Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Private Attorney General in USA responds to essay "MY TRIBUTE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.," by Johnathan W. Emord (1/20/2014) | Main | History Is Proving That LBJ Killed JFK »

Private Attorney General THANKS retired Sheriff Jim Schwiesow for writing "GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ROBS THE PEOPLE OF PERSONAL RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES"

Related update: 

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

___
 
Post main:
 
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 8:01 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:


Re: 

"The U.S. Code - consisting of many thousands of arbitrary statutory laws - is an enemy of the people. These statutes are not laws they are mandates that are specifically adaptive to entrapment and control. One cannot get through a day without violating one or more of these so-called laws; they are all inclusive, intrusive, and invasive to every segment of day to day existence. They comprise a virtual web of controlling measures that enables containment of personal freedoms, and they were specifically drafted to that purpose. The U.S. Code as it exists separates the people from their inherent and God-given liberties."


Greetings Jim,

The paragraph above caught my eye, in large part because
our work has identified so many reasons that fully support
your conclusions.  

For example:

( 1 )  The U.S. Code is not an accurate rendition of the
Statutes at Large from which that Code was derived:

( a )  the liberal construction rule for the Federal RICO statutes
was never codified anywhere in the U.S. Code, even though
Title 18 was revised, codified and enacted into positive law
on June 25, 1948:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961

“(a) The provisions of this title [enacting this chapter and 
amending sections 15052516, and 2517 of this title] 
shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.



( b ) another example is the amendment to the Federal Privacy Act
at P.L. 93-579:  one must already know about that amendment
in order to find it in the Legislative History of that Privacy Act:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/pl93-579/

( c )  another, even more serious example is the IRS Restructuring 
and Reform Act of 1998, which was likewise never codified 
anywhere in Title 26 of the U.S. Code: this is extremely serious
because that RRA98 gave legal force and effect to the IRS
Internal Revenue Manual:  IRS personnel can now be terminated
for violating any provision in that IRM:

 
( 2 ) some Titles of the U.S. Code were never enacted into positive
law by Act of Congress -- Title 26 being among the most notorious
of those Titles which have not been enacted -- and that by itself 
renders key sections of IRC subtitle F demonstrably void for vagueness
e.g. IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) where "this title" is simply not defined:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7851  (a)(6)(A)

(6) Subtitle F 
(A) General rule 
The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment ofthis title 
and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title.



( 3 )  another even more shocking discovery was the pair 
of back-to-back "abrogation clauses" in Titles 18 and 28:
we initially cracked that abomination in this pleading
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and 48 UNlicensed ATTORNeys
either fell totally silent, or formally waived their clients'
right to answer:
Then, a preferred client retained me to do the same
analysis with Title 18, and -- sure enough -- the exact same
"abrogation clause" was lurking in that Act of June 25, 1948,
but it was later replaced with an entirely different statute
having to do with victims' rights:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm


(4)  and, without a doubt, the Grandaddy of all these Frauds is
the failure by Congress clearly to distinguish Federal MUNICIPAL laws
from Federal NATIONAL laws:

( a ) we exposed that ruse in the Internal Revenue Code way back in 1992,
in "The Federal Zone":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

( b ) that finding was a literal gold mine, because it helped us to develop
effective methods for determining when other Acts of Congress were
MUNICIPAL in scope, but written by Congress to make them appear
AS IF they were NATIONAL in scope:

( c )  a really good illustration of this distinction can be confirmed
by comparing 42 U.S.C. 1983 with 42 U.S.C. 1985:
1983 is Federal MUNICIPAL law:  see Wadleigh v. Newhall;
1985 is Federal NATIONAL law: see Gillespie v. Civiletti;

( d ) every once in a while, Congress opens Pandora's Box --
by openly admitting that "State" has a "special definition"
in several key statutes:  see the Omnibus Acts for the smoking guns:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-b.htm

( e ) these RE-definitions of "State" just happen to violate
the Eisner Prohibition, where the Supreme Court told Congress
that it could NOT re-define any terms that were already 
in the U.S. Constitution:  see Eisner v. Macomber;

( f )  and, quite happily, all of the latter helped to pinpoint the
correct legal meaning of "U.S. Individual" on IRS Form 1040:
it uses the exact same meaning of "individual" as the latter term
is expressly defined in the Federal Privacy Act:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or 
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;


( 5 ) last but not least, the way Congress has fabricated a second class
of federal citizens was fully exposed by juxtaposing the 1866 Civil Rights Act
with correct key holdings in the Dred Scott decision issued only 10 years earlier:

http://supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm
http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

( a ) the latter expose is so far-reaching, it has proven that 
Americans who are qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House
are not eligible to vote or serve on juries of any kind;  and,
Americans who are eligible to vote and serve on juries
are not qualified to serve in the House, Senate or White House!


( b ) the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act is therefore
unconstitutional for expressly discriminating against
Citizens of ONE OF the States united i.e. the very same
class of Americans who are qualified to serve in the
House, Senate and White House!

http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a

Thanks for all you do, Jim.  Keep up the good work!



-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
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

January 26, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink