Article III the Constitution creates one supreme court
Fri Dec 8, 2006 16:43

Big Al
Article III the Constitution creates one supreme court

> Please refer to Article VI of the Constitution. In the final
> paragraph you will find the oath taken by judicial Officers. Now
> refer to the Judiciary Act, section 8. There you will find a very
> different oath that binds its subscribers to the laws of the United
> States, which by now you should understand are administrative laws,
> laws for government not people. I have enclosed a few of these
> subscriptions, one by a Chief Justice and another from a Ninth
> Circuit District Court Judge which clearly lists his employer as the
> United States Department of Justice. I have also enclosed Rule 54,
> which shows the jurisdiction of the supreme court as federal
> territory. Once this rule was publicized the court changed it, but
> they cannot change their jurisdiction or pedigree, they can merely
> attempt to obscure them.
> A word about corporations known as states. In California a
> prospective juror must take an oath that he/she is: 1) a U.S.
> citizen and 2) a domiciliary of the State of California. Remember I
> said above that the states comprise no territory: Well, yes and no.
> Recall that the United States of America holds title, so to speak,
> to all territory formerly property of individual states and of all
> other territories and possessions. That's why in complaints brought
> in federal court, the United States of America is always the
> principal party in interest. The individual states, as
> shareholders, again, in a manner of speaking, of the larger
> corporation, the United States of America, have some territory;
> federal territory, or to be more exact, a share in it. So, if you
> swear or affirm that you are a citizen of, for example, the State of
> California, you are presumed by any branch of government, state or
> federal, to be a resident of federal territory and thereby subject
> to statute (administrative) law.
> If you were born in California then the truth is that you are a
> Citizen of California, the territory, not the State of California,
> the corporation. You are domiciled in California, not a resident of
> federal territory. Think of federal territory as a military base
> with armed guards around the perimeter. A resident can be locked in
> or out. A domiciliary is a Citizen of his/her birth state,
> domiciled on the people's territory, subject to the common law. Are
> you beginning to see why some prisoners are kept at Guantanamo Bay?
> It's not even part of the United States; just a possession. Only
> certain possessions are legislated into the United States, for
> example, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. A domiciliary has rights;
> cannot be locked in, unless indicted by a Grand Jury and convicted
> by a petit jury and certainly cannot be removed or locked out. Keep
> in mind too that the founders of the Republic considered the
> Information used in England to indict people and currently in wide
> use here, a tool of oppression, hence the fifth amendment. Are
> today's wholesale indictments of persons being used against Citizens
> of the United States or citizens of the United States? I hope it is
> becoming clear that oppression abroad is not possible without
> oppression at home.
> One last thought. Some readers may draw the conclusion from all of
> this that the author wishes to return to the past. Nothing could be
> further from the truth. The law is a tool, albeit generally not in
> the hands of the people. The hope here is that people will, once
> aware of the law and how it has been and continues to be denied, use
> it, in so far as is possible, to protect their unalienable rights,
> Constitutionally mandated rights and civil rights, all of which have
> been earned through direct confrontation, right up to and including
> armed confrontation, with every manner of tyrant and which are under
> an escalating attack in an increasingly authoritarian political
> environment. One of the principle weapons of this attack is
> administrative law applied directly and illegitimately to people.
> Sincerely Yours,
> Lawrence F. Berg
> P.S. Research the supreme court case "Test v. US" to show that
> when an accused enters a jury challenge, the obligation of the court
> to hand over the jury selection lists is settled.
> =============================================
> No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or
> W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being
> hired
> or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of
> competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can
> be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges)
> without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Big Al
To:, "Taft Midway Driller", "Telegraph UK", "The Free Press",, "Washington Free Press", "Onion Newspaper", Oregonian, "People's Weekly Worls", "Rumer Mill News", "Idaho Observer", "ISIL News", APFN, "CCL News", The Exposť
CC: White Mtn Apache, World Metro News World's Largest Newspaper,, Roger Rancourt, Sallie, J.R.I. [Judicial Reform Investigations],,, Merced Sun Star,

Main Page - Sunday, 12/10/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)