Time: Wed Nov 27 14:36:49 1996
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:23:12 -0800
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: U.S. v. Troescher
=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
=======================================================================
Lyle,
Would you care to elaborate on the
important differences between
procedural and substantive due process
for us here? Thanks.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 02:27 PM 11/27/96 -0500, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>
>
>This may be getting off on a semantical merry-go-round. The right,
>privilege or immunity against self-incrimination is protected, regardless
>of what you call it.
>Also, the due process clause of the 5th (and 14th, even more so) is
>widely misunderstood. Coke, Blackstone, the founders, et al all
>understood it to mean judicial process due, i.e., indictment or
>presentment and proper service of writs before life, liberty or property
>could be deprived. It is purely procedural and all "substantive due
>process" decisions under the 14th were created from whole cloth by
>judges. They have no constitutional foundation.
>
>--Andrew Lehr
>
>
>
>On 27 Nov 1996, John Burr wrote:
>
>> =======================================================================
>> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>> =======================================================================
>> In response to Paul and Ralph,
>>
>> The 5th Article of Amendment does not only speak of self incrimination, but
>> that of due process...which if I remember is an unalienable Right guaranteed
>> by this article to wit:
>>
>> "ARTICLE 4
>> SECTION 2. The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
>> immunities of Citizens in the several states.
>>
>> Privileges and immunities from reading the remainder of this section would
>> entail the following in part, the privilege of non-extradition unless by the
>> request and order of the executive office of the state, this is just one
>> privilege...there could be many others that could be granted by the executive
>> power of the State or the Federal government."
>>
>> Article 5 of Amendment to wit:
>>
>> "AMENDMENT 5 (1791)
>>
>> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
>> unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
>> except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
>> in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
>> any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life
>> or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
>> be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
>> without due process of law; nor shall private property be
>> taken for public use, without just compensation."
>>
>> Now is due process of Law a privilege? If as you claim, that the ability or
>> choice of one to not be compelled to be a witness against himself for fear of
>> self incrimination is a privilege...then it would stand to reason the
>> eveything listed in the 5th is a privilege and not a Right. I find this
>> difficult to swallow. The decision made by the 9th in that case may be
>> correct, as they were dealing with slaves and denizens and NOT Citizens, and
>> since it is well established in American Jurisprudence, the Laws of Nations
>> and Natural Law, that slaves can not own property and have NO Rights, but
only
>> privileges...I would agree with the decision. But my point is that the
>> courts/tribunals are slowly changing the terms, and what was once a Right
>> yesterday is today a privilege...I have heard of the privilege of freedom of
>> speech, religion, assembly, bear and use arms.
>>
>> The problem is this, these are Rights for Citizens, and they possessed these
>> Rights long before the Magna Carta and Constitution, man possessed these
>> Rights and Liberties when in a state of Nature and did not give these up when
>> he agreed to enter into and form society...on the contrary he entered
into the
>> social compact to protect these very Rights that you and the 9th would
like me
>> and all others to believe are "Privileges", from outside incursion, this is
>> the end to why governments were formed.
>>
>> I submit, that if the 5th only conveyed Privileges, then it would have said
>> so. I personally would not submit one bit to the enemy alien force that is
>> occupying and warring with my fellow countrymen and land. I have a duty to
>> resist. The problem is that a true Citizen knows who he is and what his
>> Rights are and how to defend them. A Citizen knows the Law, its history,
>> application, and knows the terms and art and can play the game. Most people
>> who claim they are Citizens do not know, and are therefore not Citizens.
>>
>> So though I agree the 4:2:1 lays out privilieges and immunities, I disagree
>> that that section, which lays out priviliges, has an application in Art 5 of
>> Amendment. In article 5, there are either Rights listed and secured in that
>> sentence or clause, or they are Privileges as you claim, it is not proper to
>> change the subject mid-sentence. That is all
>>
>> John Edward
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: 11/26/96 7:36 PM
>> To: John Burr
>> From: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>>
>> =======================================================================
>> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>> =======================================================================
>> >=======================================================================
>> >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>> >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>> >=======================================================================
>> ><snip>
>> >>Here is the Case referenced in the Troescher Decision...I love how these
>> >>idiots claim a Right secured by the 5th Amendment is a Privilege!!!!!!!
>> They
>> >>are going to declare and rename the Bill of Rights to the Bill of
>> >>Privileges!!! What is wrong with this picture??!!
>> >>
>> >>John Edward
>> >
>> >John Edward,
>> >
>> >I must disagree with you only
>> >to this extent: the Privileges
>> >and Immunities Clause is not to
>> >be confused with privileges which
>> >are granted by statute and not
>> >otherwise available. I believe
>> >the Fifth Amendment "Privilege"
>> >falls under the Privileges and
>> >Immunities Clause (4:2:1).
>>
>>
>> OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Does it say "Bill of Rights" or "Bill of Privileges"?
>>
>> A Right I have forever! It is Unalienable!
>> A Privilege may be taken away!
>>
>> Is the fifth amendment subject to be taken AWAY from ME?
>> And by WHOM may I ask is in control of the PRIVILEGE???????????
>> Privileges are what the the 14th amendment folks, folks "born in the United
>> States" and folks naturalized "into the United States" via a "birth
>> Certificate" are "subject" to.
>>
>> I disagree!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> the best
>>
>> Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd
>> citizen of the United States nunc pro tunc
>> Citizen of the State of Kansas (equal footing with the original States)
>> domiciled in the Territory of Alaska
>> Born of natural born parents of the Posterity
>> Sovereign State in Fact
>>
>> If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
>> than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not
>> your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May
>> your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our
>> countrymen.
>> Samuel Adams
>>
>> Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains
>> and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
>> take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.
>> Patrick Henry: Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23,1775
>>
>> My Homepage is: http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail