Time: Thu Oct 02 21:58:46 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20631;
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:48:50 -0700 (MST)
by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15642;
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:48:17 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 21:47:46 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: USPS Publication #221
References: <3.0.3.16.19971002145420.47d78834@pop.primenet.com>
You know, this legal theory is easily as good
as any other I have seen. If you can, take the
time to review the Grand Jury case in SLL, and pay
particular attention to the fate of the mail we tried
to send to the grand jury foreperson. None of that mail
ever made it, as far as we can tell! Just yesterday,
the local Postmaster returned a courtesy copy of one
of my pleadings, unopened -- RETURN TO SENDER.
This usually tells me a whole lot about who's really
scamming whom. This pleading contained the OFFER TO PROVE
RACKETEERING, which has circulated on the Internet already.
The "problem" with your theory, as I see it, is that military
authority is subservient to civilian authority, under the
U.S. Constitution. Putting an Article I, Section 8, legitimate
government activity under military control, is a direct
violation of this fundamental principle.
We are not at war; there has been no declaration of war;
and Congress is prohibited from ever declaring war against
the Citizens whom they serve. See definition of "treason"
in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
At 09:32 PM 10/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
>[snip]
>> The postal substation which we use has a sign which reads
>> "United States Post Office", in large bold letters,
>> on the outside of the building. The USPS is a municipal
>> corporation, domiciled in the District of Columbia.
>>
>> What we do know now is that the transition to the USPS
>> created a corporation which financed itself by
>> selling bonds to -- guess who? -- the international
>> bankers, who obtained a lien on future postal
>> revenues in return for bankrolling this system.
>[snip]
>
>> Yes, the several states of the Union are, indeed, "foreign"
>> with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.
>> That is why you want to use the format for "foreign addresses"
>> as defined in Publication #221 because, if they are foreign
>> with respect to us, then we are foreign with respect to them.
>>
>> There is reciprocity, and symmetry, in these legal relations.
>>
>> It is lawful for Congress to create a corporation, but such
>> a corporation can ONLY be domiciled in the District of
>> Columbia. Congress cannot create a corporation in its
>> capacity as the Legislature for the entire nation; such an
>> act would violate the Tenth Amendment. See Appendix "A"
>> in "The Federal Zone" for the pertinent citations,
>> particularly the Knox appendix to the winning brief which
>> is reproduced there.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://supremelaw.com
>>
>> copy: Supreme Law School, Dale Robertson, Frank Stamos
>
>I was told that the United States Postal Department was placed under the
>Department of the Navy via Nixion's Postal Reorginization Act, sometime
>around 1969. The USPD went on strike, which didn't raise much headline
>because there was a war at the time and people were distracted. The USPD
>never came back from that strike and instead was slipped under the DoN
>where it still remains today.
>
>Instead out shot this thing (like a bar of soap i'm told), with regs all
>written to take on the job called the U.S.P.S. The USPS was up and
>running in a flash, a private Corp trying to look like a government
>business. They got Trade Marks and Copy-Rights on all the things like,
>Zippy Codes, Mr. Zip, ZIP Codes, et al, and a company called Tripple X now
>owns all rights. They are in Atlanta Georgia.
>
>Is this incorrect?
>
>As an aside, it is interesting to note that in order to get a copy right
>on something like "ZIP Codes" the law says there has to be a 'first
>commercial use'. So if use of it is commercial (has to be if they got a
>copy-right on it), and you 'claim' to be in a federal area sending it to
>a federal area, then it falls under the commerce clause. No?
>
<snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail