Time: Fri Oct 03 21:21:40 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA21324;
	Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:01:03 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20821;
	Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:00:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 20:59:42 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Howard Freeman & the common law [sic]

Article I and Arcticle IV are very similar,
in that Congress can create municipal laws
within the federal zone, because there are
no state governments within that zone.  
Congress is the municipal authority within
that zone -- EXCLUSIVELY!

So, both are authorities for Congress to
legislate.  Howard Freeman made a most
pivotal contribution by raising our 
consciousness about the all-important
difference between federal municipal laws,
and national or general laws.  28 U.S.C. 1746
is a classic case in point, because it exhibits
the language "within" and "without";  this
statute governs the signing of Form 1040!!!

Nobody ever notarizes Form 1040, now do they??  :)
The perjury jurat therein is made pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2)!!!!!!  

More comments follow infra:

At 08:20 PM 10/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello Paul,
>   I've recently run into the theories of a man named Howard Freeman.
>They parallel your theories but deviate in a few interesting areas.  I
>hope Howard is not one of the Freemen that stiffed you, and if so you do
>not need to re-tell me of it.
>   Howard talked with a judge who said in 1939 there was a "change in
>policy".  This made me think of the time when you confronted
>Rehnquist with the question of federal judges paying Income Tax in
>violation of Art III Section 1, and Rehnquist responded that there had
>been a change in docterine, which sounds like it could be the same as the
>"change in policy."  Howard later ran into a federal judge who confided in
>him that 1939 was significant because that was when all the top people in
>the DoJ were told the U.S. was bankrupt to the international crediters.
>   I think you've heard these issues long ago, around the time you
>confronted Boxer.  Knowing you, you would have carefully looked into them
>to find any validity if any.
>So I wanted to ask:
>  1. What are your thoughts on the suggestion that a change from "public
>law" to "public policy" was made?

It started, full-swing, secretly, in 1933, when FDR
took office.  This sad era is now well documented
in the book entitled "The Roosevelt Coup D'Etat,"
which you can get from Vern Holland, in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.  This book is a real eye-opener.
For example, Dr. Vieira regards FDR as a real
criminal;  I agree with Vieira.  See "Return to
Constitutional Money" in the Supreme Law Library
for Vieira's trenchant analysis.  I gave Vern Holland
his original copy of "The Roosevelt Coup D'Etat,"
which Vern now sells for a nominal cost.

It took 5 years for the matter to reach the 
U.S. Supreme Court, in Erie Railroad, but it
appears now to have been a contrived case.
To say that there is no federal common law
is to throw out the Seventh Amendment, 
which refers expressly to common law [sic].

Now you know why our attack on the Jury Selection
and Service Act is so fundamental -- because that
Act convenes grand juries in criminal cases,
and trial juries in both criminal and civil cases!
The challenge goes to the very foundation of
who makes the decisions in judicial settings,
even if the matter is strictly civil!

Hence, all the economic retaliation which you
see happening to me.  ;-(

The case to watch is USA v. Gilbertson, because
the full thrust of most of our arguments was
condensed into the 50-page limit imposed upon
that OPENING BRIEF.  But, Gilbertson quickly 
demonstrated a RADICAL change of attitude
when he went to prison;  I believe he was
either drugged, brainwashed, or terrified into
turning against me.  Someone would have to be
absolutely crazy to jettison such a massive 
amount of work.  Seven full YEARS of research
are poured into that one brief, and _NO ONE_
has been able to point out a single error
(with the exception of 2 typos, which were
subsequently corrected, clerically, and then
in the SLL version now available on the Internet).

One netizen tried to argue that our construction
of 28 U.S.C. 297 was wrong, but he had not bothered
to investigate the true legislative history of
that particular statute -- the "freely associated
compact states" are the Union states.  That 
amendment to Title 28 arose in Alaska!!

>  2. What are your thoughts on using 1-207 to reserve for yourself that
>the contract be in harmony with previous common law?

The numbers change, but the concepts do NOT change.
Use "All Rights Reserved" or "All Rights Reserved without Prejudice."
You see the first of these two in movie credits, book copyright
pages, and on the opening screens in many software packages.
It expressly reserves all your fundamental Rights under the
Tenth Amendment.  Howard explained it tersely, and I expanded
upon his terse explanation, in several pleadings which will
soon be loaded in the Supreme Law Library.

>  3. What are your thoughts on having to reserve 1-207 whenever a
>real person enters a contract that uses FRNs and who objects to the
>fact that he has no choice but to use these corporate notes in lieu of
>real money?

Again, don't use the numbers, and try to avoid
referring to the U.C.C., because it could lead
to the conclusive presumption that you are 
actually in "commerce," making you subject to
the Commerce Clause.  See U.S. v. Lopez for 
a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the
proper construction of this clause.  I believe
it ONLY authorizes Congress to regulate commerce
among the several State governments, NOT among
the inhabitants of the several States.  Just 
do a simple construction, and you will see that
the Framers omitted any reference to the 
"Inhabitants" in that Clause.  I hold a minority
view on this question, however.

>  4. I never hear you mention U.C.C., so you must not like it.  Why?

For the reasons I just gave you.

>I know you might not be able to find time to answer each of these 
>questions, but I can only ask if I ever expect to recieve.

No, I do my best to answer ever sincere and
well considered question.  You would just
not believe the huge number of off-the-wall
and "free-loader" questions we get here.
Yours have always been excellent and well
founded.  My compliments.

>See ya,
>Exclusively a Citizen of California Republic.
>Under reservation.          <--- that is my ucc reservation btw
>Appended below is a summery of Howard's points.
>   "The change in our system of law from "public law" to "private
>   commercial law" was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
>   States in the Erie Railroad vs Thompkins case of 1938. After this
>   case, in the same year the procedures of law were officially blended
>   with the procedures of Equity."
>Also known public policy.
>   "Through its
>   cunning Congress offered grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve
>   Notes) which were given to the 50 States of the Union for education,
>   highways, health, and other purposes, thus binding all the States of
>   the Union into a commercial agreement with The Federal United States
>   (as distinguished from The Continental United States).
>   Having accepted the "benefits" offered by The Federal United States as
>   the consideration of a commercial agreement between The Federal United
>   States and each of the Corporate States, the Corporate States were
>   then obligated to "obey" the Congress of The Federal United States and
>   also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of The Federal
>   United States to the International Banking Houses,..."
>   "At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the
>   two nations the "benefit" of limited liability in the discharge of all
>   debts, telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the
>   Republic were out-of-date and cumbersome, so they no longer needed to
>   PAY their debts in substance, but were now privileged to discharge
>   debt with this more "convenient" currency, issued by The Federal
>   United States.
>   "This system of negotiable paper, binding all corporate entities of
>   government together in a vast system of Commercial Agreements, is what
>   has altered our Court system from one under the Common Law, to a
>   Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal system of Commercial Law.
>   Under this Tribunal system of Commercial Law, those brought before it
>   are held to the letter of every statute of government on the Federal,
>   State, County or Municipal levels UNLESS they have exercised the...
>   Remedy within this Commercial System of law, which Remedy is today
>   found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) at Section
>   207."
>When he says "Legislative Article I Court" I am sure he is meaning Art. IV
>territorial courts.
>Also I found a letter by Mitch Modeleski to Howard:
>   c/o P. O. Box 6189
>   San Rafael, California Postal Code 94903/tdc
>   May 1, 1991
>   Mr. Howard Freeman c/o P. O. Box 364 Lusk, Wyoming Postal Code
>   82225/tdc
>   Dear Howard:
>   I attended your seminar on the U.C.C. last Saturday in Pleasanton,
>   California, and want you to know I was very impressed by the depth of
>   your knowledge on this subject. Your lecture style was most
>   informative and most entertaining. I will look forward to receiving
>   the video tape of this lecture.
>   We have recently assembled a number of papers and letters which
>   document our continuing research and political action with respect to
>   the 16th Amendment and related subjects. Copies of these assembled
>   papers and letters are enclosed, for your review. I would appreciate
>   any comments you may have on this material.
>   I am also very interested to learn more about the difference between
>   "public law" and "public policy," as you used these terms. You will
>   recall telling us about your confrontation with a federal judge who
>   said that Supreme Court decisions prior to 1938 were "too old." If
>   something happened in government which rendered obsolete all U.S.
>   Supreme Court decisions prior to 1938, where is the record of this
>   event? In the Federal Register? In the Congressional Record? In some
>   enacted law? To what event was this judge referring? Could you be more
>   specific about the relevant events of 1938?
>   Would it be possible for you to prepare a signed affidavit which
>   documents the conversation which you had with this judge? I am
>   beginning to think that evidence like this ought to be sufficient to
>   put judges on the witness stand (at the appropriate time and place, of
>   course!) particularly if they have been holding secret meetings to
>   decide the fate of free citizens without publicizing those decisions
>   in any way.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail