Time: Sun Nov 24 18:45:12 1996
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Titles of Nobility; Thirteenth Amendment (fwd)
Cc:
Bcc:
FYI, in People v. Boxer, Senator-elect
Boxer was sued in Mandamus, to compel
her to witness the material evidence
which had been assembled against the
so-called 16th Amendment. She fell
silent, thus invoking estoppel by
acquiescence. See U.S. v. Tweel for
authority. Thus, the affidavits filed
in that case are now the truth of the
case, namely, the 16th Amendment is dead
because it was never lawfully ratified.
See California Supreme Court case number
S-030016, December 1992.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 10:58 AM 11/24/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List
>
>On a related note, in UNITED STATES v. House, 617 F.Supp 237
>(W.D.Mich. 1985), George and Marion House were indicted on
>seven counts of tax evasion, and seven counts of failure to
>file income tax returns. They filed a motion to dismiss the
>indictment, claiming that the sixteenth amendment which
>grants Congress the power to lay taxes was never properly
>ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been passed
>pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment
>are null and void. Note that some of the courts conclusions
>were simply based on the fact that the sixteenth amendment has
>been "recognized and acted on for half a century."
>
>With 187 years between the ratification of the thirteenth
>amendment and the objection, it will certainly be a
>challange to have this amendment recognized.
>
>The following text originated from 'Court cases that address
>the legal theories of "sovereign citizens."' and addresses the
>following cases: tax protesters, allodial title, and the right
>to travel. Although these are only cases that the government
>won, it is good to know what some of the defective arguments
>were. Check out - http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>
>This quote is from -
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/house.html
>
>" Finally, the Court notes that the sixteenth amendment
>has been in existence for over half a century and has been
>applied by the Supreme Court in hundreds of cases. As stated
>in Maryland Petition Committee v. Johnson, 265 F.Supp. 823, 826
>(D.Md.1967)), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 835, 89 S.Ct. 109, 21
>L.Ed.2d 106 (1968), "While age and usage are not absolute barriers
>to judicial inquiry, the courts have recognized them as persuasive
>indicia of validity."
> In upholding the fifteenth amendment against constitutional
>challenge the United States Supreme Court noted that it "has been
>recognized and acted on for half a century." Leser v. Garnett, 258
>U.S. 130, 136, 42 S.Ct. 217, 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922). In United
>States v. Association of Citizens Councils, 187 F.Supp. 846, 848
>(W.D.La.1960), the constitutionality of the fourteenth and
>fifteenth amendments was upheld "In the light of hundreds of cases
>in which the United States Supreme Court has applied the
>amendments." Similarly, in United States v. Gugel, 119 F.Supp. 897,
>900 (E.D.Ky.1954), in rejecting a constitutional attack on the
>fourteenth amendment, the Court found legal significance in the
>fact that the fourteenth amendment had been recognized and acted
>upon by the Supreme Court for more than three-quarters of a century.
> The sixteenth amendment and the tax laws passed pursuant to
>it have been followed by the courts for over half a century. They
>represent the recognized law of the land.
> Because the sixteenth amendment was duly certified by the
>Secretary of State, because defendants have not alleged that the
>minor variations in capitalization, punctuation and wording of the
>various state resolutions are materially different in purpose or
>effect from the language of the congressional joint resolution
>proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment, and because the
>sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted upon since 1913,
>the Court rejects defendants' argument that the sixteenth amendment
>is not a part of the United States Constitution."
>
>In freedom,
>
>Tony Sgarlatti
>tonys@the-truth.org
>http://www.future.net/~thetruth/
>
>"If we will not fight for the truth now - when our President has
> been shot down in the streets and his murderers remain untouched
> by justice - it is not likely that we will ever have another
> chance." --JIM GARRISON relating the Kennedy assassination
>
>
>On Sun Nov 24 07:27:53 1996 "Craig J. Bolton" <lawecon@netzone.com> wrote:
>
>> At 01:14 AM 11/24/96 -0800, you wrote:
>> >
>> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 00:06:13 -0700
>> >From: Gary Hunt <opf@azi.com>
>> >To: mikecopy@cdsnet.net, chuck@teleport.com
>> >Subject: The Now Found (real) Thirteenth Amendment
>> >
>> >Outpost of Freedom
>> >Gary Hunt
>> >November 23, 1996
>> >
>> >The Now Found (real) Thirteenth Amendment
>> >
>> > Brian March and I have been corresponding, and he has been sharing
>> >his research on the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the Constitution for
>> >some time, now. During the past few years, Brian has been in touch with
>> >a number of Congressmen who have expressed an interest, at least in
>> >response to Brian's letter and conversations, to the subject. Brian's
>> >efforts, however, have seemed fruitless. It seems that the National
>> >Archives, the Library of Congress and other branches of government
>> >(manned by bar attorneys) have provided information to the contrary of
>> >what Brian has provided. Their arguments, however, are circular, and
>> >cannot stand scrutiny. Unfortunately, when they are presented out of
>> >context in the overall complexity of the matter, they seem to have
>> >substantiated government claims, when, in fact, they prove to the
>> >contrary.
>>
>> <snip of about 20 pages>
>>
>> That is all very interesting, Gary. As an antiquarian who is facinated by
>> such things, I thank you and Brian. However, I get the impression that you
>> think that this information is going to have some political impact. If I am
>> correct in that impression, what, pray tell, could possibly lead you to such
>> a conclusion?
>>
>> Sit back for a minute, Gary, and try to focus on the actual world around
>> you. Do you really believe that if you could convinced the CEO of General
>> Motors that he had been improperly elected that he would immediately resign
>> and call for another election? Do you really believe that if you could show
>> that Texas was never properly admitted to the Union that the Congress and/or
>> the Texas legislature would immediately decree that Texas was a separate
>> sovereign nation or that the general populace would pause at the borders of
>> Texas and demand that their passports be checked? If the Federal Reserve and
>> the FBI have no "constitutional basis" to exist, will they tomorrow go
>> "poof" and disappear? If there IS an amendment against Titles of Nobility
>> will the bench and bar tomorrow go out and find other work?
>>
>> What, exactly, is the point of all of this ?
>>
>> If government responded to legal or philosophical arguments concerning its
>> nonexistence or illegitimacy or the nonexistence or illegitimacy of its
>> agencies and many of its enactments WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE SITUATION WE ARE
>> IN TODAY and alot of us would have far different opinions about the
>> necessary limitations on government power. However, government [and most of
>> the other settled institutions in this and any other society] don't act that
>> way, never have and never will. So what, exactly are you guys doing? Is this
>> simply an elaborate form of mental mastrabation, or are you trying to tell
>> us something that makes any difference? [If the latter, you need to be
>> considerably clearer.]
>>
>> Craig Bolton
>> "The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of
>> their own folly is to fill the world with fools."
>>
>> Herbert Spencer
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti)
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail