Time: Wed Mar 19 19:13:02 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24787; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:40:57 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA29785; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:40:07 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:11:13 -0800 To: harold@halcyon.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: USDC v. DCUS References: <3.0.1.16.19970319080711.295f8d28@pop.primenet.com> Yes: begin with 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2, and take notice of the difference between: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF PIMA on the one hand, and: SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA PIMA COUNTY on the other hand. Do you see the difference? The cite from 31 CFR supra is your material evidence to prove that there is a crucial difference. The former is a de facto forum convened under a rebuttable presumption that the State of California (corporate version) is operating under the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the secret bankruptcy of 1933. In that mode, the corporate State is subject to all the municipal codes and regulations of the United States (federal government). So, you can smoke them out by submitting a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for their credentials. If they respond, they are subject to the municipal codes of the United States (federal government). If they say they are not subject to the FOIA, because they are not federal, then that is prima facie evidence that they are operating under de jure authority of the California Republic. The latter above is, then, the de jure California Republic, hidden in a coded caption. People v. Boxer was pleaded at law before the California Supreme Court, and the Plaintiffs were the People of the California Republic! The California Supreme Court heard the case, meaning that they had jurisdiction, and the Plaintiffs had legal standing! How about them apples? Got it? /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:39 PM 3/18/97 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, is there a similar way to challenge the juridiction of "state" >courts based upon any of the material you sent Rusty in the 3 emails >dated 3/19/97? > >Harold Thomas > > >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> Rusty and friends, >> >> See if this helps. See also 28 U.S.C. 132, >> Historical and Statutory Notes: >> >> "... provisions of this title ... with respect >> to the organization of the court, shall be >> construed as a continuation of existing law ...." >> >> Act June 25, 1948, Section 2(b). >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> p.s. Part 1 of 2 follows: >> > > > ======================================================================== 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