Time: Thu May 29 06:24:04 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA09280; Thu, 29 May 1997 05:55:49 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA08139; Thu, 29 May 1997 05:54:54 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 06:22:46 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Outpost of Freedom [sic] rejects Dyett v. Turner! From: outpostoffreedom@azi.com Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 21:02:20 -0700 Subject: Reject Notification To: pmitch@primenet.com Sorry, but your message is rejected by the moderator of our list server. [rejected message follows] Dyett v. Turner, Utah Supreme Court (1968) recites a plethora of unrebutted historical facts which prove the 14th amendment [sic] was never lawfully ratified. See Full Faith and Credit Clause for authority. The certification by the Secretary of State under Pres. Andrew Johnson assumed facts not in evidence. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 06:38 PM 5/28/97 -0700, you wrote: >================[ Distributed Message ]================ > ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom) > Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom) > Distributed on: 28-MAY-97, 18:37:52 >Original Written by: IN:rikmeier@indy.net. >======================================================= > > >> The States predate the Central Govermnent as Sovereign Bodies. In the >>Treaty of Paris, which secured our Freedom and ended our Revolutionary War, >>Britain recognized not one nation comprising of 13 colonies, but rather 13 >>independant nations. > > Britain's recognition of the existence of these independent nations >was required of Britain at the point of a sword. A belief system cannot be >imposed at the point of a sword and Britain does not necessarily believe >that these states exist independent of Britain. As some people are >searching now for assets confiscated from their relatives in Europe under >Hitler's quest for power some people in Britain - or simply sympathetic to >the crown - may search for ways for Britain to increase her influence over >these states - or simply to extract the value of the assets here. > Britain also recognized Scotland as a sovereign nation in March >1328. One of the terms of the treaty that established the relationship >between those two states was England's requirement that the heir to >Scotland's throne be married to an English princess, Joanne of the Tower. >The English settled for a promise - that the marriage would take place when >the then-3-year-old heir reached the age of majority (13 years) - that was >secured under a penalty of a surrender of cash to the English crown if the >marriage failed to materialize. It was, then, of vital importance to the >King of England to retain a measure of influence in Scotland but he would >settle for an enormous payment of money. > England's aim in the wars from 1296 to 1328 was to rule the whole of >the British Isles under one throne. Has that ever changed? The British >have extended their authority to every continent in the intervening >centuries; some of their colonies have ejected England's rule and England >has withdrawn from other lands by mutual agreement. Scotland is no longer a >sovereign state - conquered from the inside by agreement - and Ireland still >fights for the northeast quarter of its land. > England also left one vital seed of influence here when our families >overthrew the crown in 1779. That seed survived and is now called the >American Bar Association. The ABA is an exclusive association whose members >hold enough offices in all branches and levels of government in these united >states to effectively nullify the doctrine of Separation of Powers. >> The States Confederated themselves under the Articles of Confederation, an >>agreement that they would mutually defend each other, but retain their >>Seperate Independance in all other manner. The Articles of Confederation >>proved to be so much of a hassle, a Continental Congress was formed to fix >>the problems, the Result, was our present Constitution which changed the >>goverment completely. > > As a matter of clarification of the details, the officers of the >confederate >government were not secure in their meeting places; the states had >retained the right to refuse to provide security for the meetings of the >confederate government. At one memorable meeting in Philadelphia - >the seat of the confederate government - the colonial congress was >unable to conduct its business because the city or Pennsylvania >had a different political agenda at that moment in the revolution. The >"more perfect Union" established by those men who represented US >(as we were at that time) in the "Constitution for the united States of >America" resulted. (capitalization as per original documents to the best >of my recollection). > > Your math books describe Unions. The Union of any number of Sets >refers to everything that is included in all of the Sets. The Union of the >States refers to all of the lands, people, resources, laws, beliefs, churches, >clubs... everything there is within the borders of the Member States. >Intersections, on the other hand, refer only to that part of each of the several >Sets that is the same as a similar part of all of the other several Sets. >Our States, under present "conventional wisdom", are Subsets of the federal >government rather than several entities; under the original federal >constitution >the federal State is a Subset of all of the several States; thus, the federal >Government is the Intersection of the States; the Union is the sum of the >States themselves. In the natural order of such a relationship, the federal >government, >as the mere Intersection of the States rather than the Union itself, holds >some few >common powers of government that the States have and the States retain the >remainder of the powers of government. > > Perhaps the 14th Article in Amendment to that original constitution >reversed that established natural order of sovereignty. Perhaps, on the >other hand, something else reversed the established order; something >else such as "spin", personal ambitions taking precedence over personal >integrity, a people luxuriating in their freedom.... Perhaps there was even >a plot hatched by a money lender, who taught his children how to be money >lenders, that resulted, eventually, in a contract for the transfer of ownership >of the assets of the United States Government's assets to a private >corporation known commonly as The Federal Reserve. > > (NOW how do I accept the label of "asset to the community" as an honor >when the community's assets belong to a bank?! I suppose it depends >upon the source of the label. > (I'm an annual "account receivable" to the IRS until they deposit my >check >into the Federal Reserve to pay for the cost of the federal government's debt. >My accountant, and every accounting authority that has crossed my path, >refers to Accounts Receivable as "assets". The IRS agrees with them. >(Try making your check payable to The Treasury of the United States of >America; the letter you will receive from the IRS, with your check, will NOT >refer you to your constitution; it will refer you to IRS rules which require >you to deliver your funds to the IRS. hmmmm....) > > The Federal Reserve owns a good deal more of these assets every year >and the U.S. Congress continues to borrow from the Fed. Once again, I >refer you to your basic math book where you were taught that a PLUS >SIGN indicates an increase and a MINUS SIGN indicates a decrease. >Any time the U.S. government enacts a budget that spends more money >than the U.S. government will exact from US by way of its taxes there is >a deficit. The government borrows that amount from The Fed, a private >corporation doing business as a bank. The bank loans that money to >the government every year. > > A "balanced budget" is not a worthy goal; our representatives need to >be searching for a government that does not deal in debt but pays its >own way under the controlling terms of its constitution. > > Whatever has been the cause of the reversal in the order established by >those men in the constitution for the union of these states, the reversal >is real, and it needs to be defined and redressed while we still have a >few good men who can do it. The discussion here is the best I've seen >towards that end; provided it remains well-moderated and open, I expect >to see it produce some wonders, in the minds of its readers, as well as >many of the answers to those wonders. A few good men who have the >answers to their questions will pick up their telephones and talk, with >conviction in their voices and compromise in their toilets, to the people >who will return the natural order to the governance of these lands. > >>> If you Jaywalk - Give us money. >>> If you drive too fast - Give us money. >>> If you shoot a firearm in the city limits - Give us money. >>> >> >>A City needs money to operate. You obviously don't desire that every penny >>paying your police force is from the federal government. Not to mention >>the City Works Department that fixes the pot-holes in the road. Their are >>many little things that the City does that you may not realize or take for >>granted, keep in mind who is paying for the street-lights, the Stop-lights, >>the people who repair them..... >> >>Fines from those menial infractions goes to the City to pay for these >>things and alleviates the need for undue taxation, in the form of property >>taxes, or lessens them to a great degree. > >>> >>> And since you got a ticket, you had to give the city money. How does >>> that give "restitution" to the people of the city? >> >>By Lowering their taxes to pay for City Operations. > >Cincinnati 1997; City v. Sylvia Stayton. > The defendant was found guilty by a jury of 12. The charge was >obstruction >of justice. She paid a fine of $500. At last report she "intends to" appeal. >Mrs. Stayton, a grandmother who lives, and raised her children, in the suburbs >saw a vehicle parked in a city-owned space where the city had placed a >timing/collection device commonly known as a "parking meter". The meter >indicated that the paid parking time had expired and the vehicle's owner was >violating the rights of the city to collect money from that plot of land. Mrs. >Stayton took it upon herself to secure the city's right and the vehicle owner's >continued security by inserting the coin of the land into the city's meter >according to the instructions for inserting coins into the device. > >What is: >1) Justice >2) a jury > a) jury nullification >3) wrong with this picture. > >1) A government that pays its bills by way of fines is perverse. The fees for >parking are reasonable and should pay for the cost of keeping the parking >space available for paying customers. The spaces should be provided >NOT to produce income but to provide spaces. Any PROFITS from the use >of the provided spaces should go to pay for government operations. > > Apparently, Cincinnati is unable to operate on a good day - some number >of people must meet with complications in their plans or the city will come up >short of funds to pay its bills. > >2) A jury is the highest power in a courtroom - even if the judge SAYS he is >the highest power. A wise jury will ignore this and allow the judge to >continute with his proceedings. > A jury is chosen from a random selection of "The People", the same >"[the] >People" who, "in order to create a more perfect Union", established and >ordained "[that] constitution for the united States of America". The People >established the means by which the laws are made; the People have the >final say - the last vote - in the making of law. After the representatives in >the legislature have argued and coughed and beaten each other up and >created a law there is an administrator (alias President, Governor, Mayor, >Chairman, etc.) who approves of their timing and the result of their >arguments at the time when the rules of order and the demands of their >responsibilities required them to quit arguing -when voted to leave the >decision to the administrator. If he signs the bill into law and the new >law violates the moral imperatives of the jury, then > a) the jury is required to acquit the defendant of any wrong doing and >release the prisoner; the jury is also required to tell the government (aka >the court) that the law does not meet with our approval and is, therefore, >null and void. The jury must nullify any laws that get past the processes >of government by which laws are created. (jury nullification: See Crown >v. Wm. Penn, 1600's). > >3) How on earth did the City of Cincinnati find 12 people who would declare >Ms. Stayton guilty of obstructing Justice for properly inserting the legal >coin of the land into the properly-appointed deviced that were placed there >specifically for the purpose of receiving the coin of the land? > These events seem to indicate acts of fraud perpetrated by the City >of Cincinnati rather than the honest exercize of lawful authority. > > Fines are levied as punishments for minor illegal activities, NOT as >sources of revenue. Proceeds from the fines may be used as the government >chooses but consider the implications of the proposition that fines could >be used as a means to increase revenues. > From this day forward, and person who causes my telephone to ring >will be assessed a fee of $.25 (twenty five cents) for each time the phone >rings. Caller ID and a tape machine will monitor the telephone. The act of >causing my phone to ring will indicate the callers agreement to these terms. > There it is, then. I have now established the conditions for the >use of my phone. I can sue violators, file liens and collect their >payment... or can I? Would any judge (government officer) allow my terms to >bear any weight? I would hope not! > > In the same way, governments may enact laws that exceed their moral >right and offend the dignity of all parties. Would any judge allow such a >law to bear any weight? City v. Stayton 1997 indicates that a judge DID >allow the ordinance to stand; the jury was responsible to evaluate the law >for the people of Cincinnati in the same way a judge would quickly and >naturally evaluate the terms of my telephone agreement. In the same way as >my telephone agreement is offensive to the dignity and rights of anyone who >would ring my phone there is some element of law in Cincinnati that is >offensive to the dignity and the rights of anyone who inserts legal coins in >Cincinnati's parking meters. > > >>The limits of the township end in the Charter, which can be ratified or >>amended upon request by the people of that locality. If the City Charter >>say's that Satalite dishes are eye sores and they are not allowed, you can >>petition to have that clause removed for violating your personal rights and >>freedom. If the people of the City agree that it is an eyesore, you can >>comply or move. > > The city's Charter is approved by the State's legislature as the >last act of >government that is required to establish a new city government. > > The U.S. government's Charter was established by similar means; a >quorum of representatives of the states agreed that each of the states >was properly represented, a quorum of the body politic of each of the >states agreed that they were properly represented, the reprepesentatives >approved of the Charter and a new State was formed. > > As a city government is required to operate within limits established by >the State within which the city is located, so the federal U.S. government >is required to operate within the limits established by the people of the >several States. Those limits are set forth rather clearly in the charter we >call The Constitution. > >It's pretty easy to forget that we also have our State constitutions to >consider.... > >>The 14th Amendment extends the complete Constitution to the lowest level of >>government. Before the 14th Amendment, the States had the legal right to >>abrograte your rights. > > The states are bound by their constitutions; the state > ><<< Continued to next message >>> > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail