Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: "GOLD FRINGED FLAGS..." by Marilyn M. Barnewall (July 17, 2011)

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    Subject:Private Attorney General s OBJECTIONS Re: GOLD FRINGED FLAGS... by Marilyn M. Barnewall (July 17, 2011)
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 17 2:27 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re:
      "GOLD FRINGED FLAGS..." by Marilyn M. Barnewall (July 17, 2011)


      Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications.


      This time you wrote:

      The U.S. Constitution is a “Let’s Pretend” document without the Rule of Law.
      ...
      Admiralty law tells us that when you see a flag,
      you need to understand that in areas where a flag is “four cornered,”
      you are being told which laws dominate that space.


      [end quote]


      Greetings Ms. Barnewall:

      It's becoming painfully obvious to me that NewsWithViews rarely if ever checks
      any of the claims which their several authors make in the articles they routinely
      broadcast over the Internet:  if they did, NewsWithViews would and should
      NOT have re-published your latest diatribe.

      In your article above, you are making the common methodological error
      of confusing theory and fact e.g. by allowing your theory to "morph" into fact.
      Here cf. "cognitive dissonance".


      Allow me to explain ...

      First of all "admiralty" is a jurisdiction, not a type of court.

      The terms that occur in the Constitution were well defined
      in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856):  it is the legal dictionary
      that was published closest in time to the ratification of the
      organic Constitution in 1788.  As such, it is a reliable
      authority for the correct meanings of terms that occur
      in the U.S. Constitution.

      "Admiralty" and "maritime" both refer to matters that arise
      on the high seas:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/blda1.htm#admiralty

      ADMIRALTY. The name of a jurisdiction which takes cognizance of
      suits or  actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or
      relating to the sea
      ;  or, in other words, of all transactions and
      proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages
      or injuries upon the sea.

      NOTE WELL:  admiralty is the name of a jurisdiction;
      it is NOT the name of any Court!


      MARITIME. That which belongs to or is connected with the sea.

      "Mare" comes from the Latin word meaning the sea or the ocean.


      Now, Article III in the U.S. Constitution clearly reveals that
      Federal constitutional courts enjoy jurisdiction to hear
      all cases that arise under the Constitution, Laws and
      Treaties of the Federal Government, and all cases of
      "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction".

      See the Arising Under Clause here:


      (Yes, I know it's a complex sentence;  but, it is grammatically correct,
      and Americans were much better educated in English grammar in 1788
      than they are now!)


      Most importantly, the Supreme Court of the United States
      is the ONLY Federal Court whose original and appellate
      jurisdictions are conferred as such by the Constitution.

      All other Federal Courts must be created by Acts of Congress,
      and the original and appellate jurisdictions of all those other
      Federal Courts must also be defined by Acts of Congress.

      The law that governs all Federal Courts is controlled
      entirely by the laws which created and then conferred jurisdiction
      upon those courts, both original and appellate jurisdiction.



      (If you don't know, "original" means a case originates or STARTS off in a given Court,
      as opposed to appealing to a higher Court.  OK?)


      Therefore, the Law which defines the U.S. Supreme Court's
      jurisdictions is found in Article III -- which created that Court, and
      the Law which defines the jurisdictions of all other Federal Courts
      is found in the Acts of Congress which first created and
      then conferred jurisdiction upon those other Federal Courts.


      THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY U.S. LAWS DEFINING COURT JURISDICTION
      WHICH SAYS THAT A "FLAG" CONTROLS THE CASE(S)
      WHICH ANY GIVEN FEDERAL COURT MAY HEAR EITHER ON APPEAL, OR
      THE CASE(S) WHICH MAY ORIGINATE IN ANY GIVEN FEDERAL COURT.


      Furthermore, it is more correct to say that the U.S. District Courts --
      created by the Act of Congress at 28 U.S.C. 132 --
      are legislative tribunals, not constitutional courts authorized by Article III.

      A full dissertation on this key point can be found here,
      in 2 pleadings to which 48 UNlicensed ATTORNeys either
      fell totally silent, or they formally waived their clients'
      right to answer:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama


      (I am quite sure that I already provided you with the latter 2 links,
      but you replied that you were ill at the time, and you have
      since provided me with no evidence that you ever read
      either of those 2 key documents.  Pity, that!)


      Because the statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 does not identify
      any constitutional origin of the U.S. District Courts --
      unlike many other Federal statutes which do identify those origins --
      one must find the answer to that question in standing decisions
      of the U.S. Supreme Court, like Balzac v. Porto Rico,
      and there are many others.

      These other cases have consistently upheld the key distinction
      between Article III constitutional courts, and legislative tribunals
      created under authority of Articles I and IV in the Constitution.

      You see, Article I does authorize Congress to create "tribunals"
      that are inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court:


      If anything, legislative tribunals as such are trying to
      exercise legislative functions, not Executive Branch functions
      -- read "making case law" NOT "executing law"!

      Accordingly, the existence of a military flag in any
      Federal Courtroom cannot be used as evidence to prove
      that such a Federal Court is exercising Executive authorities
      or performing Executive functions.

      Such a claim flatly contradicts our fundamental Right
      to a Separation of Powers.

      As much as you bankers and ex-bankers would like to do so,
      you won't be able to destroy the 3 branch structure of our
      Federal government solely by means of a diatribe that
      was never properly investigated.


      Thank you for making my job a lot easier!


      p.s. Please don't try to reply with more ad hominem arguments again:
      the articles I sent to you recently were critical of your friend,
      but you should have taken up that argument with the author of
      those critical articles, instead of insulting me as you did.
      Killing the messenger went out with the ancient Greeks.


      FOR THE RECORD, on January 11, 2010, I wrote the following to you:

      >  Writing something about which one knows little is... difficult.

      Then, you should remedy that deficiency before writing any more.

      Rather than to run down the extensive details right here,
      I think you would do yourself and your readers a huge favor
      by reviewing how we documented the "sea change"
      from constitutional courts to legislative tribunals, here:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama

      After the dust had settled out from that case
      (3 U.S. Supreme Court "robes" turned up withOUT credentials),
      a private client retained me to do a similar analysis of
      the Federal Criminal Code aka Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

      The smoking gun that we found is here:Without training or direction, you might miss the
      fraud that was introduced on June 25, 1948.

      Briefly, rather than define "district court" in clear terms,
      as had been true for 159 YEARS (1789 TO 1948),
      CONgress was persuaded to leave that definition
      up to the Supreme Court.  The Act of June 25, 1948
      revised, codified and enacted Title 18 into positive law,
      but the key provision that should have defined
      "district court" instead says:  "See Federal Rules
      of Criminal Procedure".


      Then, solely by means of changes to those Rules of Court,
      the meaning of "district court" was fraudulently
      "morphed" from "District Court of the United States"
      to "United States District Court".

      Note well the implications of a "United States District"!!

      This was not only unconstitutional;  the U.S. Supreme Court
      has held that Rules of Court may NOT expand or
      restrict original jurisdiction conferred by Acts of Congress
      :

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm

      In adopting rules, federal courts are not free to extend or restrict jurisdiction conferred by statute.
       
      The FRCP must be deemed to apply to a particular Federal District Court civil proceeding only if the application of the rules will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred on federal courts by the Federal Constitution’s Article III ‑‑ which describes the subjects over which federal courts have jurisdiction ‑‑ because the caveat that federal courts, in adopting rules, are not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power described in Article III of the Constitution.
       
      [Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 112 S.Ct. 1076]
      [117 L.Ed.2d 280 (USDC, S.D. Texas 1992), headnote 3]
      [underlines and bold emphasis added]


      Here's that decision:

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=131

      But in Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1 (1941), we observed that federal courts, in adopting rules, were not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute. Id., at 10. Such a caveat applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power of the United States described in Article III of the Constitution. The Rules, then, must be deemed to apply only if their application will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred by Article III. We must therefore examine petitioner's second, and related, contention that the District Court action in this case lies outside the range of action constitutionally permitted to an Article III court.

      [end excerpt]


      Now, the BIGGEST SMOKING GUN is the statute at 18 U.S.C. 3231,
      which was NOT amended, or repealed and re-enacted, so as to
      change the name of the court upon which criminal jurisdiction
      was conferred, and had been conferred, ever since 1789.

      Read it yourself:The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction,
      exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.


      [end quote]


      The general rule in all Federal jurisprudence is that such statutes
      which confer original jurisdiction must be STRICTLY construed:

      "district courts of the United States" has an important and well
      established historical meaning that is controlling in such contexts.

      You would be entirely remiss to overlook all the standing cases
      which have carefully and consistently defined the correct legal
      meaning of "district courts of the United States".

      I stress, their meaning was well understood for "only" 159 YEARS!!

      When we proved that Congress had NOT amended that statute
      so as to change the court named therein, we knew that the
      U.S. Supreme Court had been exploited to make it APPEAR
      that the Rule changes were merely cosmetic.

      However, the USDCs are territorial tribunals -- not even COURTS --
      where Constitutional guarantees are now options, not mandates.
      If you don't believe me, read this passage in Hooven & Allison:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#guaranties
      (paraphrasing:  the guarantees of the Constitution extend into the
      federal zone only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable,
      by legislating their extension into that zone)


      Whenever Congress invokes 1:8:9, it creates TRIBUNALS
      and NOT "courts":

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:9

      "Courts" as such must be established under Article III;
      but, the Supreme Court has already held that the USDC
      originates in the Territory Clause at Article IV -- NOT ARTICLE III.


      So, to summarize briefly, the Acts of June 25, 1948 --
      enacting both the Criminal Code and the Judicial Code --
      attempted to eliminate the Article III Constitutional Courts,
      and to substitute in their place Article IV Territorial Tribunals
      in which the guarantees of the Constitution had become
      "options" and no longer mandates upon those courts ... er ... tribunals!

      This heresy flies in the face of 2 Acts of Congress
      that expressly extended the entire U.S. Constitution
      into D.C. in 1871 and then into all Federal Territories,
      even future Federal Territories, in 1873:


      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871
      http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/16/16stat426.gif  (Sec. 34)

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1873
      http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/18/18stat333.gif   (Sec. 1891)


      Thus, the actors in your fictional book are all under the same
      "strong delusion" that the Federal Judiciary can be trusted
      to uphold constitutional guarantees as mandates.
      (Cf.  "strong delusion" in the Holy Bible).

      If a group of Citizens assembled to call themselves a
      "Common Law Grand Jury," these legislative tribunals
      reserve to themselves the discretion to ignore completely
      anything and everything such a "Common Law Grand Jury"
      might do, decide, or issue -- EVERYTHING!!

      Bluntly, their "indictments" go nowhere, and that is EXACTLY
      what we have witnessed happening e.g. in Montana and
      elsewhere, during the past 20 years.  Common Law Grand Juries,
      even if such an entity exists, are ignored completely by the
      people in power.

      Quite the contrary, it was the Federal Judiciary who concocted
      this "sea change" from the start, and the consequences have
      been disastrous for the American People at Large, in part
      because State courts have followed the Federal "example" --
      even going so far as to adopt wholesale many provisions in the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- where the same "sea change"
      was also attempted.  See Rules Enabling Act and the Abrogation
      Clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b):

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/2072.html

      "All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect
      after such rules have taken effect."



      THERE YOU HAVE IT:  Supreme Court retroactively changes
      Acts of Congress conferring jurisdiction on "district courts",
      and does so by amending Rules of Court withOUT any
      Act(s) of Congress authorizing same. 

      DO YOU SEE HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THIS ABROGATION CLAUSE REALLY IS??
      IF YOU CANNOT, THEN YOU SHOULD FIND ANOTHER EDITOR TO REVIEW YOUR
      FICTION(S).

      The "democracy" of which those traitors are so fond is
      easily identified as the population of federal citizens
      who now inhabit the 50 States of the Union
      .  The jurisdiction
      to which they owe their primary allegiance is a legislative
      democracy
      domiciled in D.C., and as a group they are
      legally "foreign" with respect to the Republic that is
      domiciled within the 50 States of the Union aka USA.

      The Guarantee Clause does not guarantee a Republican Form
      of Government to D.C. -- only to the 50 States!!

      One cannot serve on juries, or vote, if one is a State Citizen
      who is not also a federal citizen, by "Right of Election"
      (cf. "Right of Election" in the Supreme Law Library).

      Nevertheless,  State Citizens are the only class of People
      who remain qualified to serve in the House, Senate or White House:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/quals.htm
      (these Qualifications Clauses have never been amended!
      as such, they retain today the meaning they had when they
      were first ratified on June 21, 1788 -- my birthday, BTW)

      In short,  "Common Law Grand Juries" are simply not recognized
      anywhere in the relevant Federal statutes i.e. Jury Selection and
      Service Act.  Read it, please!

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1861.html  et seq.

      "all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand
      and petit juries in the district courts of the United States ...."


      Well, if there are no "district courts of the United States" presently convened or staffed,
      this latter "policy" is worthless -- totally worthless!!



      The situation in each of the 50 States may be different and,
      to be perfectly honest, there are just too many laws at the
      State level for me to be familiar with all of them.  Perhaps
      "common law grand jury" is authorized in some State
      constitutions.  

      You should make that distinction clear, then, between Federal laws
      and what they authorize, and State laws and what they authorize,
      particularly if you really do believe in the "Rule of Law"
      and I think you do.

      Thus, if you're trying in your fictional book to portray the actors
      as naive and ill-informed activists who don't have a clue,
      then you are doing a very good job of that, as far as
      current Federal law is concerned
      .


      They're just like you -- maybe projections of your own psyche -- because
      they are discussing something about which they know very little,
      in point of fact -- just as you are writing something about which you
      know very little.  You said it yourself, so I am not putting words in your
      mouth.

      I would never even start such a writing project, in the first place.


      You wanted feedback, and now you know that I am not a "Yes Man".

      So be it.





      --
      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.