« One proposal actually been put forward in Congress is to cancel all government debt the FED is currently holding | Main | $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury »
RE: THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18! Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis
Yes Clyde,
You wrote ...
> now I'm wondering how many of the other USC Sections that would also be invalidated
Lots!
When you master the distinction between Federal MUNICIPAL laws
and Federal NATIONAL laws, you'll start seeing lots of examples
of Federal statutes which are MUNICIPAL in scope
but cleverly disguised to appear as if they are NATIONAL in scope:
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif (opinion of "legal experts")
When Congress uses the term "individual", very often you will
find a definition which limits the meaning of that term ONLY to
federal citizens and resident aliens e.g. Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a:
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Here, "citizen of the United States" means federal citizen;
"alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" means "resident alien".
IRC 7701(a)(30) is notorious in this regard, because the correct definition
of "U.S. Individual" -- as that term occurs on all IRS Forms 1040 --
can be inferred from 7701(a)(1) and 7701(a)(30):
Begin reading at: Meaning of “United States person”
Thus, "U.S. Individual" is the living, breathing human variant
of "United States person"; all other variants are artificial,
juristic entities like corporations.
A "United States individual" is the "United-States-type" of human being,
and 7701(a)(30) clearly repeats the terms "citizen of the United States"
and "resident of the United States":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701 (a)(1) and (a)(30)
(30) United States person
The term “United States person” means—
... as does the implementing Regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b):
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax.
In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States.
For another example, we originally found a second "Abrogation Clause"
in the Rules Enabling Act at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b):
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama (A Drama Unfolding)
(b)
Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or
modify any substantive right.
All laws in conflict with such rules shall
be of no further force or effect
after such rules have taken effect.
For another example, the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act
is also unconstitutional
-- for expressly discriminating against
State Citizens:
There are currently two (2) classes of citizens, NOT one (1) class:
Note how this discrimination flatly violates the "policy" at 28 U.S.C. 1861:
It is the policy of
the United States that all litigants in Federal
courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit
juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in
the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the
policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity
to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district
courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as
jurors when summoned for that purpose.
And, the USDC can ONLY exercise jurisdiction when it is expressly
conferred upon that Court:
The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in
Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a
wider connotation, had its historic significance and
described courts created under article 3 of Constitution,
and did not include territorial courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
[headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]
Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal
Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States
including named territorial courts, omission in rules when
drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and
certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal
Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
[headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added]
The following paragraph from Mookini is extraordinary for several
reasons: (1) it refers to the "historic and proper sense" of the
term "District Courts of the United States", (2) it makes a key
distinction between such courts and application of their rules to
territorial courts; (3) the application of the maxim inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius is obvious here, namely, the omission
of territorial courts clearly shows that they were intended to be
omitted:
Not only did the promulgating order use the term District
Courts of the United States in its historic and proper
sense, but the omission of provisions for the application of
the rules to the territorial courts and other courts
mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the
limitation that was intended.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
[emphasis added]
The words "district court of the United States" commonly
describe constitutional courts created under Article III of
the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long
been the courts of the Territories.
[Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.]
v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952)]
[emphasis added]
The phrase "court of the United States", without more, means
solely courts created by Congress under Article III of the
Constitution and not territorial courts.
[Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.]
[v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1948), headnote 1]
[emphasis added]
United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as
is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution.
U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]
[Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)]
[headnote 2. Courts]
The United States district courts are not courts of general
jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as
prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the
Constitution. [many cites omitted]
[Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]
The question of jurisdiction in the court either over the
person, the subject-matter or the place where the crime was
committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal
proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be
proved; and it is never waived by a defendant.
[U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)]
In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction
cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by
collateral attack.
[U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)]
Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the
proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and
execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.
[U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]
The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction
as Congress confers.
[Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin]
[191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
From: Clyde Young <clydeeyoung@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...
Thank you for your response, But now I'm wondering how many of the
other USC Sections that would also be invalidated, as there are some
that very clearly articulate what I
had experienced with the local death squad.
:Clyde-Earl: Young
:AUTOGRAPH: COPYCLAIM:
From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
To: Clyde Young <clydeeyoung@yahoo.com>
Cc: "MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com" <MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com>; "orgmaster@charter.net" <orgmaster@charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...
October 24, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink
