Time: Sat Aug 30 05:33:59 1997
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13689;
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 06:21:02 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 06:19:26 -0700
To: psc@u.washington.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Less than 'full disclosure'?
Cc: <idzrus@nwlink.com>
See "Fraud" in Black's Law Dictionary:
One of several definitions is this one,
"... failure to disclose what should have
been disclosed."
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 04:15 PM 8/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
>In my humble opinion
>
>[A licence is a privelege granted to SUBJECTS for something that would
>otherwise be illegal
>Our rights are INALIABLE
>remember that the word "person " means corporation or 14 amendment (c)itizen
>not a (C)Itizen of the united States of America
>there is no disclosier of these facts of law in the measure
>It is a non binding contract IMHO and furthermore..
>RCW,s are not LAWS
> they are codes, and have seem to have (prima facia) enforcement authority
>via
> constructive fraud (defacto) and color of law, or no contest (nolo
>contender)
>The Constitution is the supreme law of the Land
>UCC 1-207:6 states (loosely) that even if you "sign" a contract with lack of
>reservation of rights (Without prejudice UCC1-207),
>As long as you are Acting as if you have NOT waved any rights, you are not
>bound to wave ANY unless they are explicit in the
>contract.
>So without full disclosure, any contract (licence) is void.]
>
>non-assumpsit
>
>
>
>-R---Original Message-----
>From: Jackie Juntti <idzrus@nwlink.com>
>To: Puget Sound Conservatives <psc@u.washington.edu>
>Date: Thursday, August 28, 1997 9:17 PM
>Subject: Less than 'full disclosure'?
>
>
>
>If you are thirsty and I offer you a glass of cool water but I omit telling
>you that there is arsenic in it, am I guilty of deception?
>
>Is failure to include crucial information important? In this case it
>certainly is!!!
>Please read these missing vital points:
>
>* Note that the initiative authorizes police to **seize handguns from
>anyone who *fails to comply* with the training and certification
>requirements.**
>
>Read the ENTIRE text of this initiative (and all others) at:
>http://www.wa.gov/sec/vote97/measures.htm
>
>,,,, from todays TNT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
>The Campaign Trail: Gun-rights groups have more to say
>
>Suit filed to require addition of 'crucial' info to initiative summary in
>pamphlet
>
>The Associated Press
>
>The state's analysis of a ballot initiative aimed at controlling handgun
>use leaves out details crucial to many voters, including the possibility of
>having their guns confiscated, a coalition of gun-rights advocates says in
>a lawsuit.
>
>Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess, backed by the National Rifle
>Association and other gun groups, filed a lawsuit late Monday in an effort
>to amend the summary of Initiative 676 in the state voters' guide for the
>November election.
>
>The initiative, billed as "The Handgun Safety Act," would require that
>handguns sold or transferred in the state be equipped with trigger-locking
>devices and that handgun owners obtain a "handgun safety license" after
>passing an exam or taking a safety course.
>
>The coalition's lawsuit, filed in Thurston County Superior Court, is
>scheduled for a hearing next Tuesday. Judges often rule on these kinds of
>cases immediately, since the voters' guide must go to press next month for
>distribution statewide in October.
>
>In its lawsuit, the coalition said the explanatory statement prepared by
>the attorney general's office for the voters' guide omits key details that
>could affect the outcome of the election. Among other things, the group
>proposes amending the summary to:
>
>* Put the initiative in perspective by reminding voters of the
>constitutional right to bear arms.
>
>* Note that the initiative authorizes police to seize handguns from anyone
>who fails to comply with the training and certification requirements.
>
>* Alert voters that people in life-threatening situations no longer could
>be granted an emergency license to carry a concealed handgun, as provided
>under current law.
>
>* Note the section that limits handgun safety licenses to people at least
>18 years old.
>
>"There are many crucial elements missing from the Attorney General's
>statement which highlight how poorly crafted and far reaching Initiative
>676 would be if passed into law," Alan Gottlieb, a director of the
>coalition, said in a news release accompanying the lawsuit.
>
>Karen Besserman, campaign manager for a group of political, health,
>religious and educational organizations backing the initiative, said
>gun-rights advocates are blowing smoke.
>
>"We think this is just another effort on Alan Gottlieb's part to divert
>attention away from the real merits of the law, which is to make the owning
>and operating of handguns safer," Besserman said.
>
>The attorney general's office is prepared to defend its summary, which is
>required by state law to be brief.
>
>"From what I can see, they don't object to what we said. They just think we
>should have said a lot more," assistant attorney general Jim Pharris said.
>
>The Campaign Trail, a roundup of election news, announcements and events,
>will appear throughout the 1997 political season.
>
>© Associated Press
>August 27, 1997
========================================================================
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