Phoenix Rising BBS/phoenixrising.zip/phoenixrising/frink/sbart-1.txt

Text File | 1994-11-18 | 35KB | 528 lines

            AS NATURE'S GOD CREATED MANKIND and established His Right
          therein, then that Mankind exists, compels the presumption juris
          et de jure, that Mans' Rights to Live and His Rights to defend
          His Life began as a genetic heritage which successfully existed
          and operated through Millenniums dating the inception of the Time
          Continuum itself; thus all of Mans' Right predate His
          Instruments, and Mankinds' Rights to Life, His Rights to defend
          His Life, and His Rights of TITLE-TO-SELF have existed long
          antecedent to the formation of all constitution, and of all other
          such Instruments. See "juris et de jure" Blacks 5th, page 767.
               Accordingly, THE PEOPLE are the Lawful Heirs to
          Hereditaments, both Corporeal and Incorporeal, by Hereditary
          Succession, inclusive of the Highest Titles to those individual
          Properties known and described as THE PEOPLE Themselves, Sui
          Juris.
               Likewise the fact that THE PEOPLE physically exist as Human
          Life Forms, clearly establishes Their Rights to Live, Their Self-
          Rights of TITLE-TO-SELF, and Their Rights to defend Their Lives
          which began, existed, and successfully operated through Their
          individual Genetic Linages and Heritages, wherein all such Rights
          have existed long antecedent to the formation of any
          constitution; consequently, THE PEOPLE are required to make NO
          CLAIMS for any so-called "rights" that might have been accidently
          enumerated or stipulated to in the Text(s) of any such
          Instrument.
               As Instruments, Mankind created constitutions, or Social
          Contracts or Compacts, thereby created governments. See "Social
          Contracts or Compacts", Black's 5th, Page 1246.
               PLEASE NOTICE that NO constitution ever provided THE PEOPLE
          with Rights that They did not already possess prior to creation
          of such Instrument.
               Existence and formal recognition of preexistent Rights is
          demonstrated throughout The Magna Carta, June 15, 1215; the
          Declaration of Rights in Congress, at New York, October 19, 1765;
          the Declaration of Rights in Congress, at Philadelphia, October
          14, 1774; the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776; the
          Articles of Confederation, November 15, 1777; and the Bill of
          Rights inclusive of the Ninth and Tenth Article Amendments,
          December 15, 1791, etc.
               PLEASE NOTICE that throughout all of the Aforementioned
          Instruments, it cannot be proved that THE PEOPLE are subservient
          to any conditions of any such Instruments, nor to any conditions
          set forth or decreed by any pseudo sovereign.
               By the conspicuous absence of Declarations of Subservience,
          it must be presumed that the Colonists did not want to forfeit
          their Rights to any sovereign, thus those  so-called "rights"
          that were enumerated or stipulated to in the Texts of Their
          Instruments, are in-fact, a series of stringent Power limitations
          that operate NOT upon THE PEOPLE, but upon Their governments so
          as to hopefully eliminate their traditionally Lawless, inherently
          Sleezoid, Criminal Activities. See the Declaration of
          Independence as the Colonists' Criminal Indictment against George
          III.
               IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that no Legislature has ever made ANY
          Lawful Act that operates directly on THE PEOPLE at-large, simply
          because They do not have the Power to make Such an Act. See
          Article I., Section 8.
               The Constitution itself is recognized amongst the Laws Of
          Nations, as a Common-Law Charter providing, in part, for the
          admittance of admiralty Jurisdiction onto the land pursuant to
          the Law Merchant (Black's 5th, page 798) within those geographic
          limits set forth in Article I., Section 8, Clause 17.
               Contracts made pursuant to Such Constitution operate in pari
          materia with other Commercial or Mercantile statutes emanating
          from the Roman Civil Jurisdictions, which are exercised under
          admiralty Jurisdiction in London-Town proper and in Washington,
          D.C., etc., where Such contracts are generally identified or
          recognized throughout the World under the Laws of Nations
          (Black's 5th, page 733), as having been conducted under Flag Law.
          See "Flag Law", Black's 5th, page 574. See "Law of Nations" and
          "Captures on Land", Article I., Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11,
          respectively. See "State Names, Flags, Seals, Songs, Birds,
          Flowers, and Other Symbols" by George Earl Shankle, Pf.D., New
          York, The H. W. Wilson Company, 1941(?). See Flag Circular, War
          Department, The Adjutant General's Office (Government Printing
          Office, Washington, D.C., 1925) page 1. See "Army Regulations
          Number 260-10, Flags, Colors, Standards, and Guidons, by Order of
          the Secretary of War (Government Printing Office, Washington,
          D.C. 1926) pages 4 and 5.
               PLEASE NOTICE the military <admiralty> flag in every
          courtroom.
               Article III., Section 1 provides that "The Judicial Power of
          the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme court, and in
          such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
          and establish." Article I., Section 8, Clause 9 provides that
          "The Congress shall have Power To constitute Tribunals inferior
          to the supreme court;" and all such Article I courts operate
          solidly within the admiralty Jurisdiction since the Congress and
          the United States Itself so operates.
               IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that "The judicial Power of the United
          States, ..." formed in the admiralty Jurisdiction , is what is
          being discussed in THIS portion of the Constitution.
               Article III., Section 2. provides that The Judicial Power
          shall extend to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under the
          Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
          or which shall be made, under their Authority; thus the judicial
          Power extends:
          * to all Cases, affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
          Consuls <AT-LAW>;
          * to all Cases, of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction <IN
          ADMIRALTY>;
          * to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party
          <IN ADMIRALTY>;
          * to all Controversies between two or more States <AT-LAW>;
          * to Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State
          <AT-LAW>;
          * to Controversies between Citizens of different States <IN
          ADMIRALTY>;
          * to Controversies between Citizens of the same State claiming
          Lands under Grants of different States <IN ADMIRALTY>; and
          * to Cases between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and a
          foreign thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects <AT-
          LAW>.
               Only in Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
          and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, does
          the supreme court have original Jurisdiction <AT-LAW>. In all
          other cases, the supreme Court has appellate Jurisdiction, both
          as to Law <IN ADMIRALTY> and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
          under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
               IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that the Jurisdiction of the supreme
          Court is subservient to the legislative branch because Article
          III., Section 2 states that "... the supreme Court shall have
          appellate Jurisdiction ... under such Regulations as the Congress
          shall make.", (pursuant to Article I., Section 8, Clause 9);
          therefore, ALL APPEALS ARE APPEALS-IN-EQUITY, MADE WITHIN THE
          ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
               Each constitution FOR each of the several States of the
          American Union, embraces the Constitution FOR the United States
          of America; thus, each State government is established in
          admiralty to regulate Commerce.
               Clearly then, whether brought in a State, or in a United
          States' court, ANY "appeal" as to Law or Fact filed in ANY
          "appellate" court, is being brought in the admiralty Jurisdiction
          because an "appeal" in the technical sense, was unknown to the
          Common-Law, and it is the name of proceedings for the review of
          cases in equity, and in the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts.
          See HANDBOOK OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING (Hornbook Series) by:
          Benjamin J. Shipman, First Copyright 1894, Last Copyright 1923,
          Sections 337-338, page 537.
               Then At-Law, the Analog of an "equity appeal" is the Trial
          de novo based on filing the Writ-Of-Error. See "trial" Black's
          5th, page 1348. See "writs" Black's 5th, page 1441.
               Philosophically, the differences between Law and Equity are
          precisely those between deductive and inductive thinking.
          Deductive logic looks backwards, examining the general facts
          leading to a specific set of conclusions; whereas, inductive
          reasoning looks in basing its general presumption on a selected
          set of few specific facts, upon which It derives Its General
          Conclusion, leading to equitable presumption and PRE-VENGE that
          is: a sort-of irrefutable revenge in-advance.
               Article III., Sectional 2: "The trial of all Crimes, except
          in Cases of Impeachment, shall be Jury; and such Trial shall be
          held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
          committed; ..."
               Apparently there were no plans for United States "crime"
          trial.
               If this were true, the United States' District Courts would
          not have territorial Jurisdiction since such courts do not
          legally lie within the "State where the said Crimes shall have
          been committed;..."
               Correspondingly then, the land upon which such District
          Courts were located, would have been PURCHASED BY the CONSENT of
          the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
          Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
          needful Buildings, in which event, the United States should be
          able to produce Its Title to Such Property.
               Article I., Section 8, Clause 17 provides that Congress
          exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
          courts, presumedly categorized as "needful Buildings" since (some
          of the time) they do not actually qualify as Forts. Magazines,
          Arsenal, or dock-Yards.
               Article III., Section 2: "... but when not committed within
          any State, <such crime having been therefore committed in the
          United States, in which event> the Trial shall be at such Place
          or Places as the Congress may by <ADMIRALTY> Law have directed."
               What provides United States' Jurisdiction in admiralty? Is
          insurance an admiralty contract?
               The fact that PROCEDURES of Law and Equity were merged in
          the latter 1930's, does not for a single moment imply that the
          statutory laws have superseded and/or replaced those bases of
          jurisprudence upon which are predicated, Law, Equity and all
          those other Courts of Executive Chancery, no more than
          Legislative Enactments or Supreme Court decisions can overturn,
          supersede, replace, or unweave the very fabric of the
          Constitutional Charters AT LAW, which first created Their very
          existence IN the ADMIRALTY Jurisdiction Itself.
               As far as the 1938 Erie R.R. decision proclaiming that there
          is no longer a general federal Common-Law, We Present that: there
          never was "a general federal Common-Law", since the admiralty
          jurisdiction has never, cannot, and will never recognize the
          Common-Law! Common-Law and admiralty are equal and opposite
          Jurisdictions.
               IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that nowhere in the Constitution is it
          stated that the Supreme Court has the Power to interpret the very
          Constitution that created such court, Itself. See "interpret" and
          "interpretation" Black's 5th, pages 733 and 734.
               Otherwise, it is entirely conceivable for government to
          activate a self-destruct mechanism such that the Legislative and
          Executive Branches could amend the Constitution in such a manner
          as to abolish the Constitution itself. Thereafter, the Supreme
          Court, in its "interpretive" and "legislative" capacity, could
          uphold such Act by proclaiming It as having been Constitutional!
          Think about it.
               If one hires an employee under a contract-of-performance,
          can the employee unilaterally modify the Said contract by
          arbitrarily deciding not to abide by the terms thereof? We
          believe not.

                                      PART 3.1

                           JURISDICTION or WHO OWNS WHOM?

               Jurisdiction is purely and simply the Authority or Power to
          Act.
               When One is exercising Jurisdiction over One's Self or over
          One's Property or Liberties, "Jurisdiction" is called "Rights"
          which are inclusive of those Liberties permitted within the
          limits of the Common-Law.
          "LIBERTY. Freedom from restraint. The faculty of willing, and the
          power of doing what has been willed, without influence from
          without.
          Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of
          disposing of their persons and property after the manner they
          judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their
          acting within the limits of the law of nature and so as not to
          interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.
          Burlam. c. 3, Section 15; 1 Bla, Com. 125. It is called by Lieber
          social liberty, and is defined as the protection or unrestrained
          action in as high a degree as the claim of protection of each
          individual admits of.
          Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing
          situation, of removing one's person to whatever place one's
          inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless
          by due course of law. 1 Bla. Com. 134; Hare, Const. L. 777."
          Bouvier's Volume 2, Page 1964 et seq.
               When one is exercising Jurisdiction over Another's Being or
          over Another's Rights, Property, or Liberties, "Jurisdiction" is
          called "Powers" which INCLUDE ONLY those Powers permitted within
          the limits of a voluntary contractual agreement, or by the
          results of a Common-Law Suit. See"include" Black's 5th, page 687.

               Otherwise, Jurisdiction can be Lawfully acquired ONLY by
          Permission of He who has It, and It can ONLY be enforced by
          Forces of Arms resulting in either the retention of, or the
          forfeiture of, Rights as Property.
               Since all of Man has Rights, and since Rights ABSOLUTELY
          cannot conflict, Man has established courts to settle differences
          between Men who would claim the same Rights at the same time,
          Such courts theoretically avoiding some needless Bloodshed in
          Man's Trials-of Rights by Battle.
               To function as Such, courts require Jurisdiction in the
          manner of Authority or Power to act, and Such Jurisdiction is
          properly divided into three distinct classifications:
          (1)  In Personam
          (2)  Subject-Matter
          (3) Territorial (venue), all of which are required to be proved
          by the Movant prior to proceeding in any Suit, inclusive of any
          Criminal Suit brought by and under any police state powers.
          JURISDICTION "The word is a term of large and comprehensive
          import, and embraces every kind of judicial action. ... It is the
          authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance
          of and decide case. ... The legal right by which judges exercise
          their authority. ... It exist when court has cognizance of class
          of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be
          decided is within powers of court. ... power and authority of a
          court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding. ... The right
          and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject matter
          of a given case." Black's 5th, page 766.
               Notice the words: "authority", "legal right", "powers" of
          court, "power" and "authority" of a court, "right" and "power" of
          a court ... .
               Rights and Powers are Property, and like water, "authority",
          "legal right", and "power", must flow from a Higher Source to a
          lower recipient. Put another way: "Authority", "legal right", and
          "power" and all other Property is required to be Lawfully
          transferred from an Owner (Donor) to a lower recipient (Donee).
          See Black's 5th, page 439.
               Whom do you suppose provides the "authority", "legal right",
          and "power" to a court? The non-existent SOVEREIGN that is
          prohibited by Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I.,
          Section 10, Clause 1, or the Party to a "suit of the King's
          peace" (Black's, page 1286) in the manner of form of a criminal
          Action? CRIMINAL ACTION. "Proceeding by which person charged with
          a crime is brought to trial and either found not guilt or guilty
          and sentenced. An action, suit,
          or cause instituted to punish an infraction of the criminal
          laws." Black's 5th, page 336.
               The transfer of Jurisdiction ("authority", "legal right",
          "power") is based on the events surrounding One's appearance in
          ANY court action.
          APPEARANCE. "A coming into court by a party to a suit, either in
          person or by attorney, whether as plaintiff or defendant. The
          formal proceeding by which a defendant submits himself to the
          Jurisdiction of the court. The voluntary submission to a court's
          Jurisdiction."
          Black's page 89.
          ATTORNEY AND CLIENT "His first duty is to the courts and the
          public, not to the client. And where ever the duties of his
          client conflict with those, he owes as an officer of the court in
          the administration of Justice, the former must yield to the
          latter."
          Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 7, Section 4.

                             IN THE GENERAL JURISDICTION

               Thus if one makes a general appearance in an action, it is
          presumed that he has voluntarily appeared to confer general
          jurisdiction on to a court; that is: full and complete
          jurisdiction is presumed to have voluntarily conferred onto the
          judge to act in the capacity of a proper (statutory) judicial
          officer.
               Under General Jurisdiction, if the Movant in a given Action
          happens to be some division of the Executive Branch of
          Government, DMV or IRS for instance, and if on Its Own Motion, A
          Court decides to proceed against a Nonparticipant Individual, by
          presumption of Jurisdiction while absent any actual presentation
          of proof of Jurisdiction by the Movant, then during the period of
          time that the court acts and answers for the Movant (Prosecutor),
          Who would be Acting for The Court, since the tribunal would be
          standing Legally Vacant?
               Also if the court (Judicially) Acts for the Movant-
          Prosecutor (Executive), does it not create Conflicts-Of-Interest
          as established by the Seperation-Of-Powers doctrine, and is it
          not in Violation thereof? See "Violation", Black's page 1408.
               If a judge were Contractually Disable to the Benefit of a
          Party to an Action, could the Same Judge Properly sit and Act in
          the Capacity of an Independent Judicial Officer?
          DISABILITY. "The want of legal capacity. 'Incapacity to do a
          legal act.' It would include the resignation of a judge before
          signing a bill of exceptions; McIntyre v. Modern Woodman of
          America, 200 Fed. 1, 2 C. C. A. 1."
          Bouvier's Volume i, Page 876.
               If Such Judge were shown to hold ANY License or other
          Privilige-Of-State (driver, etc.), it would follow that Such
          Judge would also be Personally Subject to the Jurisdiction of
          some Executive Branch of government, DMV, for instance; and
          because Such Judge were personally subject to the Same
          Jurisdiction that the Movant would attempt to enforce upon the
          Nonparticipant Individual, Conflicts-Of-Interest would arise by
          way of the Seperation-Of-Powers doctrine, sufficient to cause
          recusation. See Black's 5th, page 1148.
               Likewise, if the Said Judge files for, and/or pays a
          California State or a United States' federal income tax ,
          pursuant to the Public Salaries Tax Act (1939) et sqq., not only
          do Conflicts-Of-Interest arise by way of the Seperation-Of-Powers
          doctrine, but there also exists a blatant violation and
          abrogation of Article III., Section l wherein:
               "... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
          shall ... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall
          not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
               A Judge Who is subject to the jurisdiction of the executive
          branch, cannot be impartial in matters concerning such executive
          branch. This statement is fully and completely realized in: Lord
          et al. v. Kelly et al. Civ. A. 63-932 240 F.Supp 67 at Page 69
          (1965).
               "The original appearance in this Court by counsel for the
          Government was, if not insolent, at least none too respectful.
          The brief filed following the Court's adverse decision and asking
          for reconsideration thereof, showed more than hurt feelings and
          came close to being worthy of a rebuke.
               More than once the judges of a court have been indirectly
          reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated
          person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth the
          Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with
          respect to public officials which has presented or shelved in
          order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they
          high or low. And a judge who knows the score the score is aware
          that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service
          he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns."
               If One were to argue that the Article III prohibition
          against diminishing the Judges' Compensation, operates upon
          United States' Judges of those inferior Courts (Article I.,
          Section 8, Clause 9), which the Congress has from time to time
          ordained and established; and that Such prohibition DOES NOT
          attach to Judges on the States' Levels; then Such argument
          remains to defy the Seperation-Of-Powers Doctrine which is
          applicable on ALL Levels and which thereby demands an Independent
          Judiciary extending to all Cases, in Law and Equity, regardless.
               Just as those Cases brought in the Common-Law Jurisdiction
          require the Independent Jury Of-One's-Peers, those Commercial
          (Equity-Contract) Cases brought in the admiralty Jurisdiction
          pursuant to Enactments and Contracts or Maritime Claims
          respectively, require the Independent Judiciary Such that It is
          free from Executive, Legislative, and all other external forces,
          influences, and imminent manipulations.
               Assuming for the Argument, that a court of General
          Jurisdiction has been convened within the district wherein the
          "crime" shall have been committed, thus satisfying Territorial
          requirements; and
          assuming that the Nonparticipant Individual, is physically under
          the state's arrest, custody, and control (not necessarily
          Lawfully), thereby presumably satisfying In Personam
          Jurisdictional requirements by Forces of Arms; then there still
          remains Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to be proved by the Movant.
               Exactly what Insurable Interest does the Movant (plaintiff)
          have in a Nonparticipant Individual's Property, such as could
          cause attachment of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Such
          Property? See Insurable Interest". Black's 5th, Page 720.
               If One uses One's Own Time and Energy (Property in the form
          of One's Nonrenewable resource), to work (kds/dt) as a common-
          Right-matter in exchange for Payment (Property in Value of
          Exchange); and if One uses Such Property In Value Of Exchange to
          buy, say, an Automobile (Property), how does California, for
          instance, obtain a legal interest in the Said Automobile,
          sufficient that It can regulate, tax, control, and prohibit the
          Nonparticipant Individual's free use of His Own(ed) Private
          Property?
          PROPERTY. "That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that
          which belongs exclusively to one; in the strict legal sense, an
          aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the
          government. <Cite> The term is said to extend to every species of
          valuable right and interest. <Cite> More specifically, ownership;
          the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to
          dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it,
          and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. <Cite>
          That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one
          may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. <Cite>
          The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a
          thing. <Cite> The highest right a man can have to anything; being
          used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or
          chattels, which no way depends on another man's courtesy. <Cite>
          The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the
          subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or
          intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything
          that has an exchangeable value or which goes to makeup wealth or
          estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and
          interest, and includes real and personal property, easements,
          franchises, and incorporeal hereitaments. <Cite>"
          Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, page 1382.
               From the above definition of "Property", it would appear
          that California has somehow managed to become the Legal Owner of
          the Nonparticipant Individual's Property .
               How then, did California obtain Title to the Said Private
          Property?
               If California Incorporated were to claim Title to the Public
          Rights Of Way. Such Rights-Of-Way would have become Private
          Privileges of way.
               The Facts remain that these Properties have either
          originated as Private Toll Roads or as Highways in the Public
          Domain long antecedent to the formation of California itself.
               How then did California obtain Titles to the Said Private
          and Public Properties?
               Now if it were presumed that a "crime" were committed, Who
          and Where is the Victim, damaged Party, or Real and actual Party-
          of-Interest?
               If it is presumed that California, in Its Corporate
          Capacity, were somehow damaged by way of some Nonparticipant
          Individual's nonadherence to selected Legislative Enactments, how
          then was California Incorporated actually damaged and to what
          extent?
               If it were presumed that an Action be brought in the Name of
          the "injured" People of California, Such Action would inevitably
          require that:
               (1) the attorney General produce the actual and verifiable,
          written, Powers-of-Attorney authorizing Him to represent EACH of
          ALL of the People of the State of California in His Mass-Action
          Criminal Law Suit;
               (2) The Nonparticipant Individual has injured EACH of ALL of
          the People of the State of California, otherwise there could be
          no Cause Of Action;
               (3) the Attorney General can produce Actual and Verified
          Complaints made by EACH of ALL of the People of the State of
          California; and
               (4) the attorney general disclose the proposed source of
          Jurors if the matter were to go to trail before an "impartial"
          jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
          committed; in light of the fact that EACH of ALL of the State of
          California would have by then become Parties-Of-Interest to the
          outcome of Such Legal Mass-Action therefore EACH of ALL of the
          People of the State of California could no longer qualify as
          "impartial".
               From where then, would an Impartial Jury be drawn?

               !!! THIS IS WHY One is REQUIRED to volunteer into a GENERAL
          Jurisdiction. !!!

               The foregoing can occur only under private contract-law
          exclusively within the admiralty Jurisdiction as defined in
          Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 otherwise the separation of
          powers doctrines forbid general application of these anomalies.
               From the foregoing it is plainly evident that governments
          have no Jurisdiction over THE PEOPLE since THE PEOPLE cannot be
          proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction created by Their own
          Constitution Charters, and those presumptions that EVERY HUMAN
          BEING in this Nation is subject to Enactments of the Legislature
          is rebuttable. See Black's Page 1067.
               Armed with Discovery and other Implements Of Due Process Of
          Law, a belligerent "old time" Nonparticipant Individual might
          establish that the whole of California's Subject-Matter
          Jurisdiction is limited to repairing the holes in Public Rights-
          Of-Way.

          <To Be Continued>

          NEXT: IN THE SPECIAL JURISDICTION

          [Ed. To date, Mr. Medina has not added any additional writings to
          this document. This is, therefore, the entire text.]

          .................................................................
 End: "The Silver Bulletin"
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer  - Neither [e-mail] nor  anyone mentioned herein nor |
 | the  author  is  responsible  for its  content.  Distribution  is  NOT an |
 | endorsement or agreement with the content herein. This information is the |
 | opinion of the author ONLY, is for educational and entertainment purposes |
 | ONLY, has not necessarily been verified in ANY way, is NOT legal or other |
 | advice,  and  is distributed  "With  Explicit Reservation  Of  All Rights |
 | (U.C.C.   1-207)"  and  "Without  Prejudice".   The  sender  receives  no |
 | compensation   for  distributing  this  text.   Permission  to  copy  and |
 | redistribute  is hereby granted so long  as the entire text is duplicated |
 | EXACTLY  in its original form with all  HEADERS, CREDITS, and and this or |
 | other  DISCLAIMERS  intact  and  in  no  other  circumstances.  Under  no |
 | circumstances  may  this  information  be  resold  or  redistributed  for |
 | compensation  of  any  kind  without prior  written  permission  from the |
 | author. Copyright Notice - All original material contained herein is "(C) |
 | Copyright 1991, 1192, 1993, 1994 by [e-mail], Sui Juris, S.L.E. |
 | All  Rights Reserved." All duplicated material is Copyright by the Author |
 | and quoted under the "Fair Use Doctrine" with permission where possible.  |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
=*=-=*=-=*=-=*= RANDOM LIBERTY/FREEDOM QUOTE FOR THIS MESSAGE =*=-=*=-=*=-=*=
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and
include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator,
First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
=*=-=*=-=*= EMAIL [e-mail] FOR INFO ON ANDRONIX SERVICES =*=-=*=-=*=