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