Time: Sat Nov 08 16:52:30 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02289;
	Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:43:00 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09970;
	Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:41:40 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd009919; Sat Nov  8 16:41:29 1997
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:41:32 -0800
To: "Gary G. Cox" <coxgg@Flash.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: 6th Amendment Challenge (fwd)

>                      by Howard J. Freeman
>             --------------------------------------
>                          AMENDMENT VI
>     "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
>right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the 
>State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, 
>which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and 
>to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;  to be 
>confronted with the witnesses against him;  to have compulsory 
>process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the 
>assistance of counsel for his defence."  
>     Since we often deal with usurpation of power by the 
>hirelings of government, it is not a single lawless action that 
>we must contend with, but rather a 180 degree turning in the 
>"order of power" making the sovereign citizens, under "de jure" 
>government, into subjects of the bureaucrats in our present "de 
>facto" government."
>     We all know that true "law" leaves everyone free to do as 
>one pleases so long as there is no damage done to life, liberty 
>or property of another.  Upon a sworn complaint of damage by a 
>fellow sovereign citizen, one may be brought into a Court of Law 
>and ordered to pay for proven damage to another.  That is where 
>true law ends.  When we come upon something "called" law which 
>compels us to perform in some specified manner, we know that what 
>is "called" law in that instance, is "not true law," but that it 
>properly comes under what our Constitution terms as "equity." 
>Equity Jurisdictions are authorized in our Constitution, and they 
>stem from our unlimited right to contract.  An Equity 
>Jurisdiction compels performance upon the exact letter of any 
>contract obligation.  So any statute, ordinance or regulation 
>which compels us to perform in a specified manner must, of 
>necessity, involve a contract of some kind:  be it written, oral 
>or implied.  It is around "implied" contracts that licensed 
>attorney legalese has worked to "use our Constitution" to destroy 
>our rights declared to be inalienable rights by the Constitution 
>and unalienable by the Declaration of Independance, the Supreme 
>Law of the Land and of the Law of Nations.
>     The Constitution is still an obstacle in the path of those 
>who seek complete and absolute mastery over the citizens of this 
>nation.  The obstacle in the path is, that State Statutes or City 
>Ordinances that compel performance around a contractual base of 
>American contractual law must be considered "Civil" Statutes or 
>"Civil" ordinances to be enforceable in an Equity Jurisdiction, 
>and Article III, Sec.  2, Clause 2 of the U.S.  Constitution 
>states that any Civil controversy in which a State is a party, 
>cannot be tried in a State Court, but that the U.  S.  Supreme 
>Court has original jurisdiction in such cases.  So, States and 
>Municipalities, in order to try violations of State Statutes or 
>Municipal Ordinances in their own Courts, have to declare that 
>said violations are of a "Criminal" nature, since State and 
>Municipal Courts are empowered with a Criminal Jurisdiction to 
>hear offenses against the people of the City.  It is in this area 
>that the Sixth Amendment approach to a jurisdictional challenge 
>is effective, and it works as follows:
>     Suppose you are stopped for not using your car's seat belts 
>in a State which has a statute that compels performance in the 
>fastening of seat belts in any moving motor vehicle.  It is 
>foolish to talk to the arresting officer;  demand of him only 
>that you be tried in a Court of Record.  At arraignment in such a 
>Court the Judge will read the charge, and the State Statute that 
>you supposedly violated.  He will call the Statute Law, but you 
>know that it is not true law, because it compels performance, but 
>let the Judge have his say because your chance will come later. 
>After the Judge reads the charge, and the "law" you violated, he 
>will ask if you understand the charge against you.  Always say 
>"No." The Judge will then ask what it is about that simple 
>charge, that even a fool could understand, yet you do not 
>understand?  Tell him that the Sixth Amendment to the U.  S. 
>Constitution requires him to inform you of the "nature" and 
>"cause" of the action against you.  Ask him:  "Judge, is the 
>action against me in this Court a Civil Action, or a Criminal 
>Action?" The Judge, now answering under your Sixth Amendment 
>authority to ask, will tell you that the action before his Court 
>in this particular case is a Criminal Action.  Now, while you 
>have the Judge responding to your first question, ask him the 
>question, that he does not want to answer.
>     Question #2 is as follows:
>     "Judge, I need further instruction regarding the 'nature' of 
>this charge pending against me in order that I may properly 
>defend against it.  As you know, Judge, there are two separate 
>and distinct, Criminal Jurisdictions authorized for this Court by 
>the U.  S.  Constitution:  One is for Criminal Action under a 
>Common Law Jurisdiction, and the other is a Condition of Contract 
>violation under the Criminal Aspects of an Admiralty 
>Jurisdiction.  As you well know, Judge, the defenses for a 
>Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction are distinctly 
>different from the defenses under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. 
>Which Jurisdiction:  Common Law or Admiralty, is this Criminal 
>Action pending against me to be tried under?"
>     There are four possible responses that you will receive from 
>the above question.  I will cover all four:
>     Response #1:
>     "This is a Crime against the People of this State so it is a 
>Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction."
>     With that response, you now repeat into the record of the 
>case as follows:  "Thank you Judge, let the record of this 
>particular case against this particular individual (include your 
>name) show that this Court has gone on record as stating that the 
>pending Criminal Action in this case is to be tried under a 
>Common Law Jurisdiction." If the Judge does not dispute you at 
>this point, you have set a Common Law Case in concrete, and no 
>future Court can alter that fact.
>     Now you can ask that the case be dismissed for want of 
>jurisdiction, since there is no injured party in this case to 
>give the Court a cause of action under a Common Law Jurisdiction. 
>Also, in a Common Law Jurisdiction, you have ALL of your rights 
>from the Magna Charta through the Constitution, and it is a 
>felony under 18 U.S.C.  Section 241 for any Judge to deny you any 
>right guaranteed by the Supreme Organic Law of the land (under 
>said Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, which is 
>now established in the record of the case.) You may put the Judge 
>on Constructive Notice of the above law, which if violated after 
>Constructive Notice of same, causes the Judge to lose his immune 
>status as a judge, opening him to trial as an individual on the 
>felony charges.
>     Response #2:  (of the Judge to question #2)
>     "I am sorry.  I am not here to advise you on the law.  If 
>you want answers to such questions, I advise you to contact a 
>licensed attorney."
>     YOU:  "But, your honor, the Constitution requires this Court 
>to tell me the nature of this Criminal Action pending against me. 
>How can I properly defend myself, which I am lawfully entitled to 
>do, if I am not told the type of Jurisdiction the case is to be 
>heard under?
>     THE JUDGE:  "I told you before, if you want answers to legal 
>questions of this nature I advise you to secure the services of a 
>licensed attorney."
>     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor, I would like the record of 
>this case to show that this court has refused my request made, 
>under the authority of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 
>Constitution, to be informed of the 'nature' of the jurisdiction 
>by which this Criminal Action is to be tried, and would like the 
>record to show that the Criminal Action pending against (your 
>name) is a Criminal Action under a secret jurisdiction known only 
>to licensed attorneys making it impossible for one to defend 
>himself in Propria Persona."
>     Response #3:  (of the Judge to question #2)
>     THE JUDGE:  "This case is to be tried under Statutory 
>     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor.  I am not acquainted with the 
>Court rules for such a Jurisdiction.  I will, however, accept 
>such Jurisdiction if this Court, prior to trial date, will 
>provide me with, or tell me where I can find a book containing 
>the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction."
>     Since there are no such rules published, the Judge will 
>advise you to obtain the services of a licensed attorney.  At 
>that point, speak into the Court Record as listed in Response #2 
>that the Court intends to conduct a Criminal Action against you 
>under a secret jurisdiction known only to licensed attorneys.
>     Response #4:  (of the Judge to question #2)
>     THE JUDGE:  "This case will be tried under an Admiralty 
>     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor, but, as you know, an Admiralty 
>Jurisdiction depends upon a valid international contract in 
>dispute.  I am not aware of having entered into any such contract 
>and so I deny that any such contract exists.  Will you have this 
>prosecuting attorney prove into the record of this case that a 
>valid international contract exists as a fact of law, and that I 
>am a party to said contract, and that my being a party to said 
>contract obligates me to obey this State Statute #_____" etc.
>     Most prosecuting attorneys would be at a loss to offer such 
>proof.  This takes the problem off the Judge's back, and places 
>it on the back of the prosecuting attorney (where it belongs!). 
>Failure of proof of Admiralty Jurisdiction on his part is ground 
>to have his action dismissed by the Court.
>     Should you run into a learned prosecuting attorney, who 
>would dare to expose the legalese by which the order of power in 
>the United States has been turned upside down, allow him to 
>proceed with his proof, which will be along this fashion:
>     "Your Honor, in 1933 the American People, being sovereigns 
>in this country, voted Franklin D.  Roosevelt into the position 
>as their spokesman and president.  In order to accomplish the 
>task desired of him, Mr.  Roosevelt had to spend more money than 
>the sovereign citizens were willing to pay in taxes.  This made 
>it necessary for the people's representative to borrow bank 
>credit from the International Banking Houses.  It was written 
>into that loan contract that the loans of bank credit, in 
>addition to the interest (usury) upon them were to be repaid in 
>gold coin.  By the year 1938 the International Banking Houses had 
>extended their credit to the United States in excess of the gold 
>coin, available for repayment of same, thus the former sovereign 
>citizens of the Nation, through Mr.  Roosevelt their 
>representative, could no longer meet their contract obligations 
>to pay their international debts in gold coin, and they lost 
>their sovereign status under the Common Law, because of this 
>default on the debt to the International banking houses, and the 
>Bar Associations accomodated the situation by blending "law" with 
>"equity" in 1938 in such a way as not to alarm the American 
>citizens over their newly acquired servile status.  As every 
>licensed bar attorney knows, the rules of equity are quite 
>different from the rules of law.  American equity compels 
>performance upon the letter of a contract obligation, or in the 
>interest of the creditor in case of financial default, but it 
>allows a jury trial for controversy above $20.00, and it outlaws 
>debtors prisons.  However, the equity jurisdiction of 
>International default on debt is tried in Admiralty Courts, which 
>do not recognize any of the constitutional protections of 
>American Equity Courts, since they are international.  A Jury in 
>an Admiralty Court is only advisory to the Chancellor (called 
>Judge) who may rule contrary to a jury verdict if he wishes. Also 
>Admiralty Courts impose Criminal penalty on those who fail to 
>perform.  The legislative bodies in America today, no longer pass 
>Public "law" statutes, pursuant to the limitations upon such 
>statutes by National and State Constitutions, but rather our 
>legislative bodies in America are now the Sovereign, over the 
>Courts and Executive officers, as well as over all of the so-
>called citizens, and their function is to pass Public "policy" 
>statutes in the interest of the nation's creditors, which civil 
>statutes contain Criminal penalties under an Admiralty 
>Jurisdiction.  In this particular Public Policy Statute requiring 
>the fastening of seat belts, the defendant is charged with a 
>Criminal Action for his failure to perform within a public policy 
>statute written in the interest of the Nations' Creditors, who 
>feel they want this man protected from his own careless behavior 
>because dead men pay no taxes, and the nations' Creditors need 
>this man's labor to help pay the International debt, which is in 
>default.  This Court has an Admiralty Jurisdiction over the 
>person of this defendant in this Criminal Action, because he 
>failed to perform according to the contract for the repayment of 
>the nation's debt." Your answer to the above is to challenge the 
>validity of a contrct to which you were not a direct party and 
>you inform the Court that the validity of the international 
>Contract, lupon which this case rests, must be settled before the 
>trial on issues may begin.
>     * * * * * * Howard L.  Freeman, an avid student of law and 
>sovereignty for more than 30 years, is a retired civil engineer. 
>He lives in Lusk, Wyoming.
>                          O U T L I N E
>Note:  this outline of Mr. Freeman's work is not complete.  I got 
>interrupted and never finished it.  Read the text carefully.  
>Maybe you can finish it.
>                COMMON LAW
>                            THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY
>                ADMIRALTY
>                      HAVE ATTORNEY PROVE INTO RECORD
>                            VALID INT'L CONTRACT EXISTS
>                            YOU ARE PARTY TO CONTRACT
>                            CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE STATE
>                      SEE CIVIL
>                GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
>                      SEE CIVIL
>     CIVIL
>                             (THEY DON'T EXIST, but if you ask 
>                              this question, the judge might just 
>                              refer you to the court rules of 
>                              another jurisdiction.) 
>                      GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY (SEE NEXT)
>                GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
>                            THIS CRIMINAL ACTION.  LET THE RECORD
>                            SHOW SECRET JURISDICTION
>               ----------------------------------
>7 audio 60-minute tapes of Howard Freeman for total of $20
>Tape Titles:
>Order tapes from:
>     Pastor Dan Gaymon (417)432-3119
>     c/o Church of Israel
>     Route 1, P.O. Box 62-B-3
>     Schell City, MO  64783
>Bill Martin
>12603 8th ave So.
>Seattle Washington

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