Wednesday, October 24, 2012

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18!!


The foundation argument made is based on "no Constitutional" passage due to a lack of a quorum.  There was no quorum in the creating the Federal Reserve act of 1913 either and the Income Tax Reforms Act, created the IRS, was never ratified.  The following is the crack in the dam of the US corporation.  This argument is valid in many other areas of unconstitutionality.

 MAJOR UPDATE: Title 18 :UPDATE
A  MAJOR  ANOUNCEMENT
 
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 
OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18!!
UPDATE ON TITLE 18 CLASS ACTION
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
            September 27, 2012
            A Motion for Summary Judgment was docketed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court, requesting immediate relief for anyone on the petition.
            The Motion is based on the un-refuted affidavits and proof that no Constitutional passage occurred for Title 18, the criminal code in the 80th Congress (1947-1948).
            Since the Title also includes the only authorization to allow federal courts jurisdiction in any criminal case, whether Title 18, Title 21, or Title 26, 18 USC section 3231, then the motion requests relief for each person on the petition.  
            You have a limited amount of time to get on the petition. 
Contact us immediately!
In a challenge to the Validity of Title 18 (Public Law 80-772), the government has now admitted that Public Law 80-772 is unconstitutional. These admissions can be used in the Class Action on Title 18 and in other federal criminal cases. 
The original class action petition was filed in the DC court on 2/23/2012. The judge refused to rule on the merits or make findings of fact and conclusions of law and now it is on appeal. An opening brief, a reply brief, and a Motion for Summary Judgment have been filed by our group. The government has waived argument on the issues presented. 
A verified request for proof of claim was filed in a separate case on August 27, 2012 by our group. 18 stipulated answers were provided, to which the government waived argument on all stipulations, thus admitting the stipulations. 
Included in those admissions were that “no quorum existed on May 12, 1947 and June 22 and 23, 1948”, rendering 18 USC section 3231, which is the only statute which gives the district court jurisdiction to prosecute any federal crime, invalid. 
The government also admitted that the quorum issue has never been heard on the merits; that no Supreme Court precedent exists for the government; and that the US attorney is violating the law by prosecuting any crime. 
The government also admitted that no prior statute gives the federal courts jurisdiction; that the indictment is void on any federal criminal case; that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation; and that pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the government was required to answer the proof of claims. 
Since the government violated the APA, then their silence can only be equated with fraud. See U.S. v. Pruden, 424 F.2d 1021 (1970). Under the authority of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC section 556(D)-Burden of Proof, “the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof.” The Supreme Court has stated that “if any tribunal (court) finds absences of proof of jurisdiction over person or subject matter, that case must be dismissed.” Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908). 
The Attorney General was given 3 opportunities to respond to affidavits of fact and a request for a certified question of law related to the invalidity of Title 18. No response was made. In U.S. v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981), the court held: “Indeed, no more than that, [Affidavits], is necessary to make the prima facie case.” Id at 536. “Moreover the threshold of relevance is a low one.” Id at 537. “The burden is therefore on the Respondent who must come forward with special facts to support a legally sufficient rebuttal or defense.” Id at 538-39. The stipulated answers are now admitted. 
Included in the stipulated facts the government has now admitted are: 
1. An internal memorandum by Harley G. Lappin to Department Heads of the Bureau of Prisons on July 27, 2009 in which he states that “In order for any bill to be valid the Journals of both Houses must show that iw was passed in the presence of a Quorum. See United States v. Balin, Joseph & Co., 144 U.S. 1, 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 voe was a ‘voice vote,’ but the Parliamentarian of the House states that a voice vote is only valid when the Journal shows that a quorum is present and that it’s unlawful for the Speaker of the House o sign any enrolled bill in the absence of a quorum. On May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the hall of the House was required to be entered on the Journal in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 voice vote to be legal.” 
2. A letter from Jeff Trandahl, clerk of the House to Mr. Charles R. Degan dated June 28, 2000, in which he states: “Congress was in session on June 1,3,4,7-12 and 14-19, 1948, however Title 18 was not voted on at this time.” 
3. A letter from Karen L. Haas, clerk of the House, dated September 11, 2008, in which she stated: “After conducting a thorough examination of the journals, I found no entry in the journal of the House of any May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3190 bill…” 
4. A letter by Nancy Erickson to Mr. Wayne E. Matthews dated March 9, 2009 in which she stated that “I asked the Senate Historian’s office to review the correspondence you enclosed, and they were able to verify that no action was taken by the Senate on H.R. 3190 prior to the December 19, 1947 sine die adjournment. 
5. A letter dated August 24, 2010 from the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives which stated: “Our office has conducted research of the House Journal and the Congressional Record in regards to HR 3190 and the voice vote that was taken on May 12, 1947. After researching these official proceedings of the US House of Representatives we have been unable to find the names of the 44 Members who responded to the voice vote.” 
Pursuant to their oath of office, the courts are required to follow the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.  
~*~
YRIITL has been serving the American community for over 7 years to secure the very best in Information Providers to assist you and teach you to deal with court related matters.  Our Students are simply the best informed, bar none.       
~*~ 
For more information ....... 
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Contact Martin Michaelsson:  MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com
Brought to you by....
www.AmericansRestoringAmerica.com

 

The Phone Numbers and Pins are published at http://www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com behind the Free Tele-Conference tab. Enter with your User Name and Password. If you don’t have one, click on “New? REGISTER HERE” and create your unique User Name and Password. Information is available only to registered members. Click on Free Tele-Conference Calls and you will see the correct information.

PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL YOUR GROUPS AND LISTS

So, if you want to learn how you can accomplish this Offensive Posture for yourself, listen to and participate in the Free Tele-Conference Calls most every evening of the week. See the 'Free Tele-Conferences' TAB at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com, AND THE NEW CALENDAR TAB. There are also the Archives to view two years of historical conference calls!
Best regards,
ME
________________________________
Click one of the links below to learn more about our self-help courses, or to order your copy today:
The Leader in Step-by-Step Lawsuit Self-Help . . . On the Web Since 1997
Case-Winning Lawsuit Procedure for Non-Lawyers ... Learn How-to-Win In Just 24 Hours !
I also encourage you to purchase the 24 hour JurisDictionary Course found at the products and services page at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com. This course is the absolute minimum entry level for anyone who is anticipating having to deal with a lawful issue. It will be the best 24 hours you have ever spent! I have heard it said this course, when completely understood by you, could put you on par with 85% of the lawyers you may come across.

DISCLAIMER: Legal Information is NOT the same as Legal Advice This site provides entertainment/educational information about law designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal educational information is not the same as legal advice. The application of law varies with an individual's specific circumstances. The laws of every state are in constant change, and although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it is appropriate to your particular situation.
SPAM: We Support Responsible Email Compliance: This email cannot be considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove instructions. This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.4176 - SECTION 101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress.

12 comments:

  1. this is important!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is very important this story of NO VOTE on passing into law TITLE 18. We veterans have two cases in Federal Court, one (1) charging the V.A. with R.I.C.O. violations and carrying out GENOCIDE against veterans. The Judge dismissed the case because of 38 USC 511. You should ALL read that law, NO DUE PROCESS for Veterans.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ditto; How does somebody sign this petition>

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess this means all the Crimes these government stooges are commiting against us, are not crimes at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a corporate MOTION from a corporate BAR attorney to a corporate court.

    This has nothing to do with non-corporate citizens / American nationals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does this not void every past criminal conviction based on Title 18?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey all, I contacted the original firm that filed the suit back in 2007 and was told the U.S. Supreme Court denied it without a hearing. So how is this new news factual?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone should listen to this recording, here again is Rod Class :D please pass it along http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-93845/TS-683334.mp3

      Delete
  8. Ex-con Tony Davis banned from practicing law
    By Chuck Lindell | Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 10:23 AM
    Tony Davis, an Austin ex-convict without a law degree, today agreed to a temporary injunction barring him from continuing to sell legal briefs or act as a lawyer.

    The injunction, signed today by District Court Judge Rhonda Hurley, also bans Davis’ company — International Legal Services, also known as ILS Services — from providing legal advice or help.

    Though temporary, the injunction does not include an expiration date.

    Davis is a former accountant convicted of fraud and money laundering as part of an early 1990s scheme to charge companies $25,000 to $400,000 in fees for loans his company, Forum Financial, never delivered.

    After serving more than five years in prison, Davis returned to Austin in 2004 and later set up International Legal Services, which sold legal briefs to federal prisoners or their families for fees ranging from $10,050 to more than $25,000, court records show. Legal experts say the fees are more than most law firms would charge for appellate representation in a criminal case.

    Advertising in newsletters sent into federal prisons, International Legal Services guaranteed that its copyrighted legal briefs would result in freedom for its clients. However, courts have routinely dismissed the company’s arguments as frivolous and have fined Davis for wasting the court’s time by using the arguments in repeated appeals in his own case.

    The American-Statesman first wrote about Davis and his business in 2007.

    And in May, we wrote about a temporary restraining order banning Davis from the unauthorized practice of law. Today’s injunction replaces that order.

    The injunction was sought by the Texas Supreme Court’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. The local committee is led by Austin lawyer Joanalys Smith, with lawyer Kevin Lashus acting as the committee’s prosecutor.

    when commenting, we ask that you keep things civil and abide by our Visitor Agreement. To report comment abuse, click here.

    By Chris

    By Tony Davis

    August 22, 2009 7:51 PM | Link to this

    Obviously the courts do not want to admit they have no jurisdiction, that would be admitting their liability. The DOJ does not want to admit they have no jurisdiction, that would be admitting they have been tricking the American people for many years. The issue related to Title 18 (Public Law 80-772) is very simple. The House of Representatives had no quorum in place on May 12, 1947 when the voted on the bill. The House of Representatives had no vote on Title 18 in 1948, the second session of the 80th Congress. No valid House vote, no valid bill. I have the letters from the clerks of Congress and I have verified them. All supported by the Constitution and Supreme Court case law. Now the question becomes, not about the validity of the bill, it is invalid, but about the coverup, including the Austin American Statesman. Why? Simple. Its all about money. I can show you where the courts are making money from convictions. I now have witnesses. So if we overturn their little game, they will lose millions. The AAS is just a puppy in the fraud. Call me, I will show you the real facts. 512-3296468. Tony Davis.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Has there been any updates on this?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tony Davis is now Robert Davis and he has a new address and Joyce Riley got fooled too http://www.thepowerhour.com/past_shows/schedule_02_27_2012.htm
    Case 1:12-cv-00257-RJL Document 35 Filed 04 ... - PlainSite
    www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=24561695&z...
    Apr 30, 2012 - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. HARRY EDWIN MILES,. ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0257 ...

    ReplyDelete