Dear Jim,
Actually, I welcome the "Court Attendance Notices" and tell the Police that I want to go to Court because they are our Courts and that is where we fight for our Rights.
Our enemies fear Juries and have orchestrated the Judiciary into denying us this essential Right. Unless we can smash these Kangaroo Courts, the Banks will continue to destroy us.
Section 92 of the Australian Constitution deals with "the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States..." and has nothing to do with Common Law.
Keep me informed of any actions being taken against you and other "UPMART" clients.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Assaulted and robbed by Police
Hi John,
It appears you have now experienced what some UPMART members - including myself - have gone through in relation to using common law vehicle registration in Victoria, NSW and QLD. Anyone who attempts to exercise their natural human right, common law and federal constitutional (section 92) right of passage and travel in their private motor vehicle without state registration can expect similar or worse treatment.
State police are essentially corporate mercenaries and thugs with little common sense and even less knowledge of the people's rights and liberties. They don't really know what to do with strong willed and determined people like yourself who refuse to be subservient to their delusion of authority and jurisdiction. Thus, they resort to threats, intimidation, coercion and theft of private property in the hope they can break you.
Although I disagree with your strategy of trying to obtain justice in the corrupt "injustice" system, I still applaud your fierce stand in defending your rights. I still continue to drive with my common law vehicle registration plates and am occasionally intercepted by police. However, I don't try and argue with these morons but merely ask questions and demand the fictitious state and its police "public servants" factually prove their unjust laws, authority and jurisdiction over my life and property against my free will and consent. In addition, I carry and use a small audio voice recorder whenever I dialogue with police. It helps to remind them to mind their words and manners!
In most of my confrontations with police they resort to threats, fines, theft of my private plates and various charge and summons to attend court which I have ignored for years. Interestingly, I have not had the police or sheriff follow-up on my disregard and rejection of their delusions of authority. I suspect it's because I don't voluntarily appear in their corporate courts and grant them recognition, consent and jurisdiction over me. You might want to try that some time.
Regards
Jim
Friday, December 28, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Below you will find the New Cover Letter and Citizen's Affidavit Forms. They have been copy and pasted below for your convenience to copy and paste into what ever Word Program you are using? On the Conference Call tonight we will be going over these next forms to DC for filing. Please be ready to edit these forms and we will start a little after 7:00 PM. central at 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#. You might take note that the Cover letter needs to be on one page so try and format it properly? Tom Rogers has been sent the new edited forms for posting for download.............
We will also be discussing after getting through the forms the next filing Class Action in the Federal Court of Claims! Here is the link of a past filing of an Class Action suit that the Court has let go forward for Damages! :-) http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Allegra/06/ALLEGRA.Barnes.071706.pdf
Also, PLEASE understand that the Subject Matter for tonights call is these Forms and the Class Action filing! Please hold your conversation about your cases, your cat or dog or you had a flat tire until after we complete the editing and then we will open the call up for other topics? Hopefully it will not be a long night? :-)
Thank you for your support and time!
See yea at 7!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM
STATE of Pennsylvania )
)
COUNTY of York )
Re: Petition for a Redress of Grievances pursuant to Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America, demanding Judicial Reform in conformance with the provisions of that Constitution.
This instrument is lawful notification and is served pursuant with regard to the federal Constitution, specifically, Articles II, III and IV, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth plus the Fourteenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath of office.
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT CAELUM
May Justice Prevail, Though The Heavens Fall
I, the undersigned _John Doe_ , am of majority age and competent to testify. I do hereby swear and affirm under the penalty for perjury that I have just cause to place or support a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL before our Legislators, and that the averments herein are the TRUTH, the whole truth and not misleading to the best of my knowledge. As one of “Due Process Defenders/We the People” of the United States of America, and the State/Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I submit to the House of Representatives of the United States, that the Judicial Branch of this Nation’s government has been corrupted, compromised, and must as a result be reformed, and/or otherwise restored to its constitutionally empowered status. Due to a history and present performances of ‘Judicial Misconduct’, Ethical and Constitutional violations, Abuse of Power and Criminal Misconduct in and by the courts, and the unwillingness of courts and judges to hold themselves accountable for transgressions against ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’, a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL, is the one and most obvious recourse left to the people, to seek a Redress of Grievances and a “Constitutional” remedy for the problem.
In support of the PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL I do hereby swear and aver as follows:
That the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, ordained and established under authority of Congress have a DUTY under the Constitution and/or Delegation of Authority to exercise any and all judicial or administrative functions of the courts in accordance and conformance with the terms and conditions established by the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That the Constitution and Laws of the United States secures to all Citizens of the several States the “Privileges and Immunities” of the Citizens of the several States as enumerated in that Constitution.
That the courts have two primary duties: to protect the rights of Citizens from an oppressive government and to search for TRUTH.
That the courts of my district, ordained and established under authority of Congress, have failed to protect the “Privileges and Immunities” my rights and other Citizens of the several States.
That the courts of my district have failed to police the judicial conduct of inferior courts ordained and established in the States under authority of Congress, which inferior courts have systemically and systematically deprived myself and other citizens of the several states of “Privileges and Immunities” rights secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, violating their DUTY to perform the duties of office with due diligence.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above perform the duties of their office with absolute disregard for their Oath of Office, an oath that requires each judge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and have engaged in conduct averse to their duty to protect the constitutional rights of Citizens, and knowingly and intentionally obstruct the search for TRUTH and FACT.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in conduct averse to the requirements of Honesty and Integrity, fundamental requirements for their office of TRUST before ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in corrupt acts or practices, for which disciplinary action is necessary, including impeachment.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines:
CORRUPTION: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and/or have engaged in criminal acts, including tampering with official records to deprive myself and other Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States and State-Sanctioned ‘Theft Under Color of Law’, in a ‘RACKETEERING,’ ‘FRAUD UPON THE COURT,’ and violations to ‘ANTI-TRUST’ laws schema.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of violating their oaths of office; of depriving Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” rights; by violating the Code of Judicial Conduct; and of commiting criminal acts not limited to crimes specifically described in 18 USC 241 and 242.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of corrupt acts or practices, neglect of duty and/or malfeasance of office sufficient to require disciplinary action against them, including removal from office via impeachment proceedings, and/or investigative action and possible criminal prosecution.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed.; a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (Rules of Civil Procedure); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Stealing; commit acts of terrorism via threats and intimidation of Citizens, etc.; commit acts of terrorism via unlawful eviction; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; commit acts “at war” with the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; fail to provide evidentiary support for an order; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; are accomplices to the criminal act of entering false claims and counterfeit securites into the record and the case; misrepresent fact and Law to the appellate court enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Theft; commit perjury and subornation of perjury; withhold “appeals” from the appellate court; intentionally enter criminally corrupt orders contrary to Law; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States; and more.
That “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”.
That in these courts and the Court of Common Pleas of other Pennsylvania counties, a judge or judges engage in the same corrupt acts or practices as noted for State cases Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, including intentional “delays” of hearings to DENY Citizens of the several States access to the courts and thereby DENY JUSTICE to these Citizens.
That Due Process Defenders/We the People have a right to TRUST, courts ordained and established under Congressional delegation of authority, will conduct the business of the courts in accordance and compliance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That judges, who knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office to violate the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People and thereby commit “Crimes Against the People,” must be addressed for the sake and preservation of our nation and government.
That this Congress has a DUTY under the Constitution to investigate the charges brought forth, and to institute Judicial Reform as needed to restore Integrity and Honesty to courts of Law, so as to establish jurisdiction and validity.
That the members of The House of Representatives, have a DUTY under their oaths of office to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate, those judges who fail to conduct the business of the courts in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States; and/or who violate the Constitutional rights of Citizens of the several States, and/or who have committed criminal acts in violation of the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People.
After this, Affiant Sayeth naught.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VERIFICATION OF TRUTH
I, John Doe, hereby verify that the statements of fact and averments contained in this instrument are true and correct, materially complete and not misleading to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I consent to the penalty for perjury if this document contains any knowingly false statements or allegations, pursuant to my sincerely held religious beliefs and spiritual training and as expressed in the Ninth Commandment. (Exodus 20:16)
Dated: This fourteenth day of the eleventh month, anno Domini: Two thousand and seven: Two thousand and seven {November 14, AD2007} in New York, York County, Pennsylvania.
Signed: ______________________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
_________________________________________
Witness 1
_________________________________________
Witness 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, I, John Doe / Expressed Procurator herewith give my authorization and consent to any member of Congress and/or his designate staff assistant, to make a proper inquiry on my behalf (i.p.j.) concerning the appended Private/Public Bill. The U.S. Congress’ Enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, codifies the ‘private attorney general’ principle, which “offer” is herewith accepted on behalf of injured party John Doe / “private attorney general”, hereafter “Doe” in pursuing action on this appended Private/Public Bill, which is sponsored by a representative, who has actual authority to bind the government based upon oath and federal, as well as constitutional mandates. A Private/Public Bill is an Act considered or acted upon by the legislature, that helps a single individual or group of citizens by: affording relief from another law; granting a unique benefit; or relieving the individual from legal responsibility for some allegedly wrongful act not otherwise available through statute or the common law, including an alleged or imposed “lack of contract with the government,” culminating in a breech of fiduciary duty and lawful mandates, because of failure to prove a contract and/or to enforce lawful standards by those bearing a requirement so to do, under the four necessary elements thereto. This notice and acceptance of a filing fee creates and solidifies a contract with government for past, present, or future actions, as well as providing written evidence of violations to ALL legal standards contractual or inherent by nature to each citizen via the Constitution and Laws of this Nation, which afford a government of standing, any contractual relationship/basis, or ownership interest in for those bearing a fiduciary, lawful, or representative position of standing.
Private/Public bills shall be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2509 as amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which authorizes (s.m.j.) either house of Congress to refer bills to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for investigation, and report to the appropriate house as a means of obtaining redress of grievances for an individual or individuals.
On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Doe had process server Eugene Wrona or Michael Norley serve and file with the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at the Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515, a copy of a Private Bill for relief of Doe, a copy being delivered to Burt Wides, Esquire, Attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, and to Chris Cannon, Representative, 3rd District of Utah.
The Private/Public Bill for relief is filed related or pertaining to Pennsylvania, civil
Dockets as indexed in these public records, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) as indexed in this public record, et al as shown in the appended Private/Public Bill; the docket numbers can be verified at the locations stated. The Private/Public Bill affirms evidence of multiple constitutional violations, which inflicts irreparable harm on Citizens of the several States and upon Palmerton. The Private/Public Bill may identify acts prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C. § 1968 and by enforcement, commiting the undersigned into “involutary servitude” pursuant to 18 PaCS § 2902 under “full faith and credit”. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1481.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature ___________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
Below you will find the New Cover Letter and Citizen's Affidavit Forms. They have been copy and pasted below for your convenience to copy and paste into what ever Word Program you are using? On the Conference Call tonight we will be going over these next forms to DC for filing. Please be ready to edit these forms and we will start a little after 7:00 PM. central at 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#. You might take note that the Cover letter needs to be on one page so try and format it properly? Tom Rogers has been sent the new edited forms for posting for download.............
We will also be discussing after getting through the forms the next filing Class Action in the Federal Court of Claims! Here is the link of a past filing of an Class Action suit that the Court has let go forward for Damages! :-) http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Allegra/06/ALLEGRA.Barnes.071706.pdf
Also, PLEASE understand that the Subject Matter for tonights call is these Forms and the Class Action filing! Please hold your conversation about your cases, your cat or dog or you had a flat tire until after we complete the editing and then we will open the call up for other topics? Hopefully it will not be a long night? :-)
Thank you for your support and time!
See yea at 7!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZEN’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM
STATE of Pennsylvania )
)
COUNTY of York )
Re: Petition for a Redress of Grievances pursuant to Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America, demanding Judicial Reform in conformance with the provisions of that Constitution.
This instrument is lawful notification and is served pursuant with regard to the federal Constitution, specifically, Articles II, III and IV, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth plus the Fourteenth Amendments, and pursuant to your oath of office.
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT CAELUM
May Justice Prevail, Though The Heavens Fall
I, the undersigned _John Doe_ , am of majority age and competent to testify. I do hereby swear and affirm under the penalty for perjury that I have just cause to place or support a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL before our Legislators, and that the averments herein are the TRUTH, the whole truth and not misleading to the best of my knowledge. As one of “Due Process Defenders/We the People” of the United States of America, and the State/Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I submit to the House of Representatives of the United States, that the Judicial Branch of this Nation’s government has been corrupted, compromised, and must as a result be reformed, and/or otherwise restored to its constitutionally empowered status. Due to a history and present performances of ‘Judicial Misconduct’, Ethical and Constitutional violations, Abuse of Power and Criminal Misconduct in and by the courts, and the unwillingness of courts and judges to hold themselves accountable for transgressions against ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’, a PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL, is the one and most obvious recourse left to the people, to seek a Redress of Grievances and a “Constitutional” remedy for the problem.
In support of the PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM and PRIVATE/PUBLIC BILL I do hereby swear and aver as follows:
That the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, ordained and established under authority of Congress have a DUTY under the Constitution and/or Delegation of Authority to exercise any and all judicial or administrative functions of the courts in accordance and conformance with the terms and conditions established by the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That the Constitution and Laws of the United States secures to all Citizens of the several States the “Privileges and Immunities” of the Citizens of the several States as enumerated in that Constitution.
That the courts have two primary duties: to protect the rights of Citizens from an oppressive government and to search for TRUTH.
That the courts of my district, ordained and established under authority of Congress, have failed to protect the “Privileges and Immunities” my rights and other Citizens of the several States.
That the courts of my district have failed to police the judicial conduct of inferior courts ordained and established in the States under authority of Congress, which inferior courts have systemically and systematically deprived myself and other citizens of the several states of “Privileges and Immunities” rights secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, violating their DUTY to perform the duties of office with due diligence.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above perform the duties of their office with absolute disregard for their Oath of Office, an oath that requires each judge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and have engaged in conduct averse to their duty to protect the constitutional rights of Citizens, and knowingly and intentionally obstruct the search for TRUTH and FACT.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in conduct averse to the requirements of Honesty and Integrity, fundamental requirements for their office of TRUST before ‘Due Process Defenders/We the People’.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in corrupt acts or practices, for which disciplinary action is necessary, including impeachment.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines:
CORRUPTION: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts as described above engage and/or have engaged in criminal acts, including tampering with official records to deprive myself and other Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” secured to all Citizens under the Constitution and Laws of the United States and State-Sanctioned ‘Theft Under Color of Law’, in a ‘RACKETEERING,’ ‘FRAUD UPON THE COURT,’ and violations to ‘ANTI-TRUST’ laws schema.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of violating their oaths of office; of depriving Citizens of the several States of “Privileges and Immunities” rights; by violating the Code of Judicial Conduct; and of commiting criminal acts not limited to crimes specifically described in 18 USC 241 and 242.
That judges in the courts of my district and/or inferior courts, as described above engage and/or have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of corrupt acts or practices, neglect of duty and/or malfeasance of office sufficient to require disciplinary action against them, including removal from office via impeachment proceedings, and/or investigative action and possible criminal prosecution.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed.; a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (Rules of Civil Procedure); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Stealing; commit acts of terrorism via threats and intimidation of Citizens, etc.; commit acts of terrorism via unlawful eviction; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; commit acts “at war” with the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; fail to provide evidentiary support for an order; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and more.
That in the State cases in Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, a judge or judges: arbitrarily violate the Rules of Court (F.R.C.P.); conduct alleged “hearings” where the outcome is pre-determined [“fixed”]; are accomplices to the criminal act of entering false claims and counterfeit securites into the record and the case; misrepresent fact and Law to the appellate court enter orders that commit State-Sanctioned Theft; commit perjury and subornation of perjury; withhold “appeals” from the appellate court; intentionally enter criminally corrupt orders contrary to Law; intentionally violate the “Privileges and Immunities” of Citizens of the several States (Commonwealth); fail to timely ‘rule’ on motions adverse to the pre-determined “winner” of litigation; exercise egregious DISHONESTY; violate their Oaths of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; commit acts at war with the Constitution of the United States; deprive Citizens of rights secured to all Citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States; and more.
That “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”.
That in these courts and the Court of Common Pleas of other Pennsylvania counties, a judge or judges engage in the same corrupt acts or practices as noted for State cases Commonwealth Court, Superiour Court and York County Court of Common Pleas York County, Pennsylvania, civil Docket Nos. 00-02472 thru and including 07-06399 and criminal Docket Nos. 1156-04 , SA-0354-07 and others as indexed in this public record, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #:03-cv-05596-AH, 05cv09324, 06-cv03678 and others as indexed, including intentional “delays” of hearings to DENY Citizens of the several States access to the courts and thereby DENY JUSTICE to these Citizens.
That Due Process Defenders/We the People have a right to TRUST, courts ordained and established under Congressional delegation of authority, will conduct the business of the courts in accordance and compliance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
That judges, who knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office to violate the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People and thereby commit “Crimes Against the People,” must be addressed for the sake and preservation of our nation and government.
That this Congress has a DUTY under the Constitution to investigate the charges brought forth, and to institute Judicial Reform as needed to restore Integrity and Honesty to courts of Law, so as to establish jurisdiction and validity.
That the members of The House of Representatives, have a DUTY under their oaths of office to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate, those judges who fail to conduct the business of the courts in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United States; and/or who violate the Constitutional rights of Citizens of the several States, and/or who have committed criminal acts in violation of the TRUST of Due Process Defenders/We the People.
After this, Affiant Sayeth naught.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VERIFICATION OF TRUTH
I, John Doe, hereby verify that the statements of fact and averments contained in this instrument are true and correct, materially complete and not misleading to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I consent to the penalty for perjury if this document contains any knowingly false statements or allegations, pursuant to my sincerely held religious beliefs and spiritual training and as expressed in the Ninth Commandment. (Exodus 20:16)
Dated: This fourteenth day of the eleventh month, anno Domini: Two thousand and seven: Two thousand and seven {November 14, AD2007} in New York, York County, Pennsylvania.
Signed: ______________________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
_________________________________________
Witness 1
_________________________________________
Witness 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, I, John Doe / Expressed Procurator herewith give my authorization and consent to any member of Congress and/or his designate staff assistant, to make a proper inquiry on my behalf (i.p.j.) concerning the appended Private/Public Bill. The U.S. Congress’ Enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, codifies the ‘private attorney general’ principle, which “offer” is herewith accepted on behalf of injured party John Doe / “private attorney general”, hereafter “Doe” in pursuing action on this appended Private/Public Bill, which is sponsored by a representative, who has actual authority to bind the government based upon oath and federal, as well as constitutional mandates. A Private/Public Bill is an Act considered or acted upon by the legislature, that helps a single individual or group of citizens by: affording relief from another law; granting a unique benefit; or relieving the individual from legal responsibility for some allegedly wrongful act not otherwise available through statute or the common law, including an alleged or imposed “lack of contract with the government,” culminating in a breech of fiduciary duty and lawful mandates, because of failure to prove a contract and/or to enforce lawful standards by those bearing a requirement so to do, under the four necessary elements thereto. This notice and acceptance of a filing fee creates and solidifies a contract with government for past, present, or future actions, as well as providing written evidence of violations to ALL legal standards contractual or inherent by nature to each citizen via the Constitution and Laws of this Nation, which afford a government of standing, any contractual relationship/basis, or ownership interest in for those bearing a fiduciary, lawful, or representative position of standing.
Private/Public bills shall be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2509 as amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which authorizes (s.m.j.) either house of Congress to refer bills to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for investigation, and report to the appropriate house as a means of obtaining redress of grievances for an individual or individuals.
On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Doe had process server Eugene Wrona or Michael Norley serve and file with the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at the Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515, a copy of a Private Bill for relief of Doe, a copy being delivered to Burt Wides, Esquire, Attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, and to Chris Cannon, Representative, 3rd District of Utah.
The Private/Public Bill for relief is filed related or pertaining to Pennsylvania, civil
Dockets as indexed in these public records, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) as indexed in this public record, et al as shown in the appended Private/Public Bill; the docket numbers can be verified at the locations stated. The Private/Public Bill affirms evidence of multiple constitutional violations, which inflicts irreparable harm on Citizens of the several States and upon Palmerton. The Private/Public Bill may identify acts prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C. § 1968 and by enforcement, commiting the undersigned into “involutary servitude” pursuant to 18 PaCS § 2902 under “full faith and credit”. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1481.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature ___________________________
John Doe
123 Justice Drive
New York, Pennsylvania 16500
815-555-5555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Dear Lovey,
Yes, we have Hansard for records of Parliamentary debates. Similarly, "Royal Assent" from the Governor-General and State Governors is a nonsense because QE2 has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia (she being the Head of State of a foreign power, ie: the UK) and there are no Orders In Council from the Privy Council for their appointments, anyway and rightly so.
It's all one bug bluff...enforced by thuggery.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lovey Cridge
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: ATRG update for John
Hi John!
We in Canada have House Of Commons Debates recorded. It is called a Hansard. Do you have such an animal?
I did alot of research into the income tax act and discovered that it is not legislated properly. Halsbury states that if an act does not have royal assent it can be impeached. So, - I went to both the Simon Fraser and University of B.C., to get my info. Reading the 1st line of the 1985 Revised Statutes of the income tax act, it reads - This act revises the 1952 revised statutes. So I go to the 1952 revised statutes to see what it had to say. the 1952 RS reads this act revises 1948 chapter 52. Okay , so I go looking for 1948 Ch 52. Found it in the Hansards. But in 1948 we still had the Income War Tax Act, hmm 2 taxes?? Go look what the Governor General has to say in 1948. Oh, the GG's throne speech stated revise the existing act not create a new act. Then look for the Canada Gazette, as all acts must be posted in the Gazette before it can be activated. Well, well. it is not posted in the Gazette, nor does it have the royal assent. So. it is not legislated properly. It is null and void. Do you have anything similar to Canada?
Lovey
----- Original Message -----
From: Gee Temp
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail.wide.net.au
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Kennedy Killed by The Bankers
President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110
by Cedric X
From The Final Call, Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and credits money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Some information on the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolish the Federal Reserve (by Congressman Ron Paul)
The Rockefeller Fortunes
The Creature from Jekyll Island
U.S. is in Deep Doodoo!
__________ NOD32 2683 (20071124) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Yes, we have Hansard for records of Parliamentary debates. Similarly, "Royal Assent" from the Governor-General and State Governors is a nonsense because QE2 has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia (she being the Head of State of a foreign power, ie: the UK) and there are no Orders In Council from the Privy Council for their appointments, anyway and rightly so.
It's all one bug bluff...enforced by thuggery.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lovey Cridge
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: ATRG update for John
Hi John!
We in Canada have House Of Commons Debates recorded. It is called a Hansard. Do you have such an animal?
I did alot of research into the income tax act and discovered that it is not legislated properly. Halsbury states that if an act does not have royal assent it can be impeached. So, - I went to both the Simon Fraser and University of B.C., to get my info. Reading the 1st line of the 1985 Revised Statutes of the income tax act, it reads - This act revises the 1952 revised statutes. So I go to the 1952 revised statutes to see what it had to say. the 1952 RS reads this act revises 1948 chapter 52. Okay , so I go looking for 1948 Ch 52. Found it in the Hansards. But in 1948 we still had the Income War Tax Act, hmm 2 taxes?? Go look what the Governor General has to say in 1948. Oh, the GG's throne speech stated revise the existing act not create a new act. Then look for the Canada Gazette, as all acts must be posted in the Gazette before it can be activated. Well, well. it is not posted in the Gazette, nor does it have the royal assent. So. it is not legislated properly. It is null and void. Do you have anything similar to Canada?
Lovey
----- Original Message -----
From: Gee Temp
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail.wide.net.au
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Kennedy Killed by The Bankers
President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110
by Cedric X
From The Final Call, Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and credits money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Some information on the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolish the Federal Reserve (by Congressman Ron Paul)
The Rockefeller Fortunes
The Creature from Jekyll Island
U.S. is in Deep Doodoo!
__________ NOD32 2683 (20071124) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Dear Big Al,
Ever heard the saying, "The Truth is simple"?
All these lawyers and would-be lawyers are on some ego-trip, trying to impress others with their contortions and nonsensical hypotheses.
When you go into Court and there is no Jury, and you want a Jury, you Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court and have a Jury decide if there will be Trial by Jury.
All this cockamania about "contract with the Judge, etc."??? Anyone who gets sucked in by that is to be pitied - because they have lost sight of reality.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: How about that "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE"?????....Doesn't that say it all?
"CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail communication is intended for the
sole use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited, unless otherwise authorized
herein. Access to this e-mail by any other person/entity is unauthorized."
Dear Wolter,
These and a load of other issues must be brought to the ultimate authority to make and impose laws, ie: to a JURY.
The criminals and traitors are presently denying us our Right to Trial by Jury...which is why we must (all of us) Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Courts.
This is "CHECKMATE" in our favour......and the criminals and traitors resort of physical assault to gag and imprison us.
That is what is happening in OUR COURTS TO US.
We have the RULE OF LAW on our side..........the criminals and traitors only have the MINDLESS BRUTE FORCE of the Sheriffs.
Our fight is for JUSTICE.
Who will triumph?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: joosse
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
With respect Maurice, what you assume is utterly incorrect. We fully understand what world we live in today. However, we were expressing views on what de jure procedure of governing in God's name means, and what makes for de jure authority. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe me when I say that I have far greater understanding of what is happening to us all than the temporal issues that you refer to below.
It was very refreshing, to me at least, to see one post a candid and correct interpretation of what the Crown represents, and the obligations that go with those who represent same. Very few people really understand the natural law. To discover where it is de facto is a relatively easy exercise. However, if you understood the subject as well as you might, then you would realize that those incidents you speak of below are only the result of people who purport to act in the name of the Crown.
Acting on behalf of Elizabeth II can hardly be justified to act in the name of God [the Crown]. Mrs Elizabeth Guelph abdicated together with her purported government the moment that she broke her covenant [coronation oath] with God. You may pick any her of her breaches, and there are plenty to choose from I suggest. Besides she never enjoyed a natural birthright to the Crown and in reality is only an impostor. The rightful King of the UK would be Michael Hastings who resides in Inverell in NSW, Australia. So please do not mix up de facto authority with de jure authority.
And with respect, you only could go on with what the present de facto Regina might represent and others who follow or represent a false crown. But that is another debate altogether. Anyone who purports to be an officer of the Crown has a duty of care to uphold the temporal Sovereign's covenant with God and His Laws. Failing to do so is an act of treason, since it means the demise of the temporal Sovereign as she abdicates in law.
kind regards
Wolter
----- Original Message -----
From: Maurice Kellett
To: Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
My reply to this posting is likely to be long so I will make it as short as possible.
It does appear that you are living in an unreal world with delusions about what the UK Monarchy is and is not.The Judicial Oath of fairness sworn by all UK judges and magistrates is a massive fraud and the Crown is an integral part of this fraud. Fairness under the Judicial Oath is not a common feature of the UK justice system. Corrupt judges etc, such as former recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding, reputed to be a friend of Queen Elizabeth II, shelter from their crimes under the Crown. Queen Elizabeth II is nothing to do with God insofar as she is being protected by the Royal Prerogative not God.
Criminals favoured by the UK Monarch are being given Crown immunity from prosecution and this may well also be unlawful and in any event and is certainly more Crown injustice.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has been passed down throughout the ages under Common Law. The UK Crown has its own laws it would seem and has never relied on the Common Law. If the Crown alleges that the Royal Prerogative preventing them from prosecution, which the corrupt UK establishment is doing, then the Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury has also been passed down throughout the ages since long before the Royal Progative was allegedly handed down. The principles of law under the Magna Carta have been eroded by the many corrupt judges now in seats of power in the UK. Their inherent corruption is being protected by the Crown. I have first hand knowledge of this fact so I do speak from experience. Even a summary examination will show that a Monarchy has very often had nothing to do with justice for the people. A Monarchy makes its own laws and rules according to what suits them at the time. We have seen this situation quite recently in the matter of Charles and Camilla. Up until quite recent times, a divorcee was not allowed to marry into the Royal Family. For Charlie boy this has all changed.
Several years ago I wrote to Queen Elizabeth II on the matter of the theft of my home, land, and most of my personal possessions resulting from crime carried out against me by recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding of Bassentwaite, Kewick, Cumbria I have made two demands to the Chief Constable of Cumbria, for the arrest of Spedding. These demands continue to be ignored.
I also included the fact in my letter to the UK Crown that Northumbria Police Special Squad officers had taken part in the theft of my home and had also made two attempts on my life first by shooting me and by trying to push a sword into my chest in February 2003 at Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne and Wear. I am now quite sure why police had attempted to murder me. Yes I do believe that there is a God but I don't think that the UK Crown has that belief. Of course I did not receive an acknowledgement from those at Buckingham Palace to my letter. For them to have done that would have also meant acknowledgement that Crown officers, i.e. the police do carry out murder in the name of the Crown. We have seen a similar situation recently with the police murder of Charles de Menzies. There are in fact more such murders.
I could go on with the argument against what the Crown is not, but doing that with someone who thinks that the Crown can do no wrong and that the sun shines out of her rear is clearly living on another world where fairies live. I worked very hard for what was stolen from me. That followed my having contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the UK police and judiciary in 1996. That alleged Inquiry was carried out with Crown permission. The UK Crown is the Patron of the Secret Society of Freemasonry so it was not and could never have been an independent or impartial Inquiry. Lord Nolan who chaired that alleged Inquiry died on 22nd February this year. He was surely well aware of these facts the same as myself. I kept in personal contact with Lord Nolan for several years after the alleged Inquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. These people operate under the Crown authority and any adverse outcome of such Inquiry would only have reflected back to the Crown. History proves this would never be allowed by the Crown.
Maurice Kellett.
----- Original Message -----
From: Maxwell
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
All Christian's have "real" Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
People forget what's really hidden behind the CROWN.
1. The Queen is a "Regina" not a Queen she is "R" a female Regent. BIG DIFFERENCE.
THIS IS WHY "CROWN" CASES ARE NOTED ----- "R" v Smith. (Regina v Smith)
2. The King took none to Court and defended those being punished. He pre-released all those with faith and works from all sin.
Sin no more. A Court is a Christian Royal house, A tribunal is a Roman Pagan Temple.
3. A Regent only rules in the "absence" of the King.
4. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is not the Queen.
5. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is Jesus Christ as "Publicly" acknowledged by the Church. Christ means King.
6. The Royal King of Kings can never be replaced nor die as he was raised from his death (he died "King of the Jews") and was given "all" Authority in Heaven and on Earth as King of Kings Lord of Lords, he lives forever therefore any "other" future King or Queen etc will be imposter.
Thy (your) Kingdom come "on Earth" as it is in Heaven (already)
7. All Christian's have Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
As all Christians are the "adopted" ( legal children ) of the King as per the Royal Law, Last Testament and Will.
If the King predated their forgiveness of ALL sin what man or woman would dare charge them.
What common servant would dare charge a Kings child let alone the very King of Kings children.
Forgive us our debts (sins errors debts) as we forgive our Debtors.
8. The Crown and ALL authority belongs to the King, he has an Estate that is administered by common Servants our his Servants.
9. The Crown, the Titles, the Treasury the Estate has been abused stolen and hidden from his adopted children.
10 A will and testament has existed for hundreds of years in the common language of his children, it describes his estate, his Kingdom, the inheritance, heirs and inheritors, the wicked servants, the wicked Judges, (Judge Not lest you be Judged), Woes of Bloodguilt weigh on the Lawyers & Religious Heads (Scribes and Pharisees).
If probated, the very will of the King would share the Crown Estate equally among the Kings children. This is why it the WILL is hidden concealed abused for they have stolen the LOT.
11. The Church of England is untaxed and owns each title of Land in the "Commonwealth" is in her Religious Subdivision as a Registered "Parish"
12. The Landowners have NO real estate ownership they are registered TENANT's, either as Tenants in Common or Joint Tenants.
13. The creation of non existent Corpses that are fictional dead persons invented as dead Corp orations masks the hidden owners of everything real and shield them "the servants" from prosecution & examination. This corruption has resulted in everything including Churches Political Parties Nations Governments Public Utilities Banks Credits Debts Assets even our Water of all life of the people being wholesaled and stolen without examination charge or mass complaint.
14. If any Regent were King or Regina were Queen the Jubilee itself released all from slavery debts every 7 years and every 50th year was a Grand Jubilee 7 x 7 + 1 = 50.
He was annointed by his Father at his Baptism in year 30 ..... He died in 33 ..........1974 years later .....39.5 Royal Jubilees later......Were still waiting for the Jubilee.
Thanks
Mike Maxwell
Without Prejudice
All Rights Rites Writes and Riots Reserved
Without Recourse
Version dated 22nd November 2007
=================================================================================================
At 12:30 AM 20/11/2007 -0800, Maurice Kellett wrote:
Dear Michael,
I will reply to your e-mail hopefully more fully sometime latere today. I have urgent work that needs attention today. you have written:
"Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS"
One question which comes to my mind is who says that such a PRESUMPTION is reasonable and what are their qualifications for giving this opinion. The fact that the Judicial Oath (of Fairness) sworn by judges and magistrates to the Crown has no meaning except probably as a means to deceive the public and is therefore deception of a criminal nature. This fact dictates that the UK Crown is a criminal regardless of whether she is being protected by alleged Crown Immunity from prosecution. A criminal is a criminal whether that crime is protected or not. Cases where Crown Immunity is relied on as a defence should also be brought to trial to allow the pubic to see for themselves just how the alleged justice system works and protects crime carried out by those favoured by the Crown.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has it is claimed has been passed down through the ages which is protecting the UK Crown from prosecution. Similarly Trial by Jury has also been passed down through the ages but is being eroded by what is generally a corrupt judiciary.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Kearns
To: Maurice Kellett
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Maxwell ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Maurice: My comments are in BOLD CAPS.
On Nov 19, 2007 6:00 PM, Maurice Kellett wrote:
The other title for lawyers is Officers of the Courts. They are therefore a part of them, corruption and all. All UK courts operate under the authority of the UK Crown the same woman who is an integral part in the massive Judicial Oath fraud. UK Members of Parliament are required to swear an Oath of Allegiance only to the UK Crown but not to the people who have voted them into office and are then required to page their wages. I am satisfied after have spent considerable time communicating to UK Members of Parliament, that only the UK Crown has such Members of Parliament. The UK public it would seem are being deceived that they have such Members of Parliament. No, I think that we must expose the UK Crown for the wrongs that it is causing to the UK public and it would also seem in other countries before public opinion will help bring about an end to judicial crime. The Judicial Oath sworn by all UK judges and magistrates only to the UK Crown is a fraud and therefore a crime. Should we really accept a criminal as our Head of State and the Head of State in Commonwealth countries?
Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, "IS THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS. The UK Judicial Oath of Fairness sworn only to the Queen most certainly does not have the meaning that its supposed to have. This amounts to a criminal deception. I have suffered a Hell caused by very considerable judicial crime. Then find that the judicial mob are being given Crown Immunity to protect them from their crimes. No, the UK Crown has a lot to answer for. Monarchy's have generally been involved in crimes against the people for centuries. Nothing has changed in this respect. REMEMBER NOW, DON'T BE TOO TOUGH ON THE OLD QUEEN, BECAUSE SHE OPERATES UNDER THE PRESUMPTION, YOU VOLUNTEERED. HOW DOES SHE DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU NEVER TOLD HER DIFFERENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER.
Judges must be made accountable for their crimes or there is no justice. Obtaining justice is one of the most expensive items a person might have to resort to in their lifetime. Justice is surely a basic right of all mankind but with criminals in the driving seat, what else should we expect? The English Civil wars came about because of much the same situation that has come about again. The world does indeed have terrorists and they are often home grown as well. There should be a notice placed above the doors of all UK courtrooms, "Abandon Hope All Who Enter Here". NO, THE SIGN SHOULD READ, "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK." Truth must prevail from entering and leaving any courtroom. COME ON GUYS, TRUTH IS NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ROOM, GIVE ME A BREAK.
Maurice Kellett
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Harper
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Cc: 'Michael Kearns' ; 'Maxwell' ; joosse@internode.on.net ; 'Sue Maynes' ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; 'Sahaj Mail' ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; m.kellett@tiscali.co.uk ; 'Dennis'
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:44 PM
Subject: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Go for the throat of the instigators of the whole screwed up system.
Go for the LAWYER'S and their "word law."
Excerpt from;
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
by Fred Rodell 1939
Professor of Law, Yale University
"The Law is the killy-loo bird of the sciences. The killy-loo, of course, was the bird that insisted on flying backward because it didn't care where it was going but was mightily interested in where it had been. And certainly The Law, when it moves at all, does so by flapping clumsily and uncertainly along, with its eye unswervingly glued on what lies behind. In medicine, in mathematics, in sociology, in psychology – in every other one of the physical and social sciences – the accepted aim is to look ahead and then move ahead to new truths, new techniques, new usefulness. Only The Law, inexorably devoted to all its most ancient principles and precedents, makes a vice of innovation and a virtue of hoariness. Only The Law resists and resents the notion that it should ever change its antiquated ways to meet the challenge of a changing world.
It is well-nigh impossible to understand how The Law works without fully appreciating the truth of this fact: — The Law never admits to itself that there can be anything actually new under the sun. Minor variations of old facts, old machines, old relationships, yes; but never anything different enough to bother The Law into treating it otherwise than as an old friend in a new suit of clothes. When corporations first came on the legal scene, The Law regarded them as individual persons, in disguise, and so, for most legal purposes, a corporation is still considered, and even talked about, as a "person." A transport airplane, so far as The Law is concerned, is nothing but a newfangled variety of stagecoach. Such things as sit-down strikes, holding companies, Paris divorces, were treated with almost contemptuous familiarity by The Law when they first appeared, and the same fate undoubtedly awaits television when it grows up and begins to tangle with The Law. For all this is part of a carefully nurtured legend to the effect that The Law is so omniscient that nothing men may do can ever take it unawares, and so all-embracing that the principles which will apply to men's actions 500 years from now are merely waiting to be applied to whatever men happen to be doing in 2439 A.D."
Offered for your consideration,
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
--
Have a great day.
Michael Joseph Kearns
michael.joseph.kearns (at) gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 7:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01 AM
__________ NOD32 2679 (20071122) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Ever heard the saying, "The Truth is simple"?
All these lawyers and would-be lawyers are on some ego-trip, trying to impress others with their contortions and nonsensical hypotheses.
When you go into Court and there is no Jury, and you want a Jury, you Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court and have a Jury decide if there will be Trial by Jury.
All this cockamania about "contract with the Judge, etc."??? Anyone who gets sucked in by that is to be pitied - because they have lost sight of reality.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: How about that "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE"?????....Doesn't that say it all?
"CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail communication is intended for the
sole use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited, unless otherwise authorized
herein. Access to this e-mail by any other person/entity is unauthorized."
Dear Wolter,
These and a load of other issues must be brought to the ultimate authority to make and impose laws, ie: to a JURY.
The criminals and traitors are presently denying us our Right to Trial by Jury...which is why we must (all of us) Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Courts.
This is "CHECKMATE" in our favour......and the criminals and traitors resort of physical assault to gag and imprison us.
That is what is happening in OUR COURTS TO US.
We have the RULE OF LAW on our side..........the criminals and traitors only have the MINDLESS BRUTE FORCE of the Sheriffs.
Our fight is for JUSTICE.
Who will triumph?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: joosse
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
With respect Maurice, what you assume is utterly incorrect. We fully understand what world we live in today. However, we were expressing views on what de jure procedure of governing in God's name means, and what makes for de jure authority. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe me when I say that I have far greater understanding of what is happening to us all than the temporal issues that you refer to below.
It was very refreshing, to me at least, to see one post a candid and correct interpretation of what the Crown represents, and the obligations that go with those who represent same. Very few people really understand the natural law. To discover where it is de facto is a relatively easy exercise. However, if you understood the subject as well as you might, then you would realize that those incidents you speak of below are only the result of people who purport to act in the name of the Crown.
Acting on behalf of Elizabeth II can hardly be justified to act in the name of God [the Crown]. Mrs Elizabeth Guelph abdicated together with her purported government the moment that she broke her covenant [coronation oath] with God. You may pick any her of her breaches, and there are plenty to choose from I suggest. Besides she never enjoyed a natural birthright to the Crown and in reality is only an impostor. The rightful King of the UK would be Michael Hastings who resides in Inverell in NSW, Australia. So please do not mix up de facto authority with de jure authority.
And with respect, you only could go on with what the present de facto Regina might represent and others who follow or represent a false crown. But that is another debate altogether. Anyone who purports to be an officer of the Crown has a duty of care to uphold the temporal Sovereign's covenant with God and His Laws. Failing to do so is an act of treason, since it means the demise of the temporal Sovereign as she abdicates in law.
kind regards
Wolter
----- Original Message -----
From: Maurice Kellett
To: Michael Kearns ; Maxwell
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
My reply to this posting is likely to be long so I will make it as short as possible.
It does appear that you are living in an unreal world with delusions about what the UK Monarchy is and is not.The Judicial Oath of fairness sworn by all UK judges and magistrates is a massive fraud and the Crown is an integral part of this fraud. Fairness under the Judicial Oath is not a common feature of the UK justice system. Corrupt judges etc, such as former recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding, reputed to be a friend of Queen Elizabeth II, shelter from their crimes under the Crown. Queen Elizabeth II is nothing to do with God insofar as she is being protected by the Royal Prerogative not God.
Criminals favoured by the UK Monarch are being given Crown immunity from prosecution and this may well also be unlawful and in any event and is certainly more Crown injustice.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has been passed down throughout the ages under Common Law. The UK Crown has its own laws it would seem and has never relied on the Common Law. If the Crown alleges that the Royal Prerogative preventing them from prosecution, which the corrupt UK establishment is doing, then the Magna Carta and the right to trial by jury has also been passed down throughout the ages since long before the Royal Progative was allegedly handed down. The principles of law under the Magna Carta have been eroded by the many corrupt judges now in seats of power in the UK. Their inherent corruption is being protected by the Crown. I have first hand knowledge of this fact so I do speak from experience. Even a summary examination will show that a Monarchy has very often had nothing to do with justice for the people. A Monarchy makes its own laws and rules according to what suits them at the time. We have seen this situation quite recently in the matter of Charles and Camilla. Up until quite recent times, a divorcee was not allowed to marry into the Royal Family. For Charlie boy this has all changed.
Several years ago I wrote to Queen Elizabeth II on the matter of the theft of my home, land, and most of my personal possessions resulting from crime carried out against me by recorder John Hugh Fryer-Spedding of Bassentwaite, Kewick, Cumbria I have made two demands to the Chief Constable of Cumbria, for the arrest of Spedding. These demands continue to be ignored.
I also included the fact in my letter to the UK Crown that Northumbria Police Special Squad officers had taken part in the theft of my home and had also made two attempts on my life first by shooting me and by trying to push a sword into my chest in February 2003 at Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne and Wear. I am now quite sure why police had attempted to murder me. Yes I do believe that there is a God but I don't think that the UK Crown has that belief. Of course I did not receive an acknowledgement from those at Buckingham Palace to my letter. For them to have done that would have also meant acknowledgement that Crown officers, i.e. the police do carry out murder in the name of the Crown. We have seen a similar situation recently with the police murder of Charles de Menzies. There are in fact more such murders.
I could go on with the argument against what the Crown is not, but doing that with someone who thinks that the Crown can do no wrong and that the sun shines out of her rear is clearly living on another world where fairies live. I worked very hard for what was stolen from me. That followed my having contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the UK police and judiciary in 1996. That alleged Inquiry was carried out with Crown permission. The UK Crown is the Patron of the Secret Society of Freemasonry so it was not and could never have been an independent or impartial Inquiry. Lord Nolan who chaired that alleged Inquiry died on 22nd February this year. He was surely well aware of these facts the same as myself. I kept in personal contact with Lord Nolan for several years after the alleged Inquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. These people operate under the Crown authority and any adverse outcome of such Inquiry would only have reflected back to the Crown. History proves this would never be allowed by the Crown.
Maurice Kellett.
----- Original Message -----
From: Maxwell
To: Maurice Kellett ; Michael Kearns
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Were still waiting.Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
All Christian's have "real" Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
People forget what's really hidden behind the CROWN.
1. The Queen is a "Regina" not a Queen she is "R" a female Regent. BIG DIFFERENCE.
THIS IS WHY "CROWN" CASES ARE NOTED ----- "R" v Smith. (Regina v Smith)
2. The King took none to Court and defended those being punished. He pre-released all those with faith and works from all sin.
Sin no more. A Court is a Christian Royal house, A tribunal is a Roman Pagan Temple.
3. A Regent only rules in the "absence" of the King.
4. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is not the Queen.
5. The "Supreme" Head of the Church of England is Jesus Christ as "Publicly" acknowledged by the Church. Christ means King.
6. The Royal King of Kings can never be replaced nor die as he was raised from his death (he died "King of the Jews") and was given "all" Authority in Heaven and on Earth as King of Kings Lord of Lords, he lives forever therefore any "other" future King or Queen etc will be imposter.
Thy (your) Kingdom come "on Earth" as it is in Heaven (already)
7. All Christian's have Royal Prerogative exemption in all matters and choose the Royal Law over the Laws of men.
As all Christians are the "adopted" ( legal children ) of the King as per the Royal Law, Last Testament and Will.
If the King predated their forgiveness of ALL sin what man or woman would dare charge them.
What common servant would dare charge a Kings child let alone the very King of Kings children.
Forgive us our debts (sins errors debts) as we forgive our Debtors.
8. The Crown and ALL authority belongs to the King, he has an Estate that is administered by common Servants our his Servants.
9. The Crown, the Titles, the Treasury the Estate has been abused stolen and hidden from his adopted children.
10 A will and testament has existed for hundreds of years in the common language of his children, it describes his estate, his Kingdom, the inheritance, heirs and inheritors, the wicked servants, the wicked Judges, (Judge Not lest you be Judged), Woes of Bloodguilt weigh on the Lawyers & Religious Heads (Scribes and Pharisees).
If probated, the very will of the King would share the Crown Estate equally among the Kings children. This is why it the WILL is hidden concealed abused for they have stolen the LOT.
11. The Church of England is untaxed and owns each title of Land in the "Commonwealth" is in her Religious Subdivision as a Registered "Parish"
12. The Landowners have NO real estate ownership they are registered TENANT's, either as Tenants in Common or Joint Tenants.
13. The creation of non existent Corpses that are fictional dead persons invented as dead Corp orations masks the hidden owners of everything real and shield them "the servants" from prosecution & examination. This corruption has resulted in everything including Churches Political Parties Nations Governments Public Utilities Banks Credits Debts Assets even our Water of all life of the people being wholesaled and stolen without examination charge or mass complaint.
14. If any Regent were King or Regina were Queen the Jubilee itself released all from slavery debts every 7 years and every 50th year was a Grand Jubilee 7 x 7 + 1 = 50.
He was annointed by his Father at his Baptism in year 30 ..... He died in 33 ..........1974 years later .....39.5 Royal Jubilees later......Were still waiting for the Jubilee.
Thanks
Mike Maxwell
Without Prejudice
All Rights Rites Writes and Riots Reserved
Without Recourse
Version dated 22nd November 2007
=================================================================================================
At 12:30 AM 20/11/2007 -0800, Maurice Kellett wrote:
Dear Michael,
I will reply to your e-mail hopefully more fully sometime latere today. I have urgent work that needs attention today. you have written:
"Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS"
One question which comes to my mind is who says that such a PRESUMPTION is reasonable and what are their qualifications for giving this opinion. The fact that the Judicial Oath (of Fairness) sworn by judges and magistrates to the Crown has no meaning except probably as a means to deceive the public and is therefore deception of a criminal nature. This fact dictates that the UK Crown is a criminal regardless of whether she is being protected by alleged Crown Immunity from prosecution. A criminal is a criminal whether that crime is protected or not. Cases where Crown Immunity is relied on as a defence should also be brought to trial to allow the pubic to see for themselves just how the alleged justice system works and protects crime carried out by those favoured by the Crown.
It is alleged that the Royal Prerogative has it is claimed has been passed down through the ages which is protecting the UK Crown from prosecution. Similarly Trial by Jury has also been passed down through the ages but is being eroded by what is generally a corrupt judiciary.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Kearns
To: Maurice Kellett
Cc: Jack Harper ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; Maxwell ; joosse@internode.on.net ; Sue Maynes ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; Sahaj Mail ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; Dennis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Maurice: My comments are in BOLD CAPS.
On Nov 19, 2007 6:00 PM, Maurice Kellett
The other title for lawyers is Officers of the Courts. They are therefore a part of them, corruption and all. All UK courts operate under the authority of the UK Crown the same woman who is an integral part in the massive Judicial Oath fraud. UK Members of Parliament are required to swear an Oath of Allegiance only to the UK Crown but not to the people who have voted them into office and are then required to page their wages. I am satisfied after have spent considerable time communicating to UK Members of Parliament, that only the UK Crown has such Members of Parliament. The UK public it would seem are being deceived that they have such Members of Parliament. No, I think that we must expose the UK Crown for the wrongs that it is causing to the UK public and it would also seem in other countries before public opinion will help bring about an end to judicial crime. The Judicial Oath sworn by all UK judges and magistrates only to the UK Crown is a fraud and therefore a crime. Should we really accept a criminal as our Head of State and the Head of State in Commonwealth countries?
Fairness is one of the cornerstones of any justice system. THAT IS CORRECT, BUT YOU ARE NOT IN A JUSTIC SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, YOU ARE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IS, "IS THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CORRECT AND REASONABLE?" AND THE PRESUMPTION IS, YES IT IS. The UK Judicial Oath of Fairness sworn only to the Queen most certainly does not have the meaning that its supposed to have. This amounts to a criminal deception. I have suffered a Hell caused by very considerable judicial crime. Then find that the judicial mob are being given Crown Immunity to protect them from their crimes. No, the UK Crown has a lot to answer for. Monarchy's have generally been involved in crimes against the people for centuries. Nothing has changed in this respect. REMEMBER NOW, DON'T BE TOO TOUGH ON THE OLD QUEEN, BECAUSE SHE OPERATES UNDER THE PRESUMPTION, YOU VOLUNTEERED. HOW DOES SHE DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU NEVER TOLD HER DIFFERENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER.
Judges must be made accountable for their crimes or there is no justice. Obtaining justice is one of the most expensive items a person might have to resort to in their lifetime. Justice is surely a basic right of all mankind but with criminals in the driving seat, what else should we expect? The English Civil wars came about because of much the same situation that has come about again. The world does indeed have terrorists and they are often home grown as well. There should be a notice placed above the doors of all UK courtrooms, "Abandon Hope All Who Enter Here". NO, THE SIGN SHOULD READ, "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK." Truth must prevail from entering and leaving any courtroom. COME ON GUYS, TRUTH IS NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ROOM, GIVE ME A BREAK.
Maurice Kellett
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Harper
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Cc: 'Michael Kearns' ; 'Maxwell' ; joosse@internode.on.net ; 'Sue Maynes' ; s.leis@sasktel.net ; skylax@comcast.net ; illusions_@telus.net ; inspectionservice@yahoo.com ; info@pacinlaw.org ; richard@netlaw.co.nz ; 'Sahaj Mail' ; bmcdoug@gmail.com ; dai.buckley@gmail.com ; m.kellett@tiscali.co.uk ; 'Dennis'
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:44 PM
Subject: Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Forget about chasing the Queen, politicians, judges etc.
Go for the throat of the instigators of the whole screwed up system.
Go for the LAWYER'S and their "word law."
Excerpt from;
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
by Fred Rodell 1939
Professor of Law, Yale University
"The Law is the killy-loo bird of the sciences. The killy-loo, of course, was the bird that insisted on flying backward because it didn't care where it was going but was mightily interested in where it had been. And certainly The Law, when it moves at all, does so by flapping clumsily and uncertainly along, with its eye unswervingly glued on what lies behind. In medicine, in mathematics, in sociology, in psychology – in every other one of the physical and social sciences – the accepted aim is to look ahead and then move ahead to new truths, new techniques, new usefulness. Only The Law, inexorably devoted to all its most ancient principles and precedents, makes a vice of innovation and a virtue of hoariness. Only The Law resists and resents the notion that it should ever change its antiquated ways to meet the challenge of a changing world.
It is well-nigh impossible to understand how The Law works without fully appreciating the truth of this fact: — The Law never admits to itself that there can be anything actually new under the sun. Minor variations of old facts, old machines, old relationships, yes; but never anything different enough to bother The Law into treating it otherwise than as an old friend in a new suit of clothes. When corporations first came on the legal scene, The Law regarded them as individual persons, in disguise, and so, for most legal purposes, a corporation is still considered, and even talked about, as a "person." A transport airplane, so far as The Law is concerned, is nothing but a newfangled variety of stagecoach. Such things as sit-down strikes, holding companies, Paris divorces, were treated with almost contemptuous familiarity by The Law when they first appeared, and the same fate undoubtedly awaits television when it grows up and begins to tangle with The Law. For all this is part of a carefully nurtured legend to the effect that The Law is so omniscient that nothing men may do can ever take it unawares, and so all-embracing that the principles which will apply to men's actions 500 years from now are merely waiting to be applied to whatever men happen to be doing in 2439 A.D."
Offered for your consideration,
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
--
Have a great day.
Michael Joseph Kearns
michael.joseph.kearns (at) gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 12:35
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date: 19/11/2007 7:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 21/11/2007 10:01 AM
__________ NOD32 2679 (20071122) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Dear Fellow Australians,
Attached is the Court Transcript of Tuesday 25 September 2007 - which only just arrived, after a fair bit of chasing. It shows how Australian Judges assume they have absolute power....which reminds me of one of my favourite utterances...."Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.".
This is the case where I have Subpoenaed the NSW Governor to attend on 17th December to answer questions and to produce documents, such as Letters Patent, etc., on or before 30th November 2007. I would be very surprised if she complies....so, I'll have an Arrest Warrant ready for the 17th.
It is the one where the NSW Attorney-General has decided to "intervene" and become a party to proceedings. This is because of a 78B Notice sent out to all the Attorney-Generals, ie: a Notice of a Constitutional Matter.
I, of course, am demanding the Right to Trial by Jury and am Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court.
The Magistrate on Sept 25 was a fellow called "MAGISTRATE RUSSELL". He said the most outrageous things - which all Australians need to be aware of...because they make it quite clear that they have turned our Courts into Kangaroo Courts, ie: "a court which acts unfairly or dishonestly or disregards legal rights or disregards legal procedures".
He said he was entering a plea of "Not Guilty" for me, "pursuant to section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Act" - which, on checking, is headed up "How evidence is taken" and makes no mention of pleading, proper or improper.
He said, "It's a legal issue, it's a constitutional issue, juries don't decide those Mr Wilson".
Well, who does he think instituted the Constitution, in the first place? The People voted at a Referendum in 1899, by a majority in a majority of States, to allow the Bill for an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia to go to the UK Parliament....otherwise, it wouldn't have come into existence, at all. AND, who does he think is the ONLY way any part of the Constitution can be altered????....yep, by Referendum, again.
Sir William Blackstone said "...trial by jury; called also the trial per pais, or by the country".
And these buffoons think THEY, servants of our servants, can pock their noses into issues from which they are clearly and unequivocally excluded.
He goes on to say, "...the threshold is how the matter is to proceed, so there's going to be a legal argument. That will be in the absence of a jury, that will be a matter for a judge to decide whether the court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter". I argued, "A judge can't decide judging his own cause....etc".
No Parliament has the power to take away the Rights of the People.
So, anyone interested in witnessing proceedings at the Parramatta Local Court (cnr George & Marsden Streets, Parramatta) at 9:30 am on Monday 17th December, 2007????? It's bound to be entertaining, at least.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Attached is the Court Transcript of Tuesday 25 September 2007 - which only just arrived, after a fair bit of chasing. It shows how Australian Judges assume they have absolute power....which reminds me of one of my favourite utterances...."Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.".
This is the case where I have Subpoenaed the NSW Governor to attend on 17th December to answer questions and to produce documents, such as Letters Patent, etc., on or before 30th November 2007. I would be very surprised if she complies....so, I'll have an Arrest Warrant ready for the 17th.
It is the one where the NSW Attorney-General has decided to "intervene" and become a party to proceedings. This is because of a 78B Notice sent out to all the Attorney-Generals, ie: a Notice of a Constitutional Matter.
I, of course, am demanding the Right to Trial by Jury and am Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court.
The Magistrate on Sept 25 was a fellow called "MAGISTRATE RUSSELL". He said the most outrageous things - which all Australians need to be aware of...because they make it quite clear that they have turned our Courts into Kangaroo Courts, ie: "a court which acts unfairly or dishonestly or disregards legal rights or disregards legal procedures".
He said he was entering a plea of "Not Guilty" for me, "pursuant to section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Act" - which, on checking, is headed up "How evidence is taken" and makes no mention of pleading, proper or improper.
He said, "It's a legal issue, it's a constitutional issue, juries don't decide those Mr Wilson".
Well, who does he think instituted the Constitution, in the first place? The People voted at a Referendum in 1899, by a majority in a majority of States, to allow the Bill for an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia to go to the UK Parliament....otherwise, it wouldn't have come into existence, at all. AND, who does he think is the ONLY way any part of the Constitution can be altered????....yep, by Referendum, again.
Sir William Blackstone said "...trial by jury; called also the trial per pais, or by the country".
And these buffoons think THEY, servants of our servants, can pock their noses into issues from which they are clearly and unequivocally excluded.
He goes on to say, "...the threshold is how the matter is to proceed, so there's going to be a legal argument. That will be in the absence of a jury, that will be a matter for a judge to decide whether the court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter". I argued, "A judge can't decide judging his own cause....etc".
No Parliament has the power to take away the Rights of the People.
So, anyone interested in witnessing proceedings at the Parramatta Local Court (cnr George & Marsden Streets, Parramatta) at 9:30 am on Monday 17th December, 2007????? It's bound to be entertaining, at least.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Monday, November 19, 2007
dr judy wood
Greetings John Hutchison:
As you may know, Dr. Judy Wood asserts that a form of directed energy weaponry are a likely causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York on 9/11/01.
See: drjudywood.com.
I represent Dr. Wood as her lawyer in certain legal challenges that are ongoing at present. A summary of the legal challenges can also be found on her above mentioned website.
Your impressive and important work has come to her attention and to my attention. I write to request an opportunity to discuss in greater detail how the legal challenges that are now pending and your work may intersect and overlap.
Would you please either telephone my office, or send me a telephone number and suggested time to call you? In the initial telephone conference, I would expect to have on the line with us, Dr. Judy Wood.
Thank you,
Jerry Leaphart
Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood
8 West Street
Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
USA
203-825-6265
As you may know, Dr. Judy Wood asserts that a form of directed energy weaponry are a likely causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York on 9/11/01.
See: drjudywood.com.
I represent Dr. Wood as her lawyer in certain legal challenges that are ongoing at present. A summary of the legal challenges can also be found on her above mentioned website.
Your impressive and important work has come to her attention and to my attention. I write to request an opportunity to discuss in greater detail how the legal challenges that are now pending and your work may intersect and overlap.
Would you please either telephone my office, or send me a telephone number and suggested time to call you? In the initial telephone conference, I would expect to have on the line with us, Dr. Judy Wood.
Thank you,
Jerry Leaphart
Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood
8 West Street
Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
USA
203-825-6265
Dear Sirs,
Strong Challenge to the Jurisdiction.
What's the case all about?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: October 19th 2007 was a Friday.
----- Original Message -----
From: The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
To: Assembly of the Church of the Universe
Cc: Legal Self Defence Work Group
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: R. vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro - Notice of Motion - November 19, 2007
Reverend Tucker: Information No. 04-1252-02
Reverend Baldasaro: Information No. 04-1252-01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(South Central Region Hamilton, Ontario)
B e t w e e n:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Prosecution
(Respondent to Motion)
- and -
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
Defendant
(Moving party)
- and -
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
Defendant
(Moving party)
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Returnable, November 19th, 2007)
TAKE NOTICE: that the Defendant, REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, and the Defendant Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro, will make a Motion to this Honourable Court, on MONDAY, october 19th, 2007, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, at the John Sopinka Court House, 45 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The Hearing of the Motion will take approximately 1 hour of the Honourable Courts time.
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An order issue quashing these proceedings, directions and such further and other relief as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
The grounds for the motion are as follows:
2. This will be the second illegal trial we have been subjected to upon these same charges. We believe that is against the law and our constitutional rights and freedoms to be tried twice upon the same charges.
3. Parts of the evidence are in question, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, from the orders of Mr. Justice Ramsay, as introduced before him upon the Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Lou Strezos in the Superior Court of Justice at Kitchener.
4. The Hamilton Police Service violated Section 176. of the Criminal Code of Canada and our constitutional rights and freedoms when they invaded the sanctity of our Church and homes.
5. Mr. Justice Weseloh violated our constitutional rights and freedoms when he knowingly put us on trial on his own hook, on March 1, 2005, at the behest of the Attorney General’s Agent who misled him into the violation, without jurisdiction by denying us the exercise of our statutory right pursuant to Section 536. Of the Criminal Code of Canada, to elect our mode of trial, ab initio.
6. Mr. Justice Weseloh did not have the jurisdiction to violate the orders of The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich and the Court of Appeal for Ontario who ruled that he continue the Trial Proper and therefore could not change his decision at a later date and rule he had no jurisdiction. The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich was never quashed by the Court of Appeal and therefore stands to this day as law.
7. All evidence obtained in the proceedings commenced March 1st 2005 before Mr. Justice Weseloh, as misled by the Crown, was obtained without jurisdiction to hold an “absolute jurisdiction trial” and a violation of our constitutional rights and freedoms. It remains an open question before this Honourable Court, as it was ruled by the Court of Appeal of Ontario “moot” in light of the flip flop Ruling of Mr. Justice Weseloh of March 25th 2005 when he ruled that Crown Counsel had misled him into a jurisdictional error and thereby caused the Honourable Court to err in jurisdiction in embarking upon the absolute jurisdiction trial in the first place which he was ordered to continue (sic).
8. Mr. Justice Weseloh lost jurisdiction over the Defendants by trying both accused upon a summary and indictable offence at the same time.
9. Refusal of this Motion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute again. R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3.
a) Lack of jurisdiction in this context means, not merely lack of initial jurisdiction but loss of jurisdiction which can occur where the justice presiding at the preliminary hearing fails to observe a mandatory provision of this Act or where there has been a denial of natural justice. R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268, 53 C.C.C. (2d) 225, 15 C.R. (3d) 280 (7:0).
10. The Defendants are entitled to constitutional relief. The Courts must apply a sanction to the Charter violation.
a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Commentary by Tarnopolsky & Beaudoin
A Carswell Student Edition
[T]he Courts must apply a sanction. We would not be justified
in simply ignoring the breach of a declared fundamental right or in
letting it go merely with words of reprobation.
11. Such further and other grounds as may be advised and this Honourable Court admit.
The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the MOTION:
12. All documents, evidence and materials filed herein these proceedings in
Court File No. 04-1252-01 and Court File No. 04-1252-02 and such further and other materials as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
All of which is respectfully submitted
this 19h day of November, 2007 at Hamilton
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #2
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Voice: (905) 522-3247
Defendant
(Moving party)
Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #3
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Defendant
(Moving party)
TO: THIS HONOURABLE COURT
AND TO: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
c/o The Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Lou Strezos, Outside Counsel
130 King St., W, Suite 3400, Box 36
The Exchange Tower, First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
Prosecution/Respondent
__________ NOD32 2666 (20071119) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Strong Challenge to the Jurisdiction.
What's the case all about?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: October 19th 2007 was a Friday.
----- Original Message -----
From: The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
To: Assembly of the Church of the Universe
Cc: Legal Self Defence Work Group
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: R. vs. Reverends Tucker & Baldasaro - Notice of Motion - November 19, 2007
Reverend Tucker: Information No. 04-1252-02
Reverend Baldasaro: Information No. 04-1252-01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(South Central Region Hamilton, Ontario)
B e t w e e n:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Prosecution
(Respondent to Motion)
- and -
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
Defendant
(Moving party)
- and -
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
Defendant
(Moving party)
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Returnable, November 19th, 2007)
TAKE NOTICE: that the Defendant, REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER, and the Defendant Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro, will make a Motion to this Honourable Court, on MONDAY, october 19th, 2007, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, at the John Sopinka Court House, 45 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The Hearing of the Motion will take approximately 1 hour of the Honourable Courts time.
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1. An order issue quashing these proceedings, directions and such further and other relief as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
The grounds for the motion are as follows:
2. This will be the second illegal trial we have been subjected to upon these same charges. We believe that is against the law and our constitutional rights and freedoms to be tried twice upon the same charges.
3. Parts of the evidence are in question, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, from the orders of Mr. Justice Ramsay, as introduced before him upon the Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Lou Strezos in the Superior Court of Justice at Kitchener.
4. The Hamilton Police Service violated Section 176. of the Criminal Code of Canada and our constitutional rights and freedoms when they invaded the sanctity of our Church and homes.
5. Mr. Justice Weseloh violated our constitutional rights and freedoms when he knowingly put us on trial on his own hook, on March 1, 2005, at the behest of the Attorney General’s Agent who misled him into the violation, without jurisdiction by denying us the exercise of our statutory right pursuant to Section 536. Of the Criminal Code of Canada, to elect our mode of trial, ab initio.
6. Mr. Justice Weseloh did not have the jurisdiction to violate the orders of The Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich and the Court of Appeal for Ontario who ruled that he continue the Trial Proper and therefore could not change his decision at a later date and rule he had no jurisdiction. The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Borkovich was never quashed by the Court of Appeal and therefore stands to this day as law.
7. All evidence obtained in the proceedings commenced March 1st 2005 before Mr. Justice Weseloh, as misled by the Crown, was obtained without jurisdiction to hold an “absolute jurisdiction trial” and a violation of our constitutional rights and freedoms. It remains an open question before this Honourable Court, as it was ruled by the Court of Appeal of Ontario “moot” in light of the flip flop Ruling of Mr. Justice Weseloh of March 25th 2005 when he ruled that Crown Counsel had misled him into a jurisdictional error and thereby caused the Honourable Court to err in jurisdiction in embarking upon the absolute jurisdiction trial in the first place which he was ordered to continue (sic).
8. Mr. Justice Weseloh lost jurisdiction over the Defendants by trying both accused upon a summary and indictable offence at the same time.
9. Refusal of this Motion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute again. R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3.
a) Lack of jurisdiction in this context means, not merely lack of initial jurisdiction but loss of jurisdiction which can occur where the justice presiding at the preliminary hearing fails to observe a mandatory provision of this Act or where there has been a denial of natural justice. R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268, 53 C.C.C. (2d) 225, 15 C.R. (3d) 280 (7:0).
10. The Defendants are entitled to constitutional relief. The Courts must apply a sanction to the Charter violation.
a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Commentary by Tarnopolsky & Beaudoin
A Carswell Student Edition
[T]he Courts must apply a sanction. We would not be justified
in simply ignoring the breach of a declared fundamental right or in
letting it go merely with words of reprobation.
11. Such further and other grounds as may be advised and this Honourable Court admit.
The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the MOTION:
12. All documents, evidence and materials filed herein these proceedings in
Court File No. 04-1252-01 and Court File No. 04-1252-02 and such further and other materials as may be advised and the Honourable Court admit.
All of which is respectfully submitted
this 19h day of November, 2007 at Hamilton
Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #2
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Voice: (905) 522-3247
Defendant
(Moving party)
Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe
544 Barton Street East Apt. #3
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2Z1
Defendant
(Moving party)
TO: THIS HONOURABLE COURT
AND TO: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
c/o The Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Lou Strezos, Outside Counsel
130 King St., W, Suite 3400, Box 36
The Exchange Tower, First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
Prosecution/Respondent
__________ NOD32 2666 (20071119) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Australia's "2nd Amendment"
Dear John, your stickers have arrived thank you.
The definition you give below, will be allright, if that is upheld by a Jury, who throws out John Howard's gun laws. But today people are still being raided and having weapons (both registered and unregistered) confiscated (read STOLEN). The only rights you have are the ones being upheld - you do not have those that are being trampled on; and once trampled on, how do you get them back. Remember, when you go to court, the judge/magistrate orders the sheriff or police officer to throw you out, or detain you, and they do so by the power of the gun. The only way to oppose the gun, is with a gun. That's why they took them away - they know that too. How about Maryland, forcibly injecting the children and throwing the parents who object in jail? Isn't it time to fight?
Cheers
xxxx
From:
To: John Wilson
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Australia's "2nd Amendment"
Dear John, your stickers have arrived thank you.
The definition you give below, will be allright, if that is upheld by a Jury, who throws out John Howard's gun laws. But today people are still being raided and having weapons (both registered and unregistered) confiscated (read STOLEN). The only rights you have are the ones being upheld - you do not have those that are being trampled on; and once trampled on, how do you get them back. Remember, when you go to court, the judge/magistrate orders the sheriff or police officer to throw you out, or detain you, and they do so by the power of the gun. The only way to oppose the gun, is with a gun. That's why they took them away - they know that too. How about Maryland, forcibly injecting the children and throwing the parents who object in jail? Isn't it time to fight?
Cheers
xxxx
November 19, 2007
heffect@infinet.net
Dear Friend:
On Tuesday I voted to end the war in Iraq. Finally, the House of Representatives passed a bill that provides money solely for the purpose of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Though the bill, HR 4156, must leap high hurdles in the Senate and again at the White House, I am proud to have cast my vote to get out of Iraq and bring home our troops.
The bill passed 218-203 and joining me in this vote were my strong anti-war colleagues such as Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. The majority of 'no' votes were cast by Republican members. During debate the dividing line between the opponents of the bill and the proponents were clear: this vote meant the difference between staying in Iraq with no exit strategy or getting out. I voted to get out and I was pleased to see the bill pass. If you are interested in viewing my participation in the floor debate, click here.
In addition to providing funds to pay for bringing home our troops, the bill requires
- That troops begin to leave Iraq in 30 days, and all troops be brought home no later than December 31, 2008.
- That no troops be sent to Iraq unless they have proper equipment and training.
- That no torture shall be employed by any American personnel.
Though this bill has a tough road ahead, I want to assure you that I am committed to ending the war in Iraq and bringing home our troops. The House vote on Tuesday night, in my mind, is a step toward making that happen.
Sincerely,
SAM FARR
Member of Congress
SF/rd
Please be sure to visit my website at www.farr.house.gov.
heffect@infinet.net
Dear Friend:
On Tuesday I voted to end the war in Iraq. Finally, the House of Representatives passed a bill that provides money solely for the purpose of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Though the bill, HR 4156, must leap high hurdles in the Senate and again at the White House, I am proud to have cast my vote to get out of Iraq and bring home our troops.
The bill passed 218-203 and joining me in this vote were my strong anti-war colleagues such as Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Lynn Woolsey. The majority of 'no' votes were cast by Republican members. During debate the dividing line between the opponents of the bill and the proponents were clear: this vote meant the difference between staying in Iraq with no exit strategy or getting out. I voted to get out and I was pleased to see the bill pass. If you are interested in viewing my participation in the floor debate, click here.
In addition to providing funds to pay for bringing home our troops, the bill requires
- That troops begin to leave Iraq in 30 days, and all troops be brought home no later than December 31, 2008.
- That no troops be sent to Iraq unless they have proper equipment and training.
- That no torture shall be employed by any American personnel.
Though this bill has a tough road ahead, I want to assure you that I am committed to ending the war in Iraq and bringing home our troops. The House vote on Tuesday night, in my mind, is a step toward making that happen.
Sincerely,
SAM FARR
Member of Congress
SF/rd
Please be sure to visit my website at www.farr.house.gov.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
LEGAL
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This coming Monday night their will be an Update Conference Call at 7:00 PM. (central). Your call in number is 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#.
We met with Burt Wise in Washington and he is sending an Recommendation Memo to the full Judiciary Committee and we will receive a copy when he is finished. It sounds that he has reviewed our information that we left their March 26th and at his request ask that we not send any more info at this time. I guess they are running out of fax paper? It sounds positive but we will see? Taffy has also been working tiredly the Committee Members and she will give an Update on that progress. We also were invited to the March around the Justice Department Building Friday where thousands of people gathered for Justice for the people in our Courts! There were no empty spots in the streets around the building! Pictures and Videos are being down loaded for the next email notice because the so called Main Stream Media refuse to cover the Truth!
We are preparing an email blast so please send out on your end!
Justice is around the corner!
See you their!
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM
This coming Monday night their will be an Update Conference Call at 7:00 PM. (central). Your call in number is 712 775 7000, pin no. 776888#.
We met with Burt Wise in Washington and he is sending an Recommendation Memo to the full Judiciary Committee and we will receive a copy when he is finished. It sounds that he has reviewed our information that we left their March 26th and at his request ask that we not send any more info at this time. I guess they are running out of fax paper? It sounds positive but we will see? Taffy has also been working tiredly the Committee Members and she will give an Update on that progress. We also were invited to the March around the Justice Department Building Friday where thousands of people gathered for Justice for the people in our Courts! There were no empty spots in the streets around the building! Pictures and Videos are being down loaded for the next email notice because the so called Main Stream Media refuse to cover the Truth!
We are preparing an email blast so please send out on your end!
Justice is around the corner!
See you their!
CW
www.JudicialJustice.us
www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2007
john wison for liberty
Dear David,
When the Internet is gone...and there is an end to discussion......so goes any possiblity of avoiding bloody violence....who, in their right mind, would want that????
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: dav a
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
At this point in history John, I have to honestly say, the sooner USA goes down, the better.
What may come form that for Australia (i realize the military ramifications very well) so be it, because the way it is right now (Iraq, 911, hoax terrorism, corporate media censorship etc etc) is worse than anything.
By the way, forget Indo attacking us, you must realize, even with a million man army, they have no ships, tanks nor aircraft to do any real damage.
David B
p.s- did you know that Youtube is now censoring any content it deems 'controversial'. So anything referring to the New World Order etc is now removed. We are loosing the internet, bit by bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhwilson@acay.com.au
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Subject: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:27:20 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: Australian Citizens Community Forums
To: info.accf@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Liberty is brewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kll9-nR4uVs
Watch this and spread the word.
Wake Up America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI&NR=1
------ End of Forwarded Message
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Fellow Australians,
Yesterday, in the Blacktown Local Court, a familiar scenario took place. Magistrate Dr. Brown kept me till almost last. At about 11:45am he called my name. I went to the table and opened my briefcase. He asked how did I plead and I said, "I will not plead anything until there is a Court of Proper Jurisdiction. I demand that there is a Jury. I do not consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily." He said there will be no Jury. I said, "I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court. Once the Jurisdiction of the Court is Challenged there is a peremptory Stay of Proceedings until a Jury can determine the Jurisdiction of the Court." Dr. Brown kept talking while I was talking. Neither of us would back down. I said, "You are a criminal and a traitor. He ordered that I be arrested and the Police Prosecutor came over and grabbed me by the arm and a Sheriff garbbed me by the other arm. I said , "This is assault." The two chaps could not move me and begged me to go with them. Only when I was ready, did I allow them to manhandle me out of the Courtroom. They were more physically exhausted than I was. Stopping outside the side door and in the passage way, the Police Prosecutor went back into Court and the Sheriff was trying to explain that he had to do what the Magistrate told him to do. After a little while a Police Officer came over and said I had to be taken to the Police Station (which was through a side security door and across a concrete yard). When we got there (nothing physical), the Police (one girl and some four young men) wanted to know what was going on. The escorting Officer said that the Magistrate wanted me charged with "Offensive Language". I laughed and said, "I don't talk that way." The Police Officers were polite and a bit confused. They took me through the proceedure of going into "Custody". I chatted with them and gave them a very short lesson in the Right to Trial by Jury and what is a Kangaroo Court. They asked me to sit down and, after a few more minutes, more young Police Officers turned up. The the girl called me to the desk and said, "The Magistrate wants you charged. If he wants to do that, he's going to have to do it. You can go.". Another Officer said that he would get the audio tape from the Court and have a listen. They gave me back my briefcase and one Officer walked with me back to the street while we talked. We shooked hands and he went back into the Station.
In the Police Station, I had told the girl Police Officer that they can expect a repeat performance on the 10th of December when I'm back there, again.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Dear Hank,
It's in our Bill of Rights 1688..."That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condidtions and as allowed by law."......... a Constitutional Enactment since 1828 and a Common Law since 1899.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Roelofs
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Where is our 2nd amendment though?
Your money for the bank stickers is in the mail
Cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Jack Bauer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 9:50 PM
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Hal,
Dead right, there.
Len Clampett is the one who has championed that issue....and now the High Court Registry demands that lower Court Judgments, etc, must have the SEAL of that Court before they'll accept them for filing for Appeals.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Reynolds
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
All documents must have the SEAL of the Court or else they are not valid.
On 14/11/2007, at 2:28 PM, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Debra,
This denial of the Right to Travel is pretty important....if anyone has to be punished that way, it's going to have to be done by a Jury.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Debra Bentley
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
I am looking forward to learning the outcome of your matter - it affects all us drivers - good luck, God bless.
Since first talking to you and Pedro, I have learned soooo much - I have a conference with a Barrister tomorrow on my Loss of Identity, Common Law Rights etc... will let you know how I get on there - it's been an exciting journey of discovery about what I can do to rectify this 'Tyrannical' situation to me and my kids and in this country too - who would have thought!!!!
Cheers
Deb
On 11/14/07, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Fellow Australians,
I will be in the Blacktown Court House, 1 Kildare Road, Blacktown, NSW 2148 at 9:30am for a Court Attendance Notice re: "Drive while license cancelled", "Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle" and "Use uninsured motor vehicle".
I've read their "FULL FACTS" - which are a long way from relating the full story ..... and part is not true.
I have written to the Police Commissioner on 22 Oct asking for the "POLICE IN-CAR VIDEO" but with no response.
So, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Of course, I'll be demanding Trial by Jury and Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court when it is denied.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: The license and registration were cancelled by the State Debt Recovery Office because I refused to pay Court Costs when denied the Right to Trial by Jury for another case.
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
When the Internet is gone...and there is an end to discussion......so goes any possiblity of avoiding bloody violence....who, in their right mind, would want that????
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: dav a
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
At this point in history John, I have to honestly say, the sooner USA goes down, the better.
What may come form that for Australia (i realize the military ramifications very well) so be it, because the way it is right now (Iraq, 911, hoax terrorism, corporate media censorship etc etc) is worse than anything.
By the way, forget Indo attacking us, you must realize, even with a million man army, they have no ships, tanks nor aircraft to do any real damage.
David B
p.s- did you know that Youtube is now censoring any content it deems 'controversial'. So anything referring to the New World Order etc is now removed. We are loosing the internet, bit by bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhwilson@acay.com.au
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Subject: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:27:20 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: Australian Citizens Community Forums
To: info.accf@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Liberty is brewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kll9-nR4uVs
Watch this and spread the word.
Wake Up America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI&NR=1
------ End of Forwarded Message
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Fellow Australians,
Yesterday, in the Blacktown Local Court, a familiar scenario took place. Magistrate Dr. Brown kept me till almost last. At about 11:45am he called my name. I went to the table and opened my briefcase. He asked how did I plead and I said, "I will not plead anything until there is a Court of Proper Jurisdiction. I demand that there is a Jury. I do not consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily." He said there will be no Jury. I said, "I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court. Once the Jurisdiction of the Court is Challenged there is a peremptory Stay of Proceedings until a Jury can determine the Jurisdiction of the Court." Dr. Brown kept talking while I was talking. Neither of us would back down. I said, "You are a criminal and a traitor. He ordered that I be arrested and the Police Prosecutor came over and grabbed me by the arm and a Sheriff garbbed me by the other arm. I said , "This is assault." The two chaps could not move me and begged me to go with them. Only when I was ready, did I allow them to manhandle me out of the Courtroom. They were more physically exhausted than I was. Stopping outside the side door and in the passage way, the Police Prosecutor went back into Court and the Sheriff was trying to explain that he had to do what the Magistrate told him to do. After a little while a Police Officer came over and said I had to be taken to the Police Station (which was through a side security door and across a concrete yard). When we got there (nothing physical), the Police (one girl and some four young men) wanted to know what was going on. The escorting Officer said that the Magistrate wanted me charged with "Offensive Language". I laughed and said, "I don't talk that way." The Police Officers were polite and a bit confused. They took me through the proceedure of going into "Custody". I chatted with them and gave them a very short lesson in the Right to Trial by Jury and what is a Kangaroo Court. They asked me to sit down and, after a few more minutes, more young Police Officers turned up. The the girl called me to the desk and said, "The Magistrate wants you charged. If he wants to do that, he's going to have to do it. You can go.". Another Officer said that he would get the audio tape from the Court and have a listen. They gave me back my briefcase and one Officer walked with me back to the street while we talked. We shooked hands and he went back into the Station.
In the Police Station, I had told the girl Police Officer that they can expect a repeat performance on the 10th of December when I'm back there, again.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Dear Hank,
It's in our Bill of Rights 1688..."That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condidtions and as allowed by law."......... a Constitutional Enactment since 1828 and a Common Law since 1899.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Roelofs
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Where is our 2nd amendment though?
Your money for the bank stickers is in the mail
Cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Jack Bauer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 9:50 PM
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Hal,
Dead right, there.
Len Clampett is the one who has championed that issue....and now the High Court Registry demands that lower Court Judgments, etc, must have the SEAL of that Court before they'll accept them for filing for Appeals.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Reynolds
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
All documents must have the SEAL of the Court or else they are not valid.
On 14/11/2007, at 2:28 PM, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Debra,
This denial of the Right to Travel is pretty important....if anyone has to be punished that way, it's going to have to be done by a Jury.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Debra Bentley
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
I am looking forward to learning the outcome of your matter - it affects all us drivers - good luck, God bless.
Since first talking to you and Pedro, I have learned soooo much - I have a conference with a Barrister tomorrow on my Loss of Identity, Common Law Rights etc... will let you know how I get on there - it's been an exciting journey of discovery about what I can do to rectify this 'Tyrannical' situation to me and my kids and in this country too - who would have thought!!!!
Cheers
Deb
On 11/14/07, John Wilson
Dear Fellow Australians,
I will be in the Blacktown Court House, 1 Kildare Road, Blacktown, NSW 2148 at 9:30am for a Court Attendance Notice re: "Drive while license cancelled", "Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle" and "Use uninsured motor vehicle".
I've read their "FULL FACTS" - which are a long way from relating the full story ..... and part is not true.
I have written to the Police Commissioner on 22 Oct asking for the "POLICE IN-CAR VIDEO" but with no response.
So, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Of course, I'll be demanding Trial by Jury and Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court when it is denied.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: The license and registration were cancelled by the State Debt Recovery Office because I refused to pay Court Costs when denied the Right to Trial by Jury for another case.
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)