From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: What it *really* means to be tried under the California Statutes...
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
Distribution: ca
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:13:10

I decided to cross-post this here for those inquiring about the
"statutory jurisdiction" the judge mentioned in the snippet from my
arraignment.  I have yet to hear on that particular appeal.  I called
the Butte County Court Clerk and I was told, "There are *three*
judges, so it will take *90* days."  (Can someone explain *that* one
to me? :-)

From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:30:47 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

This is a very interesting discussion.  Here's a writing by someone
who prefers to remain anonymous:

Mike and Jyrki:

RE:

>Article III says that the judicial branch has jurisdiction over all cases and 
>controversies that arise under the law and the Constitution of the United 
>States. No other branch is granted this authority.

I believe that you are incorrect.  There is a flaw in the Constitution
in Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 17.  This clause gives the U.S. Congress
exclusive rule over an area of land and a body of people that was
originally sharply delimited but eventually (and unconstitutionally)
grew to engulf the entire country.  Soon after the Civil War, Congress
got wise to the flaw in the wording of the Constitution, and started
applying its statutory power over ALL of the states, not just the
District of Columbia and the territories.  When this started to
happen, most of the states didn't complain because they got a lot of
benefits (roads, bridges, etc.), and little taxation.  This changed
after 1914, with the advent of fractional banking, the Federal
Reserve, and later the advent of a nearly universal Federal income
tax, profligate defecit spending, et cetera.  The down side to
accepting all the benifits was that the states (and by extension alll
of their citizens, and by further extension all of their citizens)
became accomodation parties to the National Debt!

Thus there are two jurisdictions used in U.S. courts: Article I (U.S.
Congress courts) and Article III courts.  Most of the trials for mala
prohibita (statutory crimes) are tried under Article I jurisdiction,
whereas most mala in se (Common Law crimes such as robbery, rape,
murder, etc.) are tried under Article III jurisdiction.  Most judges
in Article I trials are either ignorant of which jurisdiction under
which they are operating, or if they know, don't want to admit it.

Also, did you realize that there are actually two distinct entities
known as the United States of America?  One is the Federal United
States (which consists of the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,
Western Samoa, and a few other territories.  The other entity is
properly termed "These united States" (note the use of the lower case
"u").  This second united States is sometimes referred to as the
"Continental" united States.  The latter are the sovereign 50 states
of the union. Unfortunately, the distinction between the two entities
was lost decades ago, and state soverignty is virtually a thing of the
past.  Find a copy of Government Code 242.  It defines the difference
between citizens of either of the two "United States" entities.  The
supreme court has stated that the term United States is a metaphor or
figure of speech.  (There are technically three distinct definitions.)
See Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon 262 US 100 p. 122, dealing with the 18th
Amendment, in which the court stated:

   "The immediate context and the purport of the entire section show
   that the term is used in a physical and not metaphorical sense."

Also see Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.) p. 1375.  Also see: 
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652 pp. 672-673:

   "The term 'United States' may be used in one of several senses.  It
   may be the name of a soverign occupying the position analogous to
   that of soverign in a family of nations.  It may designate
   territory over which soverignty of the United States extends, or it
   may be a collective name of the States which are united by and
   under the Constitution."

   (Note that the words "created by" were not used.)

Also see in re Miriam, which defined the District of Columbia as a
foreign corporation in regard to the other 50 states.  Think about it.
Most of us "citizens"--unless we live in D.C. or Guam--are
non-resident Aliens to the Federal United States.  (The IRS even has a
form available for you to file as such and thus be exempt from the
Federal income tax.  The form is a W-8.)
 
The key change occured sometime between 1934 and 1938.  The
international bankers took advantage of the bankrupt status of the
United States, and effectively foreclosed on the Roosevelt
administration.  This was all done in great secrecy.  Find a
description of the 1938 supreme court case, Erie Railroad Co. v.
Tompkins. 304 US 64.  This pivotal case overturned the long standing
Swift v. Tyson (1-8 Pet 1-8 (1842)) case and replaced our traditional
system of Common Law with international maritime ("Admiralty") law.
Admiralty law was later codified in the Uniform Commercial Code
(U.C.C.).

Since 1938 the international bankers have basically "owned" the United
States, and have been calling the shots.  This is why you can't cite a
legal precedent (even a supreme court decision) made before 1938 in
your defense.  It is not admissible evidence because the courts
started with a clean slate in 1938.  Ever since 1938, traditional
Common Law was replaced by a blending of law and equity.  Before 1938,
our courts judged the law.  Since 1938, they have administered public
policy.  This is an important distinction.  Ever since 1938, every
judge in the U.S. has been sitting administerially, rather than
judicially--that is they have been administering public policy
statutes for the corporate state, rather than judging the Common Law.
The "separation of powers" has become a fiction.  The current court
jurisdiction is properly termed "colorable admiralty."  (See The Moses
Taylor 71 US 411, which was decided by the supreme Court in 1867.)  In
reality it is admiralty law jurisdiction, but they call it something
else--they call it "statutory jurisdiction."

Look at Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution.  Do you see a
"Statutory" jurisdiction listed there?  Nope.  You'll only see common
law, equity (civil) law, and maritime contract/treaty (admiralty) law
jurisdictions listed.

Turn to Article I, and you'll see the REAL source of the current
jurisdiction of U.S. local, state, and federal courts in most cases.
That's right.  Ever since 1938, our three branch system was co-opted
by Congress.  Congress now both writes AND administers the law, and
calls it statutory jurisdiction.  But it is really admiralty law in
disguise.  ("under color of law.")  This body of Admiralty law, once
known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, was codified under the
U.C.C., and was rammed down the throats of the 50 state legislatures.
The really sad part of the deal is that the spineless state
legislators didn't want to risk losing the Federal benefits, so they
sold our lives and property down the river.  Up until the Federal
income tax was enacted, (and when all the citizens of the sovereign
States were fooled into believing that they owed it), the only
accomodation parties to the national debt were the residents of
Washington D.C.  Now we are all accomodation parties to the debt.

Ever since 1938, the judicial system has taken "silent judicial
notice" of the nation's bankrupt status, and has made adjustments to
the system accordingly.  If you have a friend who is a seasoned
attorney (preferably who has worked at the federal level) or better
yet a judge, get together *in private*, and ask their opinion about
the REAL signifigance of the change in the law since Erie Railroad v.
Tompkins.  They'll probably turn pale and try to change the subject,
or ask where you found out about the case.  If they think you can be
trusted not to repeat what you'll be told or at least not to reveal
who spilled the beans, they'll admit to what happened.  Publicly,
however, everyonge in the judicial system will tell a completely
different story.  It is the judicial system's dirty little secret, and
they will deny it.  This is the "color" in the colorable admiralty
jurisdiction that I described.

If all this has you riled up, take the time to go to your local law
library and read U.C.C. 1-207 and U.C.C. 1-103.  These show the remedy
and recourse to the U.C.C.  (By the way, the U.C.C. is more readily
understandable if you read the Anderson's edition of the U.C.C. rather
than the one published by West's Law Publishing Co.)  These two
sections of the U.C.C. show that by marking all your public documents
(driver's license, Social Security card, checks, contracts, etc.) with
the words "'Without Prejucice' U.C.C. 1-207", you are effectively
exempt from statutory law, because you have thereby made a reservation
of your Common Law rights (which otherwise are forefeited!)

Some key points...

A.  The Federal United States is a Federal legislative democracy.
B.  What's left of the soverign Continental united States are the
    remnants of our true three branch republic.
C.  Never trust anything the government tells you.
D.  You can use the remedy and recourse of the U.C.C. in your defense.
E.  Find a copy of the Geneva Translation of the Bible.  It is an
    accurate and unbiased translation.  It is also the one that the
    Founding Fathers used.  The Geneva Bible is not biased toward the
    governemnt like the King James version.
F.  Scrounge around your local used book stores and find a four volume
    set of Blackstone's Commentaries on English Common Law.  It was a
    key document used by our Founding Fathers.
G.  Read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers.  These
    will show you the Founders original intent.
H.  Buy a recent edition (preferably 6th ed.) of Black's law
    Dictionary.  The only way to really understand the law is to
    understand the current meanings of terms like "resident",
    citizen", "colorable", "allocution", "corpus delicti", "sui
    juris", "supervisory control", "mala prohibita", et cetera.
I.  Find an older (pre-1900) edition of Bouvier's law dictionary, and
    see how the damned politicians have corrupted the once clear and
    concise definitions of legal terms into meaningless legalese
    mumbo-jumbo.
J.  Buy a copy of the small book "Legal Research" by Elias, available
    at almost any college bookstore.  It will show you how to read
    case citations.
K.  When researching the law, read Anderson's rather than West's.  It
    is more understandable to the layman.  West Publishing is a master
    of obfuscation.
L.  The 14th Amendment cannot be challenged on its face, but it CAN be
    challenged as to how it applies to State citizens rather than
    Federal citizens.
M.  Keep your powder dry.

Regards,

("Without Prejudice" U.C.C. 1-207) [ name withheld ]
 
P.S. : If you decide to post this to the net, please leave my name off!




--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  |   Marrou/Lord  '92   |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: ca.driving