Time: Tue Nov 26 10:03:31 1996
To: timr@efn.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Title 18 on military bases only?
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 08:58 AM 11/26/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>> 
>> 18 USC 1513 contains explicit language
>> extending this statute with "extra-territorial
>> application."  Now, you might ask yourself,
>> why is this qualifier not found in more
>> statutes within Title 18?  So, at least
>> this one statute can be enforced within
>> the several States of the Union, unlike
>> the others which have no application
>> outside the federal zone.  So, I agree
>> with LeRoy, but only in part, because of
>> the obvious exception found in 18 USC 1513.
>> Confer at "inclusio unius est exclusio
>> alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary.
>> See also U.S. v. Lopez, S.Ct. (1995);
>> this is the really big case on this
>> subject.
>> 
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
> 
>[snip...]
>
>	Paul:
>
>	Do you have the case cite handy for the Lopez decision?  I "know" I
>have it somewhere, but when asked for it this morning, couldn't find
>it!*&%!
>
>	And on another subject, re your above comment which itself was spawned
>by the comments from Chuck regarding Title 18 and 42 actions only being
>applicable to the "federal zone."  My reply to this is basically, ok
>fine!  So in the world of the purist it/they only apply to the 10 mile
>square area of WDC and the occasional, but rare, properly ceeded area
>within a state.  We are only men, not gods and though our nation is a
>nation of laws, not men, the laws themselves were written by men.  And
>save those which accidentially recognized and codified the natural law
>of God, we are left with a codification or law-making process which,
>even in the more ideal world of the common law, is still quite
>imperfect.
>
>	This never ending, always begining imperfection, results in a life of
>comprimises between the ideal of heaven on earth, and man's laws as
>imperfect reflections of God's will.  So all our actions "in law" will
>be AT BEST, some compromise between the ideal and man's law, and at
>worse a total imersion in man's law (statutory jurisdiction).  The facts
>are that we in this fight are battling an enemy which is immersed in the
>statutory and void of God's law, but they also have the enforcement
>mechanisms in place (granted, taken through usurpation, not law) and to
>use enforcement of the law requires a compromise between the ideal and
>the disgusting.  LeRoy himself may claim this or that about the common
>law vis-a-vis statutory law and its applicability ONLY in some specifice
>geographic area, but the fact is that even LeRoy, used a FEDERAL
>BUILDING, GOVERNMENT resources, a judge paid by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
>and allowed them to come all together to have his case heard under
>alleged common law.  Why?  Simply, because it was the best of a bad
>situation; i.e., a compromise.
>
>18 USC and 42 USC (and other USC's) are useful weapons in the arsenal
>needed to fight these bastards.  In a war, if you run out of ammo for
>your weapon, or there is a need for a more powerful one and the enemy
>just happens to have what you need, do you NOT take advantage of their
>supply just because it belongs to the enemy?  Not hardly I would
>suggest!  And this fight we are in requires the same mind-set and if 18
>USC is a weapon which I can employ to bring a judge out of his
>statutorily acquired immunity, then I absolutely will use it, and would
>recommend others do too.
>
>
>> >> Do NOT appeal this case.  In the 1st place, when you appeal, you as the
>> >> appeallant are certifying that EVERY MATERIAL FACT IN THE RECORD IS
>> >> TRUE; all you are "appealing" is some procedureal error.  The whole
>> >> appeal process was developed by judges, for judges and was designed
>> >> specifically to protect judges from an angry populace for mistakes on
>> >> the bench.
>> >>
>> >> In the 2nd place, appeals are not a right under the Common Law and in
>> >> fact there are rules and Supreme Court Case law which specifically state
>> >> that Citizens do not have a "right" to an appeal -- it is a process
>> >> which can be withheld or allowed at whim.
>> >>
>> >> Certiorari on the other hand is a process whereby the Judge gets to
>> >> certify the record as being complete, and then it is sent up to the
>> >> reviewing panel where both procedure and facts can be reviewed.  Once
>> >> the Certiorari is in, then you submit various writs of errors to the
>> >> reviewing panel.
>> >>
>> >> However, my guess is that this STILL won't do you any good as my guess
>> >> is that you filed the case in the "United States District Court" under
>> >> 42 USC
>> >> 1985 or 1983?  The Common Law as preserved in the Constitution must be
>> >> brought into the court properly and via procedure.  The United States
>> >> District Court is a court of the territories and doesn't have
>> >> jurisdiction to hear the case you are trying to bring.  They admit the
>> >> case of course, but then when they decide to judicially
>> >> rape/pillage/plunder, they can, since the venue and jurisdiction are
>> >> both wrong to begin with.
>> >>
>> >> We do Deprivation of Constitutionally secured rights suits regularly and
>> >> we teach the process too.  Drop me a line if you want to.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> ===========================================================
>> 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