Time: Mon Oct 28 17:00:09 1996 To: "John Burr" <john.burr@qmail.eonetworks.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Silence Creates Estoppel Cc: Bcc: Nancy Lord At 03:37 PM 10/28/96 U, you wrote: >Fine with me Paul, I do believe that >People v. boxer is significant. The fact >that Boxer did not answer establishes presumed fact. Yes, indeed, based on several cases, e.g.: U.S. v. Tweel: "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or a moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." An unrebutted affidavit is the truth of the case, for all time. The facts we established are no longer presumed, but conclusive, by virtue of her silence, which invoked estoppel, which renders the affidavits *conclusive* fact. This is basic American law never repealed. People may "believe" that the case is not significant, but then they are denying the impact of the authorities which are cited therein, are they not? /s/ Paul Mitchell But that does not >establish by what authority they are >operating under emergency...just that >they indeed are... >Do you have John Nelson's material? > >John Edward They don't have an authority, because warring against the several States is defined as "treason" in the supreme Law. You said it: they are operating under "emergency," but they have no authority for doing same. Thank you! This is the same as a burglar breaking into your house, as opposed to your breaking into your own house, when neither of you has the key. One has authority, the other does not. Burglars get arrested; you get to repair the damaged window. Feds have it reversed: we get arrested, and they (the burglars) get to wear black robes. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. Yes, I have read John Nelson's material. Are we going to keep going around and around in the same circles here, ladies and gentlemen? This really IS getting boring. > > > >------------------------------ >Date: 10/28/96 3:18 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 >======================================================================= >Let's agree to disagree on this one. > >How 'bout it, guys (and gals)? > >I stand on the authorities cited in >People v. Boxer, to which Senator-elect >Boxer fell totally and completely silent. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > > >At 02:41 PM 10/28/96 U, you wrote: >>======================================================================= >>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >>======================================================================= >>>Do you know who passed the very first presidential decree <executive order, >>>Paul Mitchell? A. Lincoln. How could he have done this if the Legislature >>>was a viable entity within the constitutional parameters under which it was >>>created? Answer: He could not. Now, tell me how he could if you disagree >> >>Do you know WHY he could do that? >> >>JMichael >>> >> >>Under War Emergency Powers and Of Perrogative, see 2nd Treatese of Civil >>Government by John Locke, Chapter 14. >> >>John Edward >> >> >> > >=========================================================== >Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >=========================================================== > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail