Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 070 : Msg 07004

Time: Tue Dec 16 16:40:05 1997
To: 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: auto insurance, more details
Cc: 
Bcc: jamoon@hgo.net
References: 

The correct citations are California Civil
Code ("CCC"), sections 22.2, 1427, 1428,
and 1708, as of March 26, 1994, when we cited 
these in a federal case, which was quitely
dismissed.  The common law is the rule of
decision;  an obligation arises either from
the operation of law, or from the contract
of the parties, and nothing else;  the only
obligation which arises from the operation of
law is to abstain from injuring the person or
property of another, or infringing upon any of 
his rights.  

Here is CCC 1708, to wit:

"1708.  Every person is bound, without contract,
to abstain from injuring the person of another,
or infringing upon any of his rights." [sic]


This is a very good restatement of the common
law, which is the rule of decision in 
California, pursuant to CCC 22.2, to wit:

"22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it 
is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the 
Constitution of the United States, or the 
Constitution or laws of this State, is the
rule of decision in all the courts of this State."


Here is the definition of "obligation", to wit:

"1427.  An obligation is a legal duty, by which
a person is bound to do or not to do a certain 
thing."


And right after that is source of obligation, to wit:

"1428.  An obligation arises either from:

One -- The contract of the parties;  or,
Two -- The operation of law."


That's it!  So, the ONLY obligation which
arises from the operation of law is to
abstain from injuring the person of another,
or infringing upon any of his rights, pursuant
to CCC 1708.  This is just as I had said, in an
earlier message, Nick's Nonsense Notwithstanding
("NNN").

These latter citations were obtained from URL:

  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

All such state laws can be "imported" into 
any federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1652:
State laws as rules of decision, which is exactly
what we did.  Here is our key paragraph from that
winning brief:

     5.   By importing  the California  Civil Code, see 28 U.S.C.

1652, this  Court must  recognize the  Common Law  as the rule of

decision, see CCC 22.2, and acknowledge that an obligation arises

either from  the operation  of law,  or from  the contract of the

parties, and  nothing  else,  see  CCC  1427,  1428.    The  only

obligation that  arises from  the operation  of law is to abstain

from injuring  the person  or property  of another, or infringing

upon any of his rights, see CCC 1708.  Petitioners have failed to

identify any  damage or  injury and thus have failed to state any

claim upon  which relief  can be  granted.  Consent is one of the

elements that  is essential  to a  valid contract,  see CCC 1550.

Apparent consent  is neither  real  nor  free  when  obtained  by

duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake, see CCC 1567.

Respondent denies  the  existence  of  any  valid  contract  with

Petitioners, either  express or implied in fact (i.e. assumpsit),

and denies voluntary participation in the government scheme known

as "public  policy", see The Federal Zone, Appendix I: "Notice to

50 Governors";   Erie  R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).  The

printed second  edition of  The Federal  Zone is  incorporated by

reference as if set forth fully herein, see Exhibit "A".


/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com



At 06:20 PM 12/14/97 EST, you wrote:
>
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>
>In a message dated 97-12-14 12:50:48 EST, supremelooney writes:
>
><< Then, it goes on to say that the ONLY obligation
> which arises from the operation of law is        [was "obligation"]
> to avoid doing damage or injury to the person
> or property of others.  So, the operation of law [sic] 
> in California is, clearly, the common law, preserved 
> in the California Civil Code.  
>  >>
>
>No, it doesn't.  Everyone on this list is invited to check out the entirety of
>sections 1708 et seq. of the California Civil Code.  They prove very
>conclusively that supremelooney has no idea what he is talking about.
>
>For freedom,
>
>Nick
>
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: NMMJR <NMMJR@aol.com>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School: E-mail