Time: Fri Sep 05 05:03:34 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA12925;
	Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:02:32 -0700 (MST)
	by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA23055;
	Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:56:34 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 04:56:33 -0700
To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Right Way Practitioner Responds (fwd)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983,
is a codified version of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

As such, it is for federal citizens and resident
aliens, NOT for Citizens of the several states
of the Union.  Quoting:

"B.  Who is Protected;  Standing"

"853.  Generally"

"Rights under 42 USCS  1983 are for citizens
 of the United States and not of state.  Wadleigh v.
 Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941."

    [42 USCS  1983, n 853, "Civil Rights", p. 600]


Check it out for yourself!

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com



At 07:34 AM 9/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>*Jus Dare*
>Right Way Practitioner Responds
>
>From:             "Terry Anderson" <teasr@mail.zipcon.net>
>Organization:     TEASR Enterprises
>Subject:          Right Way to Prison?
>
>> *Jus Dare*
>> Right Way to Prison?
>> 
>> From: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
>> Subject: Re: [jus-dare] Right Way - L.A.W.
><...>
>
>> I am quite familiar with Right Way Law and know a number of
>> people who have both studied with Rick S. and attempted to use
>> his methods and paperwork.  Likewise I have heard many reports
>> of wins and pending wins.  Alas, however, I have NEVER met one
>> single person who has actually won and can prove it.  On the
>> other hand, I personally know and closely followed the case of
>> one fellow who went directly to prison using Right Way's
>> strategy in a Willful Failure to File trial. 
>>  I knew another fellow who was working very closely with them
>>  and
>> filed several Title 42 suits, worked them them some 2 years and
>> never won a thing.  With considerable friends and connections
>> around the country, as I said, all I can seem to come up with
>> is "reports" of wins -- no one with a published decision or a
>> judgement, much less an actual settlement check.
>
>I'm told that the typical win in a Title 42 lawsuit includes a 
>gag order which prohibits the plaintiff from divulging ANY
>information about the settlement. What RWL is suggesting for 
>those prosecuting such suits is that they keep others informed 
>about the proposed settlements during the negotiations so that 
>when nothing more is heard, they can assume that the settlement 
>is better than the last amount divulged. I do not know if any 
>suits have actually been prosecuted through a jury trial, but I 
>suppose RWL could, and would, tell anyone such information if 
>they asked them.
> 
>> I should say that I've listened to tapes of Rick S. chatting
>> with a friend, and I have no doubt, based upon what I heard,
>> that Rick S. himself can handle himself in a legal setting, is
>> totally commited to fighting the good fight and no doubt has
>> backed the gov't down himself a time or three.
>> 
>> Now this is not to question in any way the sincerity or motives
>> of anyone.  I myself have chased down a few ratholes before
>> having to admit to myself that a particular hole was going
>> nowhere.  But, Right Way has been around quite a while now and
>> if the strategies were working consistently, 
>
>No doubt that dealing with our INjustice system is largely 
>'cut-and-try' at best. Smith and company will research a 
>proposed 'procedure' and try it in a real situation to see what 
>results. Yup, even they have gone to jail for trying stuff! But 
>when they find something that 'works,'they will let others in 
>the club know about it - always with the proviso that there are 
>no guarantees. What works in this court may not work in that 
>court. Nice to have a legal system like this, isn't it?! But I 
>think on the whole they have done a lot of good research and 
>have some credible procedures and information to offer anyone 
>willing to look and learn. And you're correct - whoever uses the 
>suggested procedures should be WELL prepared through practice 
>(best if under pressure from a friend or spouse who can get in 
>your face and act mean and belligerant!) before they go to court 
>and use them. Not everyone is up to the task, and those who 
>'blink' first - lose!
>
>I don't think anyone will ever come up with the 'silver bullet' 
>procedure for any given court situation. When the judges act 
>like a god in their courts and dole out whatever they please, 
>regardless of law and written court rules (e.g. the IRS case on 
>your web page where the judge overruled the jury decision!!), 
>there is no real way to counter that except possibly to not ever 
>admit jurisdiction to them. To the best of my ability, that is 
>the way I plan to go. They'll put on a show - a bluff - but in 
>the end, my case will be dismissed if I never allow them 
>jurisdiction over me. 
>
>Will I be jailed? Maybe. Will it look like I'm going to lose big 
>time if I don't do such and such? Likely. But if I stay the 
>course, they have no recourse (remember: no guarantees!!) but 
>to dismiss and probably make it look like some procedural error 
>makes it necessary. Is this the silver bullet? Probably not, but 
>lacking anything better for the moment, and since they seem to 
>have most of the guns, it's my plan.
>
>I think you'll agree with me that anyone who contemplates the 
>patriot 'walk' is well-advised to count the cost first and then 
>prepare, prepare, prepare. Quite often preparation comes of 
>necessity while under the intense pressure of a legal situation 
>for which you know not what to do or which way to turn. Losing 
>the battles in court seem to be the norm while preparing to win 
>the war. I wonder if those who fought at Valley Forge pondered 
>what in the world they were doing there, freezing, hungry, tired 
>and still having to muster the strength to fight again and 
>again. I'm certainly thankful that with God's help those 
>patriots ultimately prevailed. With God's help, we will, too.
>
>>well, the way things spread in the desperate ranks of the 
>>patriot/tax movement, I have to thing Rick S. would be holding 
>>his seminars in the Kingdome to a packed house and the battle 
>>against the feds in court would have been reduced to a slam 
>>dunk by now. I fear such is not the case, but I'm all ears for 
>>anyone who has some case specifics they'd like to share. (much 
>>like James DeArman of Michigan did on another recent thread).
>> 
>> Thanks, however, for your sincere interest and  input.
>> 
>> Harold Thomas
>  *  *  *  *  *
>
>*Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>This list deals with the perversion of the Supreme Court.
>
>To subscribe, send the message "add yourmailname.server"
>in the body of a message to jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>or contact Dave Delany <freedom@hancock.net>
>
>Order the booklet _Jus Dare: Perverse Web of the Supreme Court_
>$8.00 postage paid, from
>
>Dave Delany's Freedom House  PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>*Jus Dare* is a service of Hearthside Family Publications.
>
>

========================================================================
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 3.0.3 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