Re: Use the USC?

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : 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! : : : By jove, I think you've got it maitee (mate)! The rest of youse guys, listen to this one, he's been doing his homework! : : A complete understanding of appelations and their effects : : plus a very advanced approach to action remedies using : : Christian Non-statutory Abatements, sheck out the : : voluminous work of The King's Men and The California : : Jural Society. You can find them on the web using a : : search engine. : We've tried to show John and Randy Lee the problems with their abatements. It mostly has to do with being inconsistent within itself and Noun, Verb, Preposition formatting. We have cleaned them up to where they do not constitute a fraud. As far as we know, the Calif. J.S. didn't listen to us. I know people in jail that used the abatement, but none of those are folks that did what we told them to do. : By the way, Your post that appears to be in answer to Dean Arthur's post more than anything doesn't show that you ae aware that what Dean Arthur is talking about is a much matured version of the J.S.'s "Refusal for Fraud and collusion with denial of due process..." plus other defects. We aren't putting down or selling short what the J.S. guys did. They did a great work. However, there is an old saying, "Poor is the student that does not surpass his teacher." That statement was never truer than it is in the current war. : Incidentally, We have a copy of a seminar manual put out by a WestLaw outfit called STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE - National Center for State Courts - INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT. We're looking at 350 pages of "How to deal with Common Law Courts," and various other thorns in the side of the foreign jurisdiction legal system. Abatements are specifically mentioned, as are other Common Law Courts. The J.S. claims that "theirs is the only right way" is fraudulent, and I'd like to explain that nose to nose, not over the net. The point is, any form of arrogance is fraudulent, only God (YaHWeH) has the "only right way." Other than that, the right way is the one that works. : The aforementioned manual is one being distributed to judges and public entity attorneys (D.A.s, City Attorneys, etc.) at seminars conducted by the aforesaid INSTITUTE. The manual I have a copy of was copyrighted in February, 1997. : I just re-read this part of this post, and I don't like it. It sounds like we're putting someone down. That's not intentional. Try to read it in the spirit of informative, not critical, and it will read ok. No offense to those who do a ton of hard and dilligent work is intended, nor should it be construed. We've been using the abatements about twice per week, but they do have certain areas that need fixing.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: