Judicial activism, how to stop it with proper judicial notices.

(((Statements in triple parentheses are comments added by Paul John Hansen.)))

“The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.”

 Justice John F. Molloy

The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion

JUSTICE JOHN F. MOLLOY

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls.
In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
Looking back
The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning.
By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Disturbing evolution
Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law.
Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
(((That is why one must go back to the ‘Statutes at Large – US Congressional Law, and the state ‘Legislative Bills’, for they are the foundational law of all US courts, but only when one properly gives a ‘motion for judicial notice’ to a specific law in a court proceeding, on the record. Order M1S-16 )))
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
Lawyer domination
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
Business of law
The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.
The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
Bureaucratic design
Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.
Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it’s engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.
It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.
By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.
It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.
Surely it’s time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

–A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge’s Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths.– (Photo courtesy of Paragon House)
Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Judicial Activism, Judicial Notice | Leave a comment

 

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Person means Alien Resident in the United States Code, 12 Stat 72

United States Statutes at Large, are the written laws of the United States.

The United States Code, (USC) is a revision, for ‘ease of use’ of searching the laws of the Statutes at Large. (2nd Stat < tells the purpose of the USC.)

The revisionist conveniently change words so as to expand jurisdiction or remove liability of the United States.

Example- 12 Stat at Large 72 (12 Stat 72) The term ‘person’ in the USC when addressing the tax code has been adalterated by the revisionist to hide the true, original, term.

What they did was change the term that is in the Statute at Large of ‘alien’ into the term ‘person’ as found in the USC, which as said is not the written law.

So are you an ‘alien’, most American recognize those terms and would say no.

So those same American would likely conclude, and eventually challenge, the United States, and the IRS, to produce evidence that they are ‘aliens’.

In conclusion what we have is the revisionist were likely pressured to drop the word ‘alien’ and replace it with ‘person’ relying on the known fact that few will investigate the original language as found in the US Congressional Bill.

Buy this one word the IRS is collecting billions from people who are lead to believe they are a ‘person’ in the US tax code, even though they know they are not an ‘alien’ as found in the Statutes at Large.

If the IRS starts an investigation for a possible criminal indictment this information is imperative as a tool to use as a challenge before a grand jury, or pretrial.

If the IRS starts snooping around by asking for bank records, or notifies your employer for the same, etc., immediately notify the US prosecutors office of the local district and demand that you be notified of any grand jury investigation. You want to be there no matter what a lying lawyer may try and convince you otherwise. Once it gets past the grand jury it is much harder to dismiss a criminal case.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Alien, Resident | Leave a comment

Judge Says Affidavits Must Be Answered, use negative averment process.

STATE v. KNAPSTAD-Supreme Ct, Affidavit Defense

How to use affidavits, and negative averements to cause cases to be dismissed pre-trial.

Averment- 1. The act of averring, or that which is averred; affirmation; positive assertion.

Negative Averment- stating that no such ___________, evidence is in my possission. No evidence exists that I was at _____________ location on ___ / ___ / 20xx.

Plus others.

Make sue affidavit is entered as EXHIBIT ____ during the motion to dismiss.

Also make sure that ‘motion for judicial notice’ is called before the court orally, and you get an oral yes, if not offer it as ‘offer of proof’ to follow the possible appeal.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Affidavits, Negative Averements | Leave a comment

How are foreigners to be treated biblically? Securing our boarders?

Immigrants

Marinov, Immigration Policy Biblically

How are foreigners to be treated biblically? 

I agree 100% with this mans application of national, state, and private property, immigration (foreigner) regulation, and border control. Speaker is a Bulgarian by birth, DR in Theological Studies. I meet him personally.

Appeals to my greatest respect for sound biblical application of the issues of today relating to ‘securing our boarders’.

 

1. http://churchofthekingmcallen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140712_ImmigrationConference_1.mp3   (56 minutes long)

2. http://churchofthekingmcallen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140712_ImmigrationConference_2.mp3  (1:08 minutes long)

3. http://churchofthekingmcallen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140712_ImmigrationConference_3.mp3  (1:03 minutes long)

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Immigration, Naturalization | Leave a comment

Officer this is not a firearm, as a matter of law!

As a matter of written law a ‘firearm’ is specifically a sawed of shotgun with a barrel of less than 18″ and an overall length of 26″. Or a sawed of rifle with a barrel less that 16″ and an overall length of 26″. Or a machine gun. Or a gun equipped with a silencer. Thats it the rest are not regulated. I also believe that this regulation only applies territorially on ‘state’ land, and not applicable on non-US lands.

So if you know someone that has been prosecuted for having a ‘firearm’ we can have the case vacated as a matter of law.

The legal definition of “firearm” is only 4 items, all of which are modified, not standard, not off the shelf. An off the shelf pistol, rifle, and shotgun are not firearms as defined below. You must read the footnotes section mentioned below to understand the ruse.

This matters because the so-called gun confiscation is not on standard pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I read all of those recent acts, including Connecticut, and they all specifically mention “firearms”, which virtually nobody owns. Its intent was to prevent the concealment of longarms during the alcohol prohibition era, when gangs were violent. Predominantly sawed off shotguns.

This is a similar ruse to the so-called gold confiscation act in 1933. When you read the footnotes, under definitions, it only applies to the federal zone called the District of Columbia, not applicable in the 50 states of the Union.

((And I suspect upon land in each of the 50 districts (state) where land is owned under the styled name of ‘The United States of America’.))

National Firearms Act of 1934 – This is still the controlling legislation.

ATF defines as follows in 27 CFR 479.11 (Comes from 1934 National Firearms Act) http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11

IRS defines in 26 USC 5845 (Comes from 1934 National Firearms Act)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

Title 18 USC 921 (see attached footnotes on page 11 that state Title 18 is not to be construed as modifying the 1934 National Firearms Act or 26 USC 5845). Title 18 USC 921 comes from the 1968 Gun Control Act.

1968 Gun Control Act:  Section 101: The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

(( Essentially a sovereign American by birth right can own any type of gun, with any alteration, provided it is used responsibly in society. Just stay of federal lands. ))

Rod Class – Grand Jury – definition of firearms
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-778744.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-777012.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-777227.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-762582.mp3

18 USC 921

national_firearms_act_of_1934

Gun Control Act of 1968 STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2

>>

18 USC 921 (from 1968 Gun Control Act)
(29) The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a
single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be
assembled.

>>

From 26 USC 5845 (Definitions)
(e) Any other weapon

The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with asmooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

>>>>

The below is to be linked to originalintent.org as follows: http://originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php, it is their material.

Attached is a good document written up by originalintent.org re: National Firearm Act of 1934 codified in 1968 to Chapter 44 of Title 18, which was moved there from Title 15 “Commerce and Trade” where it stood for 30 years, and shows the original intent of that NFA Act was commerce. The jurisdcition is key, and is same as your interpretation in your documents.

The Federal Firearms Act Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government’s authority to regulate firearms come? One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We’ve never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist. Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of “public policy”, with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren’t more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so. We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to “flexible” interpretations by “cooperative” judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system. The Federal Firearms Act (as amended) (18 USC, Chapter 44) Try as you might to find the title, “Federal Firearms Act” associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled “Commerce and Trade”. Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 1
15. That’s 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That’s right – the government’s jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the “Commerce and Trade” title. If it wasn’t moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn’t have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of “Commerce and Trade”, there are few clues left to the law’s original intent and its Constitutional limitations. Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252]. Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about. There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title. 18 USC, §10: The term ”interstate commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ”foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country. This is a pretty clear definition – and it will get clearer as this article proceeds! Interestingly, “interstate commerce” and “foreign commerce” are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit: 18 USC §921(2) The term ”interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). [emphasis and underlining added] 2
You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase “interstate or foreign commerce” does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more! We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44? The only distinction we find is in the use of the words “…any place in a State…”. Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn’t seem to make sense – or does it? Maybe we should ask what “place within a State” might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let’s explore! Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled “Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction”. What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is “State jurisdiction” and there is “federal jurisdiction”, and the two are not the same. Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we’ll get lost if we don’t understand exactly what is being referred to in §7. Section 7 defines the “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”. Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article: 18 USC §7(3): Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal “places” exist within the states of the Union. One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the 3
acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let’s go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a). [Editor’s Note: We’ve removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.] 18 USC, §13(a): Whoever within…any places…provided in section 7 of this title…not within the jurisdiction of any State…is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State…in which such place is situated… Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the “places” that are referred to in the definition of “interstate or foreign commerce” at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the “places…provided in section 7 of this title”, which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State! Now let’s do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let’s add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of “interstate and foreign commerce” (at §921(2)). Our “clarified” version reads like this: The term ”interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia… Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn’t it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses “States” is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, “interstate or foreign commerce” means commerce [solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my…Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean! Are you getting the picture? Every “place” being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of 4
Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the “interstate and foreign commerce” being described at §921(2), is alimited form that operates only between such “places”. For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined “State” as “the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States”. In short, it’s all territorial. The definition of “interstate or foreign commerce”, at 921(2), is only a “red herring” placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation- wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union. Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of “interstate commerce” provided at §10? Two little words – “any place” – needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny. If one reads the “Congressional Findings and Declarations” in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the “exclusive legislative control” clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union. Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its “intentions” or its “goals”, but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution. Laws No Longer Printed You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were “omitted” when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word “omit”; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster’s II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, “Left out”. When a section or portion of a statute is “omitted” it is exactly as Webster has stated – it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect – it simply isn’t printed in the United States Code any more! 5
[Editor Note – The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See “What is the United States Code” for more on Statutes-at-Large.] So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of “presumption from possession”. While we’ve not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory “presumptions” tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of “interstate or foreign commerce”. Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney’s Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that’s a bit difficult when the law isn’t printed in the Code any more! The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, “receipt with knowledge…that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively.” You’ve got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you! Summary Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they’ve never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of “public policy” law that will eventually take the industry’s life, and with it the American Citizen’s access to at least one form of arms. Let’s review what we’ve covered: 1) Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act. 2) The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, “Commerce and Trade”. 3) In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18. 4) Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they’re really up to.] 5) Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners! 6
6) The foundation of the federal government’s authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. 7) Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia. 8) The definition of “interstate and foreign commerce” at §921(2) does not refer to the government’s Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government’s police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress. 9) The “declarations” or “findings” that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution. If you have found this item to be informative, please send this URL to a friend, associate, or family member. www.originalintent.org/chapter44.shtml

>>>>

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Firearms Defined, Gun / Rights / Law | Leave a comment

MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE, they are in all courts.

MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE

Martial Law Flag “Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Flag Law | Leave a comment

SS number coded into your state drivers license.

Is your Drivers License Number your Social Security Number. No IFs ANDs or BUTs about it. The schema has since changed in Nevada but here we had a relatively easy code to crack. The last two numbers are the year you were born, drop them, then subtract 26 from the first two numbers, and divide by two. I didn’t believe it till I saw it, then I tried it on every persons Drivers License I could get to give it to me, especially the people that told me they requested that their SSN not be put on their drivers license, and I was pretty amazed at how upset people got at me for telling them they were at risk and asked if the magic number I showed them was in fact their SSN and it was. You MUST have a SSN, in most states, to get a Drivers License. I even asked the DMV, and about their whole number scheme and the lady there was dumfounded when I showed her my SSN out of the drivers license and asked her to try it on hers. About 2 years after that they changed the whole drivers license number format. This is key being that a State Citizen had the constitutional right to travel, and a U.S. citizen does NOT.

Try this math in your state, they may have a different key, but it is likely that they all have a key. All one needs is two license of the same state and since you know the SS number with each holder one could do reverse math to find the state key.

Email me if/when you het the key figured out for your given state, I’ll then post them here.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in License Drivers | Leave a comment

Protected: Police Stop Instructions when operating an automobile.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Password protected | Enter your password to view comments.

How to open a ‘non-Federal Reserve Note’ bank account. US notes only.

March 28, 1861, the war-time emergency began, and it’s still in place today. (civil war fought from 1861 to 1865.)

12 USC 411  Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal Reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

-Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was codified into Title 12, Section 411, and its been there ever since. It was changed in 1933 to read:

“They [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.”

The part that was added was > “[Federal Reserve Notes]”.  Prior to that it only delt with United States notes which were inelastic (limited) currency.

-Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

=saving to suitors clause of 1789.

-“(a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;”

- Bretton Woods agreements in 1976, This is when we went over to Special Drawing Rights, a basket of currencies, a fictional basket of currencies between five exemplary nations, originally between 23 nations I believe, but it’s long since been between five exemplary nations where the conditioning to endorse private credit as the only option is prevalent.

xxx

For five (5$) I will send you a brief that lays out how you can open and hold a bank account in America as one using “United States notes” as its accounting entries instead of Federal Reserve Notes. These accounts can only US note ledgering, with the below endorsements verbiage on the back of deposit checks this may possibly keep the IRS from grabbing funds out of your accounts to satisfy IRS garnishments.  At the minimum it bars the bank from fractionalizing your deposit, which causes more inflation (theft) upon the American people.

In the place of just signing you name (endorsement) on the back of you employment checks, or any deposited checks write the endorsement as found below.  The brief will tell you in detail how to open and maintain the account. You will also be joined with others that are doing the same thing.

>>>  REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411
John Doe d/b/a JOHN DOE  <<<     (Example > REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411
Paul John Hansen d/b/a PAUL J HANSEN.)

This reserves, notices, your right to redeem lawful money using Title 12 Section 411 [United States Code] and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.

12 U.S. Code Chapter 3, Subchapter XII – FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

Endorsement’ means ‘agreement’.  This process notices the bank that you only agree to inelastic accounting thus stopping the use of inflationary elastic accounting.

Such ‘US note’ accounts:

1. Promotes ‘equal protection under the law’.

2. Limits theft by inflationary elastic currency.

3. Promotes a stable currency system.

4. Simulates ‘honest weights and measures’.

5. Stops banks from destroying the general publics ability to save wealth in a money form.

6. Restores the general public’s ability to save and then lend those savings out to others for a reasonable interest charge.   With elastic currency US banks do not need your hard earned savings, they can do the same with a simple banking account entry.  (A crime against man.)

M1S-31 ‘How to open a ‘non-Federal Reserve Note’ bank account’.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.

Posted in Banking/Money Issues, Federal Reserve #1, United States notes | 2 Comments