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

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), and are tried under Article I jurisdiction, whereas most mala in se 
(Common Law crimes such as robbery, rape, murder, etc.) are tried under Artcle 
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!
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd