qualifications share one
>>important thing: every qualified candidate must
>>be a Citizen of (one of) the United States.
>> At least that's how it was intended to be.
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 2 of 8
>>
>>
>> In 1867, "United States" was either the name
>>of a geographical place, or the name of a Union
>>of states. In 1868, a new meaning was created.
>>A third meaning. The Fourteenth amendment
>>accomplished this feat. It begins like this:
>>"All persons born ... in the United States and
>>subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
>>of the United States ...."
>> The problem here is that the Fourteenth
>>amendment uses the term "United States", first in
>>the singular, geographic, national sense (in the
>>United States), and then in the plural, Union
>>agreement sense (jurisdiction thereof) -- but it
>>did not make the word "jurisdiction" plural. It
>>should have read "jurisdictions thereof". But,
>>that would have been quite illogical, for places
>>do not possess jurisdiction. The Union had
>>jurisdiction over the several states, but not
>>over People, and We the People had jurisdiction
>>over the Union -- or so We said. Under the
>>definitions of the term "United States" circa
>>1867, the Fourteenth amendment made no sense.
>> Rather than to admit the foolishness of this
>>amendment (which was never lawfully ratified), a
>>new meaning was given to the term "United
>>States". It became a TITLE. This meaning was
>>never imagined by the Framers of the original
>>U.S. Constitution. They took great care in it to
>>grant no titles to the federal government. The
>>U.S. Constitution merely describes the government
>>of the United States; it used no Titles. The
>>best example of this fact is that the "supreme"
>>Court is spelled with a lower-case "s". The U.S.
>>Constitution "entitled" nothing. "We the People"
>>is the only real title used anywhere in that
>>document! In fact, titles of nobility are
>>expressly prohibited in the organic U.S.
>>Constitution. We the People had had our fill of
>>kings, and nobles of kings. You and I were
>>intended to be the only Nobility of this Nation.
>>Our title was our birthright; it was not granted
>>by the federal (feudal) government. It was not a
>>privilege -- it was a Right, a fundamental Right,
>>no less.
>> But, the Fourteenth amendment, while it
>>attempted to establish a title, did not eliminate
>>or change the prior meanings of the terms "United
>>States", or "Citizen", as those terms were used
>>in the organic U.S. Constitution. Hence, since
>>1868, the term "United States" has had three
>>different meanings: (1) the geographical name of
>>a Nation, (2) the name of a Union of states, and
>>(3) a title of nobility referring to a government
>>operating outside of the several states of the
>>Union. The first meaning is singular and
>>natural; the second meaning is plural and
>>created by agreement; the third meaning is
>>singular and granted.
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 3 of 8
>>
>>
>> But, wait! The federal government may grant
>>no titles of nobility. True. Very true. The
>>government of the United States may not, but you
>>can!
>> As a nobleman, you can grant a title, only
>>you. Plus, you can abdicate your title; you can
>>trade it for a new one. But, you can only trade
>>downwards, because the title you were born with
>>is the highest title. You can trade your high
>>title for a low one; that's a Right which you
>>possess. It's easy to do -- too easy, actually.
>>They have also made it as easy as possible,
>>because government agents want you to join their
>>vast herd of subjects.
>> All you need to do is to claim that your new
>>title is "citizen of the United States". Do
>>that, and you will instantly inform the rest of
>>the world that you are a person (lower-case "p")
>>who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United
>>States" [sic]. You will use "United States" as a
>>title conferred upon "citizen" (lower-case "c"),
>>and you will thereby prove that you believe the
>>"United States" is something (someone) other than
>>a geographical description, or the name of a
>>Union of states. By claiming that it has a
>>jurisdiction greater than your own, you grant it
>>a TITLE. The "person" who holds the highest
>>title of a Nation, and who subjects people to his
>>jurisdiction, is called a KING.
>> Have you ever claimed the title of "citizen
>>of the United States"? Did you ever get a Social
>>Security number and card? You did it. How about
>>a passport? Same thing. Passports and social
>>security are entitlements (read "en-TITLE-ment").
>>They are granted by the high noble, to the lesser
>>nobles. Entitlements are granted by the "United
>>States" (in the singular sense). This government
>>is a government of title. It exists side-by-side
>>with the constitutionally described "government
>>of the United States of America", under the
>>Constitution for the United States of America
>>(see Preamble).
>> Do you want proof? Take a look at anything
>>possessed by this government. On that object,
>>you will find a label, or a placard, or a sign.
>>It reads: "property of the United States
>>Government." It owns more property than any
>>feudal king ever dreamed of possessing, but then,
>>it also has more subjects than any feudal king
>>ever had, by far!
>> As a person of low title under the United
>>States (feudal) government, you are bound to obey
>>not only law, but a "Code" as well. Remember how
>>feudal knights had to obey a code -- a code of
>>chivalry? Well, the "Code" which a citizen of
>>the United States is bound to obey is called
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 4 of 8
>>
>>
>>("entitled") the "United States Code" (no
>>apostrophe). Originally, this Code was called
>>the "Code of Law of the United States", but it
>>was quickly filled with so much non-law that the
>>name was changed, so that persons (not "Persons")
>>claiming low title would know that it was for
>>them to obey. You did not realize this? Maybe
>>you don't deserve your birthright title!
>> At the same time, another problem arose.
>>The courts described in the Constitution had
>>jurisdiction (read "judicial power") in all
>>matters arising under the Constitution, the laws,
>>and the treaties of the United States, which were
>>made under THEIR authority, plural, the "Union".
>>If violators of the Code were to be punished by
>>the courts, or if the courts were to hear any
>>matter under their special "Code", then a new
>>court system had to be established -- a court
>>system for persons of low title (small "p").
>>These courts would be courts of title.
>> What are the names of these courts? Answer:
>>"United States District Court" and "United States
>>Court of Appeals". The courts described by the
>>U.S. Constitution would be "district Courts of
>>the United States", "appeals Court of the United
>>States", and "supreme Court of the United
>>States". It would appear that, since both titled
>>courts and constitutional courts must now exist,
>>side-by-side, then the judges must sit in either;
>>they really hold two jobs.
>> You determine which court by addressing your
>>petition to one or the other. You pick. The
>>titled courts are no place for a Freeman, a
>>Citizen of one of the United States of America.
>>These courts have a zillion rules (published for
>>the "Code"), right down to the kind of paper and
>>the style of type you must use in your pleadings.
>>The courts of the United States are quite the
>>opposite, having no published rules. These
>>courts are courts of Law, convened for Justice.
>>Trivial things like paper and type style have no
>>bearing on either. Here, substance always
>>prevails over form. For proof, examine 28 U.S.C.
>>2072(a), where constitutional courts are not even
>>mentioned in the authority which Congress granted
>>the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice
>>and procedure, and rules of evidence, but only
>>for titled courts -- United State district
>>courts.
>> If you are a citizen of the United States,
>>you will have to appear before a court of title,
>>at least in civil matters under the Code.
>>Jurisdiction in criminal matters is properly
>>still left to "district Courts of the United
>>States". Lucky criminals! Counterfeiters and
>>pirates fare far better than persons of low
>>title! Well, they should, for their Court
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 5 of 8
>>
>>
>>follows Law and Justice, while a United States
>>District Court follows only "Code".
>> Titled courts, like the United States
>>District Court, are harsh in their administration
>>of the Code, for they are bound to nothing else
>>(assuming the presiding judge is not also a
>>criminal). These courts will gladly take the
>>word of a United States ATTORNey over the word of
>>a petty citizen of the United States. To
>>"attorn" is to supervise the transfer an estate
>>from the old lord to the new lord; it is a term
>>from feudal law. When they attorn properly, they
>>are rewarded handsomely.
>> In courts of title, rank has its privileges.
>>These courts owe no allegiance to the U.S.
>>Constitution; they need not rule by the Laws of
>>the United States of America (the "Union"). They
>>follow only a Code. They obey their master, the
>>United States (feudal) government. These courts,
>>as did the infamous Crown Courts of England,
>>exist only for the benefit of the peerage and,
>>unfortunately, often to the detriment of the
>>Freemen of the land.
>> This "dual court" system is probably the
>>only reason for what, at first glance, appears to
>>be a set of contradictory "case laws". While a
>>reasonable mind can understand the potential for
>>divergent court holdings from one state to
>>another, the contradictions manifest in "federal"
>>court holdings are quite troubling, indeed.
>> Ever wonder how the "Supreme" Court can
>>overturn itself? Most often, it does not. But,
>>one can quickly see that the decisions of courts
>>of title, or "United States Courts", would oft
>>times conflict with the rules made by
>>constitutional "courts of the United States".
>>One hears only matters brought by titled
>>citizens, the other hears matters brought by
>>Freemen. Since the decisions are published in
>>the same volumes, with no distinction between the
>>courts, case law seems to contradict itself.
>> Should you find this "dual court" concept a
>>bit far fetched, examine the Internal Revenue
>>Code, sections 7402(b) and 7604(a). You will
>>find that these sections grant the authority to
>>two different courts to enforce a summons. The
>>sections are identical, word-for-word in every
>>respect, except for one: one section gives
>>authority to the "United States district courts"
>>and the other section gives authority to the
>>"district courts of the United States". For a
>>recent discussion of this all important
>>distinction, read "Karma and the Federal Courts"
>>in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
>> Why both? Income taxes are excise taxes.
>>They are an excise/occupation tax on a privilege.
>>The privilege is your title -- citizen of the
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 6 of 8
>>
>>
>>United States. A "first party" summons is served
>>upon a titled person. But, a "third party"
>>summons might be served upon anyone, titled or
>>not. Thus, one court must enforce the one; the
>>other court must enforce the other.
>> Since a titled person (lower-case "p") is
>>required by the Code to keep books, records and
>>papers, the court of title can demand the
>>delivery of those documents, without particularly
>>describing them, without describing the place to
>>be searched, without the presentment of an
>>accusation by a party under oath or affirmation.
>>Should a titled person fail to deliver up such
>>documents, he will find himself in jail for
>>contempt -- not contempt of court, but contempt
>>of the Code! A court of title may jail him for
>>failing to produce records which no one has even
>>claimed existed in the first place! He will be
>>released from jail only when he "creates" the
>>documents which a titled person is required to
>>possess.
>> Nowhere is the dual court / dual government
>>system more apparent than in tax matters. At
>>common law, titled individuals (but not the king)
>>are bound by an oath of allegiance, in order to
>>be entitled. Thus, income tax forms must be
>>signed only by persons under oath, persons who
>>are subject to the "penalties of perjury".
>>Signing such a form is a confession that you hold
>>title. The form is to be signed by a "citizen of
>>the United States" or a "resident of the United
>>States" (singular sense here). Hence, a signed
>>tax form is always introduced as evidence, in a
>>"criminal" tax prosecution, to show that the
>>defendant has claimed a title. Signed tax forms
>>need not be notarized, because they conform to
>>affirmations made "inside the United States".
>>For proof, see 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), and then
>>compare its companion at subsection 1746(1).
>> Perhaps you have heard that tax deductions
>>are granted by the "grace" of the United States
>>(feudal) government. It's true. Grace is a
>>favor, a privilege. Kings dispense grace; kings
>>deny grace. What is given in grace, may be
>>denied. The IRS will often deny tax deductions.
>>Search as we may, it is impossible to discover
>>where it is in the U.S. Constitution that the
>>federal government is authorized to dispense or
>>deny any "grace".
>> But, the government of the United States of
>>America does not dispense or deny grace; the
>>United States Government does. It dispenses and
>>denies grace to its subjects -- the citizens of
>>the United States. This king wears no crown, for
>>it has no head. It cannot be killed. It cannot
>>be harmed. It cannot even be sued, unless it
>>first "grants" its own permission to be sued. It
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 7 of 8
>>
>>
>>is hardly the same government which We demanded
>>would always allow Us to petition for redress of
>>grievances, an unalienable Right guaranteed by
>>the Petition Clause of the First Amendment!
>> This government-king has existed for over
>>100 years. At first, it was quite innocuous, for
>>it had very few subjects. But, when it tricked
>>Us, the People, into signing away our birthrights
>>via reams of forms, its power became immense.
>>Today, this government by title is so powerful
>>that the original, constitutional government of
>>the United States of America became lost in its
>>shadow.
>> There are still two governments. One asks
>>that you should serve it; the other only seeks
>>to serve you. The government of title will
>>entice you with promises of grants and
>>enTITLEments: welfare, social security, low-
>>interest loans, grants of exemption, grants of
>>deduction. But, it can give you nothing. It
>>exists only by your authority. It cannot give
>>you anything that you did not already possess.
>>Try as it might to deceive you, it exists by your
>>grace -- not the other way around!
>> Do Us both a favor: withdraw your grace;
>>deny your grace. Be a Citizen of one of the
>>United States of America again. Stop trying to
>>serve two masters; you can't do it. The Holy
>>Bible says so, and it is the Word of the Most
>>High. Stop pretending that you are subject to
>>the jurisdiction of the United States, and
>>announce that you are subject to the jurisdiction
>>of the Most High, and only the Most High. You
>>won't be, unless you choose to be. Even the
>>greatest earthly king is only a king by the
>>consent of his subjects. Make yourself subject
>>only to the King of kings. Stop being a subject
>>of anyone else, or anything else.
>> Be a free man!
>> Refuse to claim that you are a "citizen of
>>the United States". This term is identical to,
>>and should be replaced by, the term "federal
>>citizen", because the latter term is entirely
>>unique and cannot be confused with any other
>>legal term. Confer at "Federal citizenship" in
>>Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with
>>pronunciations). As a Citizen of one of the
>>United States of America, you may deny
>>jurisdiction to titled courts. Be aware that
>>this latter term, also known as "state Citizen",
>>is not defined in Black's Law Dictionary,
>>however. And, by all means, stop calling this
>>king by its title, the United States Government.
>>
>>
>> Sedition by Syntax: Page 8 of 8
>>
>>
>> # # #
>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal
>>witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C.
>>Irvine
>>
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256:
>>24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586
>>CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library
>>now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its
>>best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal
>>zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o
>>this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We
>>shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns
>>eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional
>>spacing.]
>>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail