Posted by Dean Arthur on May 02, 1997 at 04:35:52:
In Reply to: Re: Use the USC? posted by Dan on April 30, 1997 at 00:05:31:
: : The men/women of Oath an Affirmation are UNDER the U.S.C..
: : If Citizen In Party makes a special visit upon the court
: : to expose the Knowledge and Neglect of 42 USC 1986 which
: : with others of Oath an Affirmation set up the conspiracy
: : to deprive other Citizens In Party of rights protected
: : per 42 USC 1985, thus causing an injury due to such
: : deprivation of rights under 42 USC 1983 then the Citizen
: : In Party has set his case in stone IF the Complaint
: : contains NONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
: : 1. adjectives
: : 2. adverbs
: : 3. assumptions
: : 4. conclusions
: : 5. presumptions
: : 6. pronouns
: : Remember the following rules of procedure which are NOT taught
: : in law schools:
: : 1. No fact may introduced into evidence.
: : 2. All facts must be:
: : a) Timely
: : b) Highly defined
:
: Thanks for the reply but... I'm still a little
: confused: I think my question was worded badly,
: what I was trying to ask was in all the Affadavits
: of recission, Affadavits of State Citizenship,
: etc..., that people are posting/selling on the
: internet, the authors of these forms use the
: IRC, the USC, and the CFR to bolster and
: substantiate rights and claims of status, and to
: PROTECT THEMSELVES by these federally created
: statutes. Aren't they then "having their cake
: and eating it too?" In other words how can one
: state that you are free of jurisdiction by the
: IRS by using the IRC to bolster that argument.
: and how can one use the UCC or CFR to protect
: oneselft when you are already probably protected
: by the Constitution and Laws that do apply to
: you? (side: why wouldn't one have the right to
: have cake and eat it too, what a dumb saying,
: i'm sorry i used it now.)
If you want to use the Constitution, by all means,
do so. But it behooves all who would to read and
understand the document so as to be able to quote
it forward and backward and KNOW what the words
mean. For this a copy of Bouvier's Law Dictionary
of 1839 and Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the
English language would help to enable each to know
the meanings of the words used.
Comparison between Webster's 1828 and a current
dictionary might amaze one at how much the meaning
of words has changed. Ditto for comparison between
a 1st Edition of Black's Law and the 6th Edition or
comparison between Bouvier's 1839 "Entered according
to an Act of Congress" and the "copyrighted" 1914
edition.
Use of the Internal Re-venue Code is resorted to in
order to establish the wrongs perpetrated by agents
of the I.R.S./B.A.T.F. crowd in order to cowe the
people into submission to unconstitutional secret
"codes" whose real meanings are known only to a
select few and withheld from the rest.
Same with the United States Code and Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
You have to establish that your opponents had
knowledge of the law and failed to stop the wrong
being done which damaged you. Since they swore an
oath to protect and support the Constitution, any
failure to do so is prima facie evidence of
contempt for the constitution, constructive treason
and perjury of oath under 18 U.S.C. 1621.
I am involved in litigation in a county court. The
prosecutor used My spelling of name and location to
send me an envelope containing paper addressed to a
fictitious "person" whose name can be spelled in
all capital letters. Since I had already denounced
such spelling of My Christian appellation absent
an instrument with My bona fide signature which
established My subjugation to statutory enactments,
the prosecutor's mailing of such a document is
prima facie proof of malfeasance and violation of
18 U.S.C. 1342, Mail Fraud. And prosecutor
prattles on about court cases establishing the duty
of "persons" (i.e. those failing to demurr the use
of their names in all capital letters) to obey the
statutes enacted by their peer "persons" who are
U.S. citizens "residing" in the states.
First know who you are and then learn how to defend
your status and put the burden of proof on your
opponents.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it
right!