Time: Sun Nov 24 18:52:45 1996
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Response (Titles of Nobility) to Sgarlatti
Cc: 
Bcc: 

"A practice condemned by the Constitution
cannot be saved by historical acceptance
and present convenience."

  U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983)

"It is obviously correct that no one acquires
a vested or protected right in violation of
the Constitution by long use, even when that
span of time covers our entire national existence
and indeed predates it."

  Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City,
  397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)

These are authorities which were cited in
People v. Boxer, to which Senator-elect Boxer
fell totally and completely silent.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



At 12:20 PM 11/24/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>->  SearchNet's   snetnews   Mailing List
>
>Gary,
>
>I wasn't trying to muddy the waters by interjecting my comments
>about the 16th amendment.  What I failed to read in the original
>post was the fact that the thirteenth amendment existed for over
>70 years and then disapeared.  This seems a large issue that is 
>clouded by other arguments.
>
>I'd also been reading about tax cases, and felt your post gave
>me an opportunity to post some of what I'd been discovering.
>
>Keep up the good work.
>
>Tony
>
>On Sun Nov 24 12:12:01 1996 Gary Hunt <opf@azi.com> wrote: 
>
>> tfs@adc.com wrote:
>> > 
>> > 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."
>> 
>>    Ironically, the Thirteenth Amendment was recognized for nearly
>> seventy years, and then came oblivion. I must say that to argue that an
>> amendment has not been ratified in a court that has recognized the
>> ratification of that document for some time, would serve no purpose.
>> Perhaps, had the argument been that the jurisdiction, both subject
>> matter and person, was not within the scope of the amendment, they may
>> have prevailed.
>>    Can we ever get the courts to acknowledge the ratification of the
>> Titles of Nobility Amendment?   I won't even speculate on that one. I
>> will say that as more learn that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was
>> ratified, was recognized and enforced for seven decades, and then
>> disappeared will tend to give a better understanding of what has
>> happened in this country, since its birth. If a handful of men can
>> overrule the will (ratified amendment) of the people, and even remove
>> that will, and their leisure, then we can see that the conspiracy to
>> retain the colonies under British subjugation did not end with the
>> Revolution, nor the War of 1812.
>>    This discussion should be with regard to the Thirteenth, not the
>> Sixteenth, and its purpose if to educate in that area -- not to
>> speculate on what the court may do with regard to the Thirteenth, should
>> proper evidence be submitted in support of its ratification.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >         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."
>> > 
>>    Again, we are dealing with a contrary situation, The existence, of a
>> law (on the books) has prima face value, regardless. If you review the
>> statutes for your state, you will probably find that the Thirteenth was
>> published sometime between 1812 and 1870. You will also find that any
>> public record or any document published by the government can be
>> submitted, and will be considered to be prima face by the court. To
>> prove the non-existence of what exists (16th) is much different than
>> proving the existence of what did (and does) exist(13th).
>>   Whether the courts recognize what has occurred with the Thirteenth, or
>> not, it is far more important that WE THE PEOPLE recognize what has
>> transpired with regard to this Amendment.
>> 
>> > In freedom,
>> > Tony Sgarlatti
>> 
>> 
>> Respectfully,
>> 
>> Gary Hunt, 
>> Outpost of Freedom
>> opf@azi.com
>
>-> 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