Time: Thu Feb 27 16:09:45 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA20466;
Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:12:27 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:05:57 -0800
To: john <johnq@qnet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Associations with the State
Cc: Tarheel <tarheel@zekes.com>
References: <2.2.16.19970227075813.27772dfc@zekes.com>
Dear Friends and Clients,
The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress
to regulate commerce among the several
States; it does not authorize Congress
to regulate commerce among the inhabitants
of the several States. The Framers knew
the difference between these two constructions.
For this reason, the several States have roped
all travelers into registering their private
conveyances, and licensing their operation of
those conveyances, thus rendering them agents
of the several States, thrusting them into
commerce willy nilly. The question whether
a human is a Christian or not is immaterial;
Christians might be involved in commerce as
defined by the Constitution. In this instance,
their conduct can (and should) be regulated
by Congress, without any regard whatsoever
for their religious beliefs. See the First
Amendment. The above applies equally to all
religious faiths, without prejudice.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 10:33 AM 2/27/97 -0800, you wrote:
> As far as statutes go, what is being said is only part of the picture,
>because, a Christian who is acting in the mode and character of a
>Christian is not a 'person' and is not covered by any statute. Further, a
>Christian does not own property, which is defined as: a commercial
>interest. Note, a commercial interest is a fiction, not substance.
> Thus, persons, statues, and the things they pertain to are all
>fictions and apply only to fictions, not Chritians, who have their own law
>and morality that is never covered by the statutes of the modern military
>commercial States, including the Federal government.
>God Bless,
>johnq
>
>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Tarheel wrote:
>
>> I think everyone should ponder this following two pages, as I
>> believe the implications touch every facet of our lives, and those
>> of our Posterity yet unborn.
>>
>> Arizona Revised Statutes - Chapter 1 General Provisions:
>>
>> 24. "Person" includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm,
>> association or society, as well as a natural person. When the
>> word "person" is used to designate the party whose property may
>> be the subject of a criminal or public offense, the term includes
>> the United States, this state, or any territory, state or
>> country, or any political subdivision of this state which may
>> lawfully own any property, or a public or private corporation, or
>> partnership or association. When the word "person" is used to
>> designate the violator or offender of any law, it includes
>> corporation, partnership or any association of persons.
>>
>> "Person."
>>
>> The legislature unambiguously included the state as a "person"
>> within certain limited situations in the general definition: the
>> state is a "person" only when its property may be the subject of
>> a criminal or public offense. State ex rel. Dep't of Health
>> Servs. v. Cochise County, 166 Ariz. 75, 800 P.2d 578 (1990).
>>
>> Unless Tarheel cannot read, the above says that every criminal
>> prosecution in Arizona (Done via State statutes) is done under
>> the presumption and tacit assertion that the State (a federal territory)
>> owned the property which was the subject of the crime. Since corporations,
>> partnerships, and associations are the only non government entities
>> (actually a contradiction in terms since all three must be "registered or
>> chartered with the State") designated as "parties" whose property may be
>> the subject of a statutory crime, are themselves a form of property and
not REAL
>> NATURAL persons, a criminal prosecution with the State as prosecutor
>> which deals with an alleged crime against said corporations,
partnerships, or
>> associations is actually a claim that the State owns the corporation,
>> partnership, or association. Notably "society" is also a "person"
above, so
>> if you say you are a member of the "People of Arizona"
>> you just declared that for statutory purposes you are an "associate" member
>> of the "society" called Arizona, and if the State prosecutes a crime
against
>> your
>> property under statute laws, it and yourself are stipulated (by you) to
be owned
>> by the State.
>>
>> Read the above until you understand my poor attempt to put my idea
>> into words. Now take an example:
>>
>> A DWI case with death resulting from an accident when prosecuted
>> by the State is in fact saying:
>>
>> You the defendant are one of benefited members of the society called
>> Arizona, and you as a public utility quasi corporation used property
>> owned by the State to injure or kill one of its slaves (property), and
since
>> you and the family of the deceased allow the State to prosecute,
>> you all stipulate to being the State's property. The State prosecutes
>> for the harm done to one if its assets, done on its highway, with its
>> property (remember the Certificate of origin and Certificate of title),
>> by its employee or member.
>>
>> Tarheel believes the above to be completely accurate, without exaggeration.
>>
>> Pop Quiz:
>>
>> What form or theory of government espouses the following two principles?:
>>
>> The central government owned all property, and means of production,
>> and will be the only protector, and arbiter of what is right and wrong.
>>
>> >From each according to his ability, and to each according to his
>> needs.
>>
>> Welcome to the "United States" circa 1997 A.D.
>>
>> Give Me Feedback please.
>>
>> Tarheel
>>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail