329 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
329 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
|
|
From: ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel)
|
|
Subject: Driving vs. Traveling by Right
|
|
Message-ID: <1993Mar23.075627.28636@colorado.edu>
|
|
Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder
|
|
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 07:56:27 GMT
|
|
Lines: 320
|
|
|
|
Hello All:
|
|
Many questions have been raised about "driving" vs. "Travelling
|
|
by Right". I am currently working on a FAQ to answer these questions.
|
|
In the meantime and for further questions for said FAQ, here is Howard
|
|
Freeman on the subject. I invite comments to this post.
|
|
|
|
With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
|
|
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)
|
|
|
|
[START OF DOCUMENT: frmn2.txt.lis ]
|
|
"HOW-TO" INFORMATION FOR SOVEREIGNS
|
|
6TH-AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE
|
|
|
|
by Howard J. Freeman
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
AMENDMENT VI
|
|
|
|
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
|
|
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
|
|
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
|
|
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
|
|
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
|
|
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
|
|
the assistance of counsel for his defence."
|
|
|
|
Since we often deal with usurpation of power by the hirelings of
|
|
government, it is not a single lawless action that we must contend with,
|
|
but rather a 180 degree turning in the "order of power" making the
|
|
sovereign citizens, under "de jure" government, into subjects of the
|
|
bureaucrats in our present "de facto" government."
|
|
|
|
We all know that true "law" leaves everyone free to do as one pleases
|
|
so long as there is no damage done to life, liberty or property of another.
|
|
Upon a sworn complaint of damage by a fellow sovereign citizen, one may be
|
|
brought into a Court of Law and ordered to pay for proven damage to
|
|
another. That is where true law ends. When we come upon something
|
|
"called" law which compels us to perform in some specified manner, we know
|
|
that what is "called" law in that instance, is "not true law," but that it
|
|
properly comes under what our Constitution terms as "equity." Equity
|
|
Jurisdictions are authorized in our Constitution, and they stem from our
|
|
unlimited right to contract. An Equity Jurisdiction compels performance
|
|
upon the exact letter of any contract obligation. So any statute,
|
|
ordinance or regulation which compels us to perform in a specified manner
|
|
must, of necessity, involve a contract of some kind: be it written, oral
|
|
or implied. It is around "implied" contracts that licensed attorney
|
|
legalese has worked to "use our Constitution" to destroy our rights
|
|
declared to be inalienable rights by the Constitution and unalienable by
|
|
the Declaration of Independance, the Supreme Law of the Land and of the Law
|
|
of Nations.
|
|
|
|
The Constitution is still an obstacle in the path of those who seek
|
|
complete and absolute mastery over the citizens of this nation. The
|
|
obstacle in the path is, that State Statutes or City Ordinances that compel
|
|
performance around a contractual base of American contractual law must be
|
|
considered "Civil" Statutes or "Civil" ordinances to be enforceable in an
|
|
Equity Jurisdiction, and Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the U.S.
|
|
Constitution states that any Civil controversy in which a State is a party,
|
|
cannot be tried in a State Court, but that the U. S. Supreme Court has
|
|
original jurisdiction in such cases. So, States and Municipalities, in
|
|
order to try violations of State Statutes or Municipal Ordinances in their
|
|
own Courts, have to declare that said violations are of a "Criminal"
|
|
nature, since State and Municipal Courts are empowered with a Criminal
|
|
Jurisdiction to hear offenses against the people of the City. It is in
|
|
this area that the Sixth Amendment approach to a jurisdictional challenge
|
|
is effective, and it works as follows:
|
|
|
|
Suppose you are stopped for not using your car's seat belts in a State
|
|
which has a statute that compels performance in the fastening of seat belts
|
|
in any moving motor vehicle. It is foolish to talk to the arresting
|
|
officer; demand of him only that you be tried in a Court of Record. At
|
|
arraignment in such a Court the Judge will read the charge, and the State
|
|
Statute that you supposedly violated. He will call the Statute Law, but
|
|
you know that it is not true law, because it compels performance, but let
|
|
the Judge have his say because your chance will come later. After the
|
|
Judge reads the charge, and the "law" you violated, he will ask if you
|
|
understand the charge against you. Always say "No." The Judge will then
|
|
ask what it is about that simple charge, that even a fool could understand,
|
|
yet you do not understand? Tell him that the Sixth Amendment to the U. S.
|
|
Constitution requires him to inform you of the "nature" and "cause" of the
|
|
action against you. Ask him: "Judge, is the action against me in this
|
|
Court a Civil Action, or a Criminal Action?" The Judge, now answering under
|
|
your Sixth Amendment authority to ask, will tell you that the action before
|
|
his Court in this particular case is a Criminal Action. Now, while you
|
|
have the Judge responding to your first question, ask him the question,
|
|
that he does not want to answer.
|
|
|
|
Question #2 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
"Judge, I need further instruction regarding the 'nature' of this
|
|
charge pending against me in order that I may properly defend against it.
|
|
As you know, Judge, there are two separate and distinct, Criminal
|
|
Jurisdictions authorized for this Court by the U. S. Constitution: One
|
|
is for Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, and the other is a
|
|
Condition of Contract violation under the Criminal Aspects of an Admiralty
|
|
Jurisdiction. As you well know, Judge, the defenses for a Criminal Action
|
|
under a Common Law Jurisdiction are distinctly different from the defenses
|
|
under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Which Jurisdiction: Common Law or
|
|
Admiralty, is this Criminal Action pending against me to be tried under?"
|
|
|
|
There are four possible responses that you will receive from the above
|
|
question. I will cover all four:
|
|
|
|
Response #1:
|
|
|
|
"This is a Crime against the People of this State so it is a Criminal
|
|
Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction."
|
|
|
|
With that response, you now repeat into the record of the case as
|
|
follows: "Thank you Judge, let the record of this particular case against
|
|
this particular individual (include your name) show that this Court has
|
|
gone on record as stating that the pending Criminal Action in this case is
|
|
to be tried under a Common Law Jurisdiction." If the Judge does not dispute
|
|
you at this point, you have set a Common Law Case in concrete, and no
|
|
future Court can alter that fact.
|
|
|
|
Now you can ask that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction,
|
|
since there is no injured party in this case to give the Court a cause of
|
|
action under a Common Law Jurisdiction. Also, in a Common Law
|
|
Jurisdiction, you have ALL of your rights from the Magna Charta through the
|
|
Constitution, and it is a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 241 for any Judge
|
|
to deny you any right guaranteed by the Supreme Organic Law of the land
|
|
(under said Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, which is now
|
|
established in the record of the case.) You may put the Judge on
|
|
Constructive Notice of the above law, which if violated after Constructive
|
|
Notice of same, causes the Judge to lose his immune status as a judge,
|
|
opening him to trial as an individual on the felony charges.
|
|
|
|
Response #2: (of the Judge to question #2)
|
|
|
|
"I am sorry. I am not here to advise you on the law. If you want
|
|
answers to such questions, I advise you to contact a licensed attorney."
|
|
|
|
YOU: "But, your honor, the Constitution requires this Court to tell
|
|
me the nature of this Criminal Action pending against me. How can I
|
|
properly defend myself, which I am lawfully entitled to do, if I am not
|
|
told the type of Jurisdiction the case is to be heard under?
|
|
|
|
THE JUDGE: "I told you before, if you want answers to legal questions
|
|
of this nature I advise you to secure the services of a licensed attorney."
|
|
|
|
YOU: "Thank you, your honor, I would like the record of this case to
|
|
show that this court has refused my request made, under the authority of
|
|
the Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, to be informed of the
|
|
'nature' of the jurisdiction by which this Criminal Action is to be tried,
|
|
and would like the record to show that the Criminal Action pending against
|
|
(your name) is a Criminal Action under a secret jurisdiction known only to
|
|
licensed attorneys making it impossible for one to defend himself in
|
|
Propria Persona."
|
|
|
|
Response #3: (of the Judge to question #2)
|
|
|
|
THE JUDGE: "This case is to be tried under Statutory Jurisdiction."
|
|
|
|
YOU: "Thank you, your honor. I am not acquainted with the Court
|
|
rules for such a Jurisdiction. I will, however, accept such Jurisdiction
|
|
if this Court, prior to trial date, will provide me with, or tell me where
|
|
I can find a book containing the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory
|
|
Jurisdiction."
|
|
|
|
Since there are no such rules published, the Judge will advise you to
|
|
obtain the services of a licensed attorney. At that point, speak into the
|
|
Court Record as listed in Response #2 that the Court intends to conduct a
|
|
Criminal Action against you under a secret jurisdiction known only to
|
|
licensed attorneys.
|
|
|
|
Response #4: (of the Judge to question #2)
|
|
|
|
THE JUDGE: "This case will be tried under an Admiralty Jurisdiction."
|
|
|
|
YOU: "Thank you, your honor, but, as you know, an Admiralty
|
|
Jurisdiction depends upon a valid international contract in dispute. I am
|
|
not aware of having entered into any such contract and so I deny that any
|
|
such contract exists. Will you have this prosecuting attorney prove into
|
|
the record of this case that a valid international contract exists as a
|
|
fact of law, and that I am a party to said contract, and that my being a
|
|
party to said contract obligates me to obey this State Statute #_____" etc.
|
|
|
|
Most prosecuting attorneys would be at a loss to offer such proof.
|
|
This takes the problem off the Judge's back, and places it on the back of
|
|
the prosecuting attorney (where it belongs!). Failure of proof of
|
|
Admiralty Jurisdiction on his part is ground to have his action dismissed
|
|
by the Court.
|
|
|
|
Should you run into a learned prosecuting attorney, who would dare to
|
|
expose the legalese by which the order of power in the United States has
|
|
been turned upside down, allow him to proceed with his proof, which will be
|
|
along this fashion:
|
|
|
|
"Your Honor, in 1933 the American People, being sovereigns in this
|
|
country, voted Franklin D. Roosevelt into the position as their spokesman
|
|
and president. In order to accomplish the task desired of him, Mr.
|
|
Roosevelt had to spend more money than the sovereign citizens were willing
|
|
to pay in taxes. This made it necessary for the people's representative to
|
|
borrow bank credit from the International Banking Houses. It was written
|
|
into that loan contract that the loans of bank credit, in addition to the
|
|
interest (usury) upon them were to be repaid in gold coin. By the year
|
|
1938 the International Banking Houses had extended their credit to the
|
|
United States in excess of the gold coin, available for repayment of same,
|
|
thus the former sovereign citizens of the Nation, through Mr. Roosevelt
|
|
their representative, could no longer meet their contract obligations to
|
|
pay their international debts in gold coin, and they lost their sovereign
|
|
status under the Common Law, because of this default on the debt to the
|
|
International banking houses, and the Bar Associations accomodated the
|
|
situation by blending "law" with "equity" in 1938 in such a way as not to
|
|
alarm the American citizens over their newly acquired servile status. As
|
|
every licensed bar attorney knows, the rules of equity are quite different
|
|
from the rules of law. American equity compels performance upon the letter
|
|
of a contract obligation, or in the interest of the creditor in case of
|
|
financial default, but it allows a jury trial for controversy above $20.00,
|
|
and it outlaws debtors prisons. However, the equity jurisdiction of
|
|
International default on debt is tried in Admiralty Courts, which do not
|
|
recognize any of the constitutional protections of American Equity Courts,
|
|
since they are international. A Jury in an Admiralty Court is only
|
|
advisory to the Chancellor (called Judge) who may rule contrary to a jury
|
|
verdict if he wishes. Also Admiralty Courts impose Criminal penalty on
|
|
those who fail to perform. The legislative bodies in America today, no
|
|
longer pass Public "law" statutes, pursuant to the limitations upon such
|
|
statutes by National and State Constitutions, but rather our legislative
|
|
bodies in America are now the Sovereign, over the Courts and Executive
|
|
officers, as well as over all of the so-called citizens, and their function
|
|
is to pass Public "policy" statutes in the interest of the nation's
|
|
creditors, which civil statutes contain Criminal penalties under an
|
|
Admiralty Jurisdiction. In this particular Public Policy Statute requiring
|
|
the fastening of seat belts, the defendant is charged with a Criminal
|
|
Action for his failure to perform within a public policy statute written in
|
|
the interest of the Nations' Creditors, who feel they want this man
|
|
protected from his own careless behavior because dead men pay no taxes, and
|
|
the nations' Creditors need this man's labor to help pay the International
|
|
debt, which is in default. This Court has an Admiralty Jurisdiction over
|
|
the person of this defendant in this Criminal Action, because he failed to
|
|
perform according to the contract for the repayment of the nation's debt."
|
|
|
|
Your answer to the above is to challenge the validity of a contract to
|
|
which you were not a direct party and you inform the Court that the
|
|
validity of the international Contract, lupon which this case rests, must
|
|
be settled before the trial on issues may begin.
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * Howard L. Freeman, an avid student of law and sovereignty
|
|
for more than 30 years, is a retired civil engineer. He lives in Lusk,
|
|
Wyoming.
|
|
|
|
O U T L I N E
|
|
|
|
Note: this outline of Mr. Freeman's work is not complete. I got
|
|
interrupted and never finished it. Read the text carefully. Maybe you can
|
|
finish it.
|
|
|
|
IS ACTION CIVIL OR CRIMINAL?
|
|
CRIMINAL
|
|
IS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION COMMON LAW OR ADMIRALTY?
|
|
COMMON LAW
|
|
DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
|
|
THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY
|
|
ADMIRALTY
|
|
HAVE ATTORNEY PROVE INTO RECORD
|
|
VALID INT'L CONTRACT EXISTS
|
|
YOU ARE PARTY TO CONTRACT
|
|
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE STATE
|
|
STATUTORY JURISDICTION
|
|
SEE CIVIL
|
|
GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
|
|
SEE CIVIL
|
|
CIVIL
|
|
IS STATE A PARTY? SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION
|
|
STATUTORY JURISDICTION
|
|
WHAT ARE COURT RULES FOR THIS JURISDICTION?
|
|
(THEY DON'T EXIST, but if you ask
|
|
this question, the judge might just
|
|
refer you to the court rules of
|
|
another jurisdiction.)
|
|
GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY (SEE NEXT)
|
|
GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
|
|
INSIST UPON BEING INFORMED OF NATURE OF
|
|
THIS CRIMINAL ACTION. LET THE RECORD
|
|
SHOW SECRET JURISDICTION
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
7 audio 60-minute tapes of Howard Freeman for total of $20
|
|
|
|
Tape Titles:
|
|
|
|
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION (2 CASSETTES)
|
|
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION UPDATE
|
|
BIBLICAL MEANING OF WORDS - OBEDIENCE & COMMAND (2 CASSETTES)
|
|
CLASSICAL ECONOMICS (2 CASSETTES)
|
|
|
|
Order tapes from:
|
|
|
|
Pastor Dan Gaymon (417)432-3119
|
|
C/O Church of Israel
|
|
Route 1, P.O. Box 62-B-3
|
|
Schell City, MO 64783
|
|
Bill Martin
|
|
12603 8th ave So.
|
|
Seattle Washington
|
|
|
|
[END OF DOCUMENT: frmn2.txt.lis ]
|
|
|
|
+=============================================================================+
|
|
| D I S C L A I M E R |
|
|
+------------------------------------oooOooo----------------------------------+
|
|
| The sender of this message is not responsible for and does not necessarily |
|
|
| agree with the content or opinions contained herein. Mail will be forwarded |
|
|
| to the source identified, if any. This is for "information purposes only", |
|
|
| has not necessarily been verified or tested in any way, and "should not be |
|
|
| construed as legal advise". Your comments and responses are encouraged. |
|
|
| Please Email to "ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.EDU" instead of replying here. |
|
|
| With Explicit Reservation of All Rights, UCC 1-207, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris. |
|
|
+=============================================================================+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|