Time: Fri Nov 14 05:37:34 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA05636;
	Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:22:50 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA21698;
	Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:21:39 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:22:05 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Snorri Sturlusson on Civil Law (fwd)

>Dear Paul,
>	You might consider putting this file in the SLS library.
>	This article was one of the turning points in my thinking about law. 
>There is no jury corollary in Roman Lex.
>	One of the surest way to control thinking is to control the definitions
>of words.  I will never be able to look at "Lex" again and call it
>	I have always wondered why they associate the word "Law" with Civil,
>STatutory, Military, etc.  As an aggregate they have nothing in common
>with "law".
>	Unfortunately "Law" only works with those who are willing to govern
>themselves by making the committment to voluntarily "obey" the "law".
>				<snip>
>I ran across this article a couple of years ago.  Who says "Civil" is just
another kind of "Law."
>Read and Enjoy.  <snip>
>	Copyright by Snorri Sturlusson
>	A "Law" Story Hour?
>	This past week a number of the children of the St. George area had a
"story hour"where they were told the "tales" that make Law easy to
understand.  And, when we say "Law", we mean that which is the source of
the civil rights of all of the English-speaking people!
>	They were told these tales by the nationally-known author who uses the
pen-name Snorri Sturlusson (the name of the man who hundreds of years ago
wrote down the tales that are the only story we have of the origin of the
>	After that "story hour" the children said that the Law is fun, exciting
and easy to understand...not at all a threatening, forbidding type of thing.
>	The Law is Easy to Understand!
>	Is That Possible?
>	That might not sound possible, because that would mean that it would be
easy for the average person to understand the Law.  Law is something of
which it is normally thought that it is impossible for the average person
to understand.  It is so much that way that Law is frequently conceived of
as where the "poor, little" thinking of average people gets summarily
dispensed with...a kind of "slaughterhouse" that is waiting at the end of
the road for the poor, little thinking of average people.  But, beyond
that, Law is one specialty that even seems to be beyond the grasp of its
>	Yes, the Law seems to be one thing of which even the top experts that are
involved in it say, "It is impossible for anyone to understand it."  If we
take the entire spectrum of those involved in the Legal Profession we might
expect such an attitude as that from its initiates, say the first- year
students in a Law school just coming upon some of those weighty things
which add up to create a slaughterhouse of human dreams.  But, this
profession is one wherein the higher one goes, it seems the less confidence
there is that anyone will ever be able to really understand the Law.
>	Taking these two things together, the jolt to average people when they
that the best thinking they can come up with has just collided with the
slaughterhouse of human dreams and the knitted brows of those operating
that operation...in increasing doubt, call it even "despair," that anybody
is ever going to be able to have a real firm grasp on what is going
on...and you frequently encounter the same type of gloom that you feel at a
sad funeral, where helpless mankind encounters the unknown.  "Aren't the
funeral looks and the knitted brows on the top 'pros' our physical evidence
that it is impossible for anybody to understand Law?"  "And, that being so,
isn't it even out of the question to talk about it being easy for average
people to understand Law?"
>	In reality the absolute opposite is true from what one would assume about
the impossibility for average people to understand Law from the
acknowledged impossibility that it is for the professionals.  The reality
is that it is not only easy for the average man to understand Law, but it
is also easy for him to control it for the benefit of himself, family,
neighbors, etc., in the manner in which you would expect a professional to
be able to.  "Well, here we have a complete paradox, don't we?"  If it
seems that we have a complete paradox in what has been said in this article
to this point, it can be easily removed if we only observe the fact  that
in which the professionals of whom we have been speaking are involved and
that into which the initiates whom we mentioned are being initiated, is not
>	It is "Byzantine Lex."
>	"Byzantine Lex" is a technical way of naming the System of rules begun by
the Roman
>Emperor who was kicked out of Europe proper by Anglos and their first
cousins and who had to begin his Roman Empire all  over again In Asia, or
just barely Inside of Europe at the 
>village of Byzantium.
>	The Anglos, who finally responded to his and his predecessors' ceaseless
efforts to conquer them by throwing the entire Roman Empire organizational
leadership out of Europe, were the "Primitive" Christians. The Byzantine
Lax which that Roman Emperor devised to undermine those Anglos was his and
his successors' plan to take over the leadership of Christianity, turn It
Into the slaughterhouse of human dreams, If they could, and In that manner
fight back at those Anglos.
>	What is frightening is how this now ancient struggle has so swiftly
flared up to the proportions that it has in this our beloved U.S.A. in
recent decades.
>	Americans can see the heart of the issue clearly if they will just review
the very simple Law history of our fathers and mothers here in this land.
When those Anglo fathers and mothers of ours, the Pilgrims and their
Puritan successors, first came to this land they brought with them
>the essential persuasion of historic Anglos as their understanding of what
Law is. This they
>established here In North America as the functioning "Law of the Land,"
with such all-pervasive
>effect in all that is done here among their children to this day.
>	'And what was that understanding?"
>	That all that "Law" Is, Is the religion of Jesus Christ.
>	All trials in colonial New England were jury trials. "Why 'twelve' men in
a jury?" "Why, for Jesus' 'twelve' apostles, of course!" "What was the
ultimate law book with ALL of the answers, for all Law?" "Why, their newly
published Bible (the King James Version had just appeared in 1611), of course"
>	Shortly after they came here and established this System, Old England
became a
>slaughterhouse in fact over nothing other than this self-same Anglo Idea
that Jesus is Law. This
>was the English Civil War of the 1640's and 1650's. During that period,
when the tide went one
>way and then the other for the opposing parties In Old England, this basic
Anglo Idea matured to
>the point where It was able to last in the form that it has here down to
our day.
>	Byzantine Lax emerged with a new lease on life in England when during
that period of strife it was able to prove to the people of England once
and for all that the Common Law of England did not originate from the
Bible. The fundamental tenet of Byzantine Lex Is: "Nobody can know what is
good for them (inclusive, of course, of everything that Christianity might
think that it has to say on the subject to the contrary), that is the
'state' of their minds (the concept of "the State" from Greek Antiquity)
and that since that is the State, only the people currently in power could
have even a theory of a right to control the rest." And, just as Byzantine
Lex re-emerged with a renewed vigor in England at that time, so it has for
a variety of  reasons found the explosive growth that it has in the U.S.A.
in recent decades.  So, then, the reason for the funereal looks on the
faces of the craftspeople that are running the slaughterhouse of American
dreams Is not for the difficulty that they have in understanding "Law."  As
we will soon see, they do not understand the first thing about "Law." They
do not have anything at all to do with Law. All that they know, all that
they ever study, is Byzantine Lex, rules built upon the theory that nobody
can have any idea of what It is that is good for them. That Is the reason
for the knitted brows and the funereal looks.
>	"In view of this predicament just introduced -- that it looks like there
is a big, phony sideshow that advertises itself as Law, that has apparently
buffaloed almost everyone into believing that it really is Law, but that in
reality has nothing whatsoever to do with Law -- is it ever going to be
possible to bring the Law down to my level, where I can understand it in
its simplicity?" Or, saying that in another way, "Is it ever going to be
possible to get an understanding of exactly what Law is down to the point
where it is simple, even personal, 
>to the average man, such as myself?"
>	The answer to that question is, "Yes."
>	I can state what Law is in a simple, personal way. It is: "No one has
ever been able to take the life, liberty of property of myself, my father
or any of his English forefathers except that we get to be judged the way
that Jesus said that nice people get to be judged in the Bible."	"How did
Jesus say that nice people get to be judged, in the Bible?"
>	Paraphrasing, he said, "I am a God and have never done even the littlest
thing wrong, so it really isn't fair for me to judge the nice people,
because they have all done some little thing
>wrong; so, I am not going to." He said to "... the twelve ... that ye may
sit on thrones judging
>the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22). Elsewhere he said, including his
twelve, "If you are not
>one you are not mine."
>	From time immemorial it has been the Law that no one has been able to
take the life, liberty or property of myself, my father or his English
forefathers except twelve of our peers -. not someone who is better than us
-- unanimously, as one man, find that I or they have broken this Law that
we have all shared In common back through immemorial time to the extent
that I or they should be deprived of our life, liberty or property.
>	One might say, "That is profound; where do they have this kind of a System?"
>	In all of the places settled by people from England, such as the U.S.A.,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
>	"Any place else?"
>	Well, yes, in the land where they all came from originally, England.
>	"That is interesting; how did it get to England?"  
>	Nobody knows.	
>	"Nobody knows!  What do you mean 'nobody knows'?  Somebody has got to know!"
>	If in your studies you should come upon something that took place in
England in the year 1188 that you think might be of importance to a case
being tried in your local courthouse and you went to tell the judge, the
judge might say that the information is of no importance to the court at
all.  The judge might say, "This court is only in the business of what has
happened in England and here since 1189.  Before 1189 is 'beyond legal
>	The way that this situation came about had. to do with the fact that in
the early 1200's the "big shots" running England and the lands thereabout
had just achieved their ultimate victory in the Crusades. They had just
taken over "Byzantium." As they did they began a spate of trying to
>impose Byzantine Lex in their northwest European homelands.  (Once again,
very simply,
>Byzantine Lex Is the Ancient Greek concept of "the State," which is that
the "state" of the
>minds of all men Is that they cannot know' what Is good for them,  so the
only hope left for them is that the big shots currently shoving them around
have been put there by Divine providence.)
>	When this happened in England in the early 1200's the people of England
rose up to defend their ancestral Law against this massive introduction of
Byzantine Lex. They said to the king, "You have got to stop ignoring; Jury
trials." He said, "Oh, all  right, I'll be bound by what has happened in
jury trials back to the day when my brother ascended the throne In 1189."
That is the Magna Carta.
>	Thereafter the big shots still kept trying to Impose as much of their
Byzantine Lex as they could, through legislation and other means which they
maintained were legal; but now they had
>to at least pay lip service to the ancestral Law of Englishmen. So, the
big shots started calling It "the English Common Law," thereby establishing
their insinuation that their Byzantine "Lex" was another, just as valid,
form of "Law." This now ancient insinuation gone wild of late in the
>U.S.A. Is the cause behind the fact that nearly one hundred percent of the
governmental actions taken upon the people of the U.S.A. today in the name
of "Law" actually have nothing at all to do with "Law" but are only
Byzantine Lex. Big shots have been able to keep Byzantine Lex alive
>and flourishing because they have a complete, "living" history of its
development, as a complete "organic" entity, all of the way from the
ancient Greeks and Romans, down to the time when some aspect of it was
introduced Into the lives of Englishmen, down to the situation of that
aspect today. The English Common Law, on the other hand, has no such
formally recognized "living" history of its development, which is all
important to it since it has made history or "precedent" Law among the
English-speaking people. By contrast, it has only  the withering "stump"
that has been left to it after the dismemberment of its previous history by
the Byzantine Lex doctrine of "legal memory."  "Well that is terrible. Our
precious ancestral heritage of the English Common Law is, at best,  stuck
in a box canyon without any hope for any  progress because of this doctrine
of 'legal memory.'
>	Yes. "Isn't there any other place in the world where they have a Law
System similar to 'real' law, that could give us some clues to the living
'organic'  history of Law'?"
>	Yes.
>	"Where?"
>	In the lands where the Englishmen came from originally, to get to England
in the first place.  The original home of the "Angles" was "'Angle land" in
>	"You mean to say that in Scandinavia, in Denmark and, presumably, in
Sweden, Finland,
>Norway, Iceland etc., they have a Law System similar to our English Common
Law System, with
>twelve-man juries, parliaments etc.?"
>	Yes.
>	"What do they call it?"
>	Law.
>	"They call it 'Law'? Twelve-man juries? Parliaments? Do they know where
It comes from?"
>	Yes.
>	"Well, where did they learn that?"
>	In the first grade.
>	"In the first grade? Well, how come they know and we don't?"
>	When the big shots from Northwest Europe temporarily had such fortune to
have conquered Byzantium in the Fourth Crusade. they wanted to impose their
new  found trove of Byzantine Lex in Scandinavia as well as in the more
southerly lands they ruled, such as England.
>	Whereas England had a large enough population to resist them. as told
above in the. story of the Magna Carta, the sparsely populated Scandinavian
country of Iceland temporarily fared more poorly.    There the big shots of
Crusades fame temporarily overthrew the ancient Viking
>commonwealth established there centuries earlier and imposed the same
stultifying form of
>Byzantine Lex that they were introducing elsewhere in Scandinavia at that
>	However, the last ''law speaker.'' call him ''the Chief Justice.'' of
that old Viking
>commonwealth did something that makes available to all, the history of Law
for over 1,000 years before the Magna Carta. His name was Snorri
Sturlusson. It is from him that the author of this article has taken his
>	Not too long after he had written this information down the leadership of
Scandinavia found it useful in setting up their version of the Protestant
Reformation to counteract that huge push to impose Byzantine Lex over
everyone in Europe, including Scandinavia's big shots, that is called the
"Renaissance.    When they did, this information of Snorri Sturlusson, that
is called
>"Sagas'  became the second most popular book after the Bible in the
households of Scandinavia.
>	Thereafter, everybody there knew a story for the History of Law back to
its beginning.
>	"Wow. I'm sure glad of that. That is a big load off of my mind.
>	Well, I'm all ready for it. Where does Iceland's Snorri Sturlusson say
that Law comes from?"
>	The ancient Germanic fairy tales.
>	''I  hope  I  didn't  hear  what I  thought  I  heard:  did  you  say
fairy  tales?''
>	Yes.
>	''Oh, no. This is worse than those crazy Englishmen with their 1189 and
then they are not
>going to remember anything that ever happened before that. This is
terrible. That breaks my
>	Not necessarily.
>	The traditional divisions of the ancient Organization that gave us Law
can still be seen in the subdivisions of the lands of Germanic Europe, such
as England, Scotland, Switzerland etc. These ''lands" are divided into
"shires,'' analogous to the provinces of Canada or to states in the
>U.S.A.	These shires are then divided on down into what we call "counties"
in the U.S.A., the
>traditional areas that each had a twelve-man jury that met every three
months. These in turn are
>further divided down into those interesting subdivisions,  all-fateful in
the"politics of the Earth in these final years of the Twentieth Century,
''civil parishes.''
>	Civil parishes are the extensions of land which from immemorial time have
drawn the people living therein to a Church meetinghouse every Sunday,
there to worship the Son of God. These civil parishes are the device by
which the people of Germanic Europe have historically always entered into
the overall Organization of Christianity and simultaneously always,
historically, received the Germanic concept of civil rights by so doing.
That  is the same device through which the Pilgrims and Puritans who
founded the U.S.A. received their civil rights and then established those
civil rights here for all of the rest of us. Throughout New England those
Puritans etc. used to call those rights "the Liberties of the Gospel."
>	However. in New England, as historically among all of the
English-speaking people generally, it has not been customary to use the
Byzantine Lex designation of "civil parish'' for these subdivisions.  The
English-speaking people have customarily always called them by their
>Germanic name, "townships.''
>	When the very first vanguard to bring Byzantine Lex to Germanic Europe
brought it there, moreover and found the land there so subdivided this
vanguard, the monks and nuns, who
>brought it, said among themselves, "As far as we are concerned, the most
important thing that these townships are for is the fact that they draw all
of their people together every Sunday to
>take what we call  the communion of the Lord's Supper,' so we are going to
call them
>	Thereafter the townships of England continued their ancient practice of
regularly electing a representative from a township and sending him to a
meeting of the House of Townships of all of England., but now they began
calling that meeting "The House of  Communes." (The champions of Byzantine
Lex will try to tell you that the "House of Commons" really means the"House
of the Commoners,'' but don't believe them.  All Latin countries still call
it "The House of the Communes. ')
>	Just after the Second World War the L.D.S. Church began a vigorous
program of microfilming the records of all of the parishes, townships,
communes of Europe.
>	The man who headed that genealogical-research motivated microfilming
effort is advertised by the L.D.S. Church as knowing more about genealogy
than any man who has ever lived. I took a genealogy course from him in
early 1960; and, just as aside, he said "You know, if you take the records
of all of the parishes of Europe and put them together they prove that
those ancient Germanic tales (of Snorri Sturlusson) are true.
>	l have spent the last twenty three years documenting that statement.
>	''Well, what do the Ancient Germanic tales of Snorri Sturlusson say was
the origin of Law?''
>	Very simply .they tell how a man who could do anything laid his hands on
the heads of twelve men in an eastern Mediterranean land and gave to them
the same power. Then he brought the twelve and others of his followers
around the north side of the Black Sea, through Russia, to
>Germany. There he organized all of the folk divisions of the land into
townships through which
>people got their rights as they followed his Law. Groups of those
townships were organized into
>little counties where people were removed from this System, if they broke
the Law, by a
>twelve-man jury that he had meet every three months.  Every one of these
little counties of
>Germany is called by the Germanic name for the twelve men of that original
twelve-man "jury"
>to this day.
>	"What was the name of this Ancient Organization, divided down into
'lands' etc., that gave us Law?"
>	The ancient Germanic word, "Church."
>	"What was this story called, of the man who could do anything and his
original twelve-man jury coming to Ancient Germany?''
>	It was always called the ancient Germanic name, "the Gospel." Byzantine
Lex managed to stamp that name out as the name of the story of the Son of
God, however, in all Germanic lands except those that were separated from
the continental base of  power of Byzantine Lex in Europe by being islands,
such as are Britain and Iceland.
>	Snorri Sturlusson is also thought to be the author of Iceland's "Prose
Edda,' which treats
>somewhat on how the Romans got so sassy about trying to beat down some of
the members of
>this Ancient Organization that gave us Law that certain of its members
threw the leadership of
>the Roman Empire's organization right out of Europe altogether.
>	"Well, what of a lasting nature did that man bring to the people of
Europe In that original
>	He told all of the people of Germanic Europe that they had to be dipped
under water in their townships in order to qualify for civil rights.
(''Baptism'' is still called ''dip'' in Germany and
>Scandinavia.) He established all of our folk customs. He told us that he
was born and rose from
>the dead at Eastertide. It was therefor that the annual meetings of the
House of Communes in
>the different lands that made up his Church took place at Eastertide.  He
told us how he had
>died on the Tree of Life for our "sins" (a word from his "Gospel"). Now he
knew how to lead
>each one of us to accomplish the very most from our lives. For this reason
he organized some
>people into townships and counties etc. according to the work that they
and he felt they could do
>to best promote his and now their common purpose.  He taught the people in
these townships
>etc. the skills and crafts that thereafter always found the Germanic
world, the "developed world"
>or the ''technologically-advanced world'' relative to the rest of the world.
>	He made his principal headquarters in Uppland, Sweden near the community
which he founded there that he named "Upper Salem" or "Uppsala," Sweden. He
built a temple there and also one on the shore of the nearby lake. The name
of that lake was "Lake Law," and it is from that body of water (the
present-day Malaren Lake by Stockholm, Sweden) that we get the name
>''Law.'' The lake gives its name to Law because of the fact that it was on
its shore at his temple
>where he gave to the European people the same Law that he had given to his
people in Asialand.
>	''What was the purpose of that Law?''
>	His purpose  was to keep the human race alive. For people to take a part
in doing that, they have to be free to figure out what they want to do for
the human race. Then, in order to be able to accomplish that, they must
keep control over they property that they accumulate as they try to reach
that purpose.  It is for this reason that the only Purpose that Law has
ever had is to preserve the Life, Liberty, and Property of those who hold
to it.
>	For a long while thereafter the different crafts of the Germanic peoples
always maintained temples, such as those he established, to help their
members to forward the Purpose of Law. The Masons have theoretically
preserved that practice down to this day.
>	''You say that Snorri Sturlusson of Iceland said that this man
established ALL of the folk
>customs thereafter observed by the Germanic race?''
>	One custom that he established may suffice.  He established the custom of
a holiday of twelve days to begin the new work, year, beginning on
mid-winter night at the winter solstice. He called this celebration the
''Yuletide'' and kept it by taking a sleigh  full of gifts, that was drawn
by reindeer, around to different  places in Sweden for nice people who had
kept his Law.  Iceland's Snorri Sturlusson also tells us that he could fly,
calm the ocean in tempest,' heal the sick and resurrect people to life
again from out of their graves.  He Is the ''Father Christmas'' of the
English~speaking Peoples, called "Santa Claus" in the U.S.A.
>	''I have often wondered if Santa Claus has anything to do with Jesus.
>	However, when some of his followers threw the leaders of the Romans out
of Europe, those leaders of the Romans came up with a plan to destroy that
entire "Church" of his. Step One was for that Emperor who was thrown out of
Europe to tell all of his subjects that from now on he was their "Lord and
God." Step Two was for his successors to tell the people of Northern
>Europe that now, "overnight," the whole Roman Empire had also been turned
into a "church,"
>a "Christian church" that worshiped Jesus Christ. Step Three was for their
successors to make
>a deal with hordes of people from China to attack the Church of the
Northern Europeans from behind and to totally destroy it.  Those successor
Roman Emperors paid cart-loads of gold to these "Huns" for this genocide.
The Huns failed in their goal of  totally destroying the Church of  the
Northern European' people, but they did succeed in driving  the Angles and
Saxons out of Europe proper and across the channel to England.  When the
Huns fell through on them the succeeding Roman Emperors gathered all of the
resources that the Roman Empire had left to kill off as many as possible of
the refugees that had escaped from the Huns into territory formerly
belonging to the Roman Empire. That was Step Four. That final  effort, as
well, fell short of its goal. The refugees remained in control of the lands
to which they had fled.  But, those Roman
>Emperors. from the one who said that he was the ''Lord and God''of the
Romans to the one who gathered all of the resources of the Roman Empire for
that final effort, created Byzantine Lex as the more permanent effect of
their efforts.  They failed in their primary goal of physically
>destroying the peoples of Northern Europe who had belonged to that
organization that gave to the world Law, but the more permanent effect of
their efforts, Byzantine Lex, has by today almost completely destroyed the
concept of Law out of the lives of all of the people who have been its heirs.
>	I get the picture.  I see what Byzantine Lex is.''
>	Good.  You are now ready for Snorri Sturlusson's one-liners.
>	Politicians love to call themselves ''Law-givers" and ''Law-makers.'' Men
don't make ''Law.''  They make "Byzantine Lex," but they don't make "Law."
"Law" Just  is, the way that Anglos named gravity ''The Law of Gravity.
It is changeless. like the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. kept telling the
politicians of Britain until the former finally convinced the latter to
stop trying to shove them around.  So, Law just is.  Men can either observe
it  or ignore it.  But, they don't ''make" it. What they make is Byzantine
>	''All right then, what is Law.   What is this thing that Byzantine Lex
has called 'the Common Law'?  And, what does that word 'common' in the
expression 'the Common Law' mean?"
>	It means "township." The expression "the Common Law of England" means
"the Township Law of England.''  It comprises those civil rights that
Englishmen obtained back through immemorial time through joining into the
communion of their civil  parish or township.
>	''Oh, that is wonderful, That is great. But, say. what is it exactly that
is 'the Township Law
>of England'?''
>	It is the Law of the  Communion of those,' Townships of Communes, their
"Communion law,"
>All that "Law" is ...is the religion of Jesus Christ
>	The founder of the L.D.S. Church said, "There is a Law, irrevocably
decreed in Heaven before the foundations of this world. upon which all
blessings are predicated-- And when we obtain any blessing from God.  it
is by obedience  to that law upon which it is predicated."
>	As might be expected with a statement such as that, it appears that some
people have trouble with that. It appears that they feel that it says,
''There are a billion laws up in Heaven and a billion blessings down here.
if we want a specific one of these billion blessings here we have to
>'look up,' 'figure out' and then do that one specific law out of the
billion up there."  But, of course, that is not what this says.  What it
says is that there is ''One"  Law in  Heaven and ''all'' 
>blessings here come from living that "one'' Law.
>	"Well, what is that 'one' Law?''
>	Jesus told us that. The Lord said that "All ... law ... hang(s) ...on ...
two commandments,"
>which break down to "love ... God with all ... (your) mind,"  Now,  if you
ask Billy Graham or the Pope how they love God with "all of their mind"
there is a good  chance that they would look at you like you were out of
your mind. However, every little child in the L.D.S. Church knows how he is
to love God with all of his mind. That is his "Communion Law." Every
Sunday. when he takes the Lord's Supper, he promises to ''always'' (there
is the ''all" part) ''remember'' (there is
>the ''mind'' part) Jesus.
>	If he does he obeys all Law  Then all Law takes effect.  ''What is it
when all Law takes
>effect?" He will always have a God to be with him. the Holy Ghost. That is
not "if," "and"
>nor "but." That is "will." That is the one Law irrevocably decreed in
Heaven. That is all that
>"Law" is.   That is all that it has ever been.   That is all that it ever
will be.
>	That is the Communion Law, the Common Law. And the Common Law Is 
>the source of all of the civil rights of the English-speaking people.
>	''Do you mean to tell me that if I go to some expert on the History of
Law he would tell me that the people of England who had what we modern
Americans call 'civil rights' from the time of the Magna Carta down to the
time that the Pilgrims carried to America, got those civil rights only
through taking the   sacrament"' of the Lord's Supper at their township church
>	That is what he would tell you.
>	There were not so many people in England who had what they called ''the
Franchise," and it was the principal motive that brought the Puritans to
New England that there they could all have the Franchise by going through
this ancient North European procedure. By all of them receiving the
Franchise and becoming Freeholders, they established the situation whereby
it happened that everybody in the U.S.A. today is thought of as being a
holder of these ancient English Freeholder rights.
>	''You mean to say that all of the people who founded the U.S.A. by
colonizing New England got all of the rights that Americans call civil
rights by taking  the Sacrament in the townships of New  England  and  that
 any  American  Law  History  teacher  would  tell  me  that?''
>	Yes.
>	''That is almost unbelievable.''
>	You will find the same thing to be true. in a general way. about the
inheritance of such
>customary rights among all of the people of Germanic Europe.
>	''Well. all right, you convinced me. I understand what Law is, and it was
easy. Now tell me how easy it is for me to control the Law, again, for the
benefit of myself, family, neighbors etc."
>	That takes about two hours.  That can't be done in this article, but you
can get the information on an audio cassette by sending $20.00 to:
>Snorri Sturlusson's Audio Cassette
>PO Box 667
>Littlefield, Arizona 86432

Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\snorri21.wpd"

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.] 13From ???@??? Fri Nov 14 05:44:42 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA11056;
	Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:43:51 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA23219;
	Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:42:43 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:43:10 -0800
To: Jackie Madison <m9776@erols.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: rules for issuing regulations

Article III is the article by the same name
in the U.S. Constitution:

Article I   = Legislative Branch
Article II  = Executive Branch
Article III = Judicial Branch

For a breezy introduction to Article III courts,
read "Karma and the Federal Courts" in the
Supreme Law Library, at the URL just below
my name here:

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy: SLS

At 07:36 AM 11/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 02:15 PM 11/13/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>Promulgation of proposed and final rules,
>>is governed by the Administrative Procedures
>>Act ("APA") in Title 5 of the United States Code.
>>Proposed rules must be published in the Federal
>>Register, with a grace period for public comment,
>>and public objection(s), if any.
>>For example, Charles Pixley has invoked that
>>law -- to demand promulgation of rules for 
>>the Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA"),
>>Title 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
>>Details available upon request.
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>**************Details please. Also, your posts are obviously aimed at
>certain on-line clients and are coming to me disjointed. Hard to follow and
>so hope you won't mind my asking for further information. For instance,
>explain an Article III Federal Court.  Thank you, Jackie>
>>At 12:47 PM 11/13/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>the rules published?
>>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

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