Postal Power. Enjoy My Freeman!

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

Please answer my post about laws being "old". Please enlighten us, do all laws expire after 20 years? 30? More, less?

Unlike Dubya, I do not think laws expire. But here was a law that I suspect has not gone unamended during 70 years and yet it is referenced as if it hadn't changed in all those years (maybe, of course, I am wrong and it hasn't been amended). Also, of course, that you told us the Treasury was running the DC Post Office so that it sounded as if this were a recent development.

But the law dealt only with the care of the building not with the internal operations of the post office and it certainly didn't touch the 50 or more other post offices in DC that rent or share buildings. The law related only to the building, since the building was considerably more responsibility than the Post Office Dept is capable of handling. In the last 70 years, the Post Office Dept has been replaced by the Postal Service, the office HQ of the USPS has relocated at least twice, etc.

However, the point of this thread was not who was in charge of the DC main post office building, it was this nonsense about putting a postage stamp on a court pleading. I don't think it's illegal but I am certain that it has no legal effect (except to signal that you don't know what you're doing). If you check the court files of cases handled on both sides by real lawyers, you won't find any such stunt. It's not mentioned in any of the many textbooks on court procedure, such as Federal Practice & Procedure, Moore's Federal Practice, Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, etc.

Like so much of the nonsense touted on this forum, this is something real lawyers never do, and if you were to ask why, you'd get more nonsense about some secret that's never been in a law school or lawyers' textbook. You'd never find a court case that says anything like "Because this guy's name is in all-caps (or has weird punctuation or he calls himself a sovereign or he glued a postage stamp to the pleadings or he returned the court papers with 'Refused for Cause' written on them, or any other silliness) he's immune to the laws that apply to everyone else."

But, if you insist on putting a postage stamp on your court pleadings -- I somehow feel sure that the Inverted Jenny stamp will be much more efficacious than any other postage stamp, and will succeed where other stamps fail.

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...papers with 'Refused for Cause' written on them, or any other silliness) he's immune to the laws that apply to everyone else."

But, if you insist on putting a postage stamp on your court pleadings -- I somehow feel sure that the Inverted Jenny stamp will be much more efficacious than any other postage stamp, and will succeed where other stamps fail.

It is not about "getting out" of something or being bulletproof to laws. When statutes are purported to be "law" and one is charged under a statute, then yes, we have an obligation to get out of it. Most Acts are unconstitutional, immoral, against personal freedoms, or even egregious. Drug Acts get most people in jail. The same drugs which have been shown to be shipped in by gov-mint and which are not "a scurge on society". The Motor Vehicle Acts are another example. Who are they to tell us we must catalog our own privately owned automobiles and must license ourselves to travel at will? Just last week, I had a "statute" used against me in conversation by the DMV branch manager. He thought he could pull one over me by passing it off as law that I could not put anything but my signed name on the graphic tablet. Oh really! A law telling me how to sign my own name?
So Shoonra, you must realize that the longer you do your part to keep the meat grinder going, you are only hastening the demise of this country. You can come over here from the Dark Side. We will accept you. Washington would be so proud.

[David Merrill]

AN ACT

To provide for placing the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Washington City post office in the Secretary of the Treasury.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40, sec. 285), is hereby amended to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the Washington City post office and the additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and control.

That is so... Shoonra! She has fabricated the cause of the reassignment of the Post Office. The week or so before the Bankers' Holiday the entire Revised Statutes were amended by Congress. That is a statement of who the US is - the District of Columbia.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...on-1871-a.html



Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Where, in the United States Code do the words:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"

appear?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Grench

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/Presentments-6.htm

Regards To All,
Phil
Without Recourse

I kept looking for citations in law and factual history,,,

I was left still wanting.

I would also point out that code in general refrence "acts" but place the end product of acts into an indexable forum. Only the act need the enacting clause.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by mrg

Where, in the United States Code do the words:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"
appear?

Maybe I should take this personally, since I have explained it about half a dozen times on this website.
The enacting clause appears on the original statutes, which have been published chronologically in Statutes at Large.
The US Code reproduces, with all the amendments, those sections of lasting and general application, arranged logically. For this, the sections of the original statutes are separated. So boiler plate stuff like the enacting clause, the signatures, the dates, etc. are stripped away. Same with the state codifications.

THe courts know all this and have said that it's enough to have the enacting clause and signatures on the original statute, which is kept in the approprioate archives, even if a printed version doesn't bother printing this boilerplate with every item.

[Notorial dissent]

As usual, Merrill manages to miss the important part of the law he quoted.

to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and control.

the part about giving the Sec control, not of the Post Office, but of the Post Office Building, a minor but important disctinction, that Merrill would like to ignore.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
I dont know what happend to the thread or post but I recall doing a detailed post on the link between the postal system and the ancient "court of the exchequer". The postman in the court of the exchequer was basically an barrister (apparently typically leaning, standing or sitting against or near a post) during the filing or making motions (see also tubman).

Proof its a commercial court dealing with "King's Revenue" is that the two busiest times for the post office are: tax time and Christmas--very commercial times. The "plaintiffs" or "defendants" are senders or recipients respectively. The process servers for that court in the US wear a very distinct blue uniform.

[TruthQuest]

Correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn't “exclusive jurisdiction’ include authority over what happens within such building and the additions thereto?

AN ACT

To provide for placing the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Washington City post office in the Secretary of the Treasury.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40, sec. 285), is hereby amended to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the Washington City post office and the additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and control.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

So boiler plate stuff like the enacting clause, the signatures, the dates, etc. are stripped away.

Rendering the US Codes and State of XXXXX Revised Statutes ineffective for applied law except of course for attorneys. So ask yourselves this. Are "judges" required to first and foremost required to be active and registered practicing attorneys?

Speaking for the State of Colorado, the general assembly passes a bill that is an omnibus enacting clause for everything they do per session.

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

Since all laws must conform to the constitutions to be law, the emanations from the general assembly are simply policies for the corporation.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

As usual, Merrill manages to miss the important part of the law he quoted. the part about giving the Sec control, not of the Post Office, but of the Post Office Building, a minor but important disctinction, that Merrill would like to ignore.

I think you are making the same assumption that Shoonra is making about the verbiage. What you are saying is that the building was somehow defaulted to the Treasury at the same time that the Post Office quit functioning as the post office inside that building? And that the default happened a day or two before FDR took up his post and the Bankers' Holiday? Okay... you go to your church and I go to mine. But in light of all the important things happening in Washington that week, I do not find the transfer of the post office building and all happening inside it worth my time to investigate further - your notion that the Secretary was being assigned janitor of the building.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.

I dont know what happend to the thread or post but I recall doing a detailed post on the link between the postal system and the ancient "court of the exchequer". The postman in the court of the exchequer was basically an barrister (apparently typically leaning, standing or sitting against or near a post) during the filing or making motions (see also tubman).

Proof its a commercial court dealing with "King's Revenue" is that the two busiest times for the post office are: tax time and Christmas--very commercial times. The "plaintiffs" or "defendants" are senders or recipients respectively. The process servers for that court in the US wear a very distinct blue uniform.

Yes indeed. Great points! And upon this ponder the change under Nixon's emergency doctrine from the post office to the Postal Service, a subcontractor.

Originally Posted by TruthQuest

Correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn't “exclusive jurisdiction’ include authority over what happens within such building and the additions thereto?

Notorial Dissent, Shoonra and Judge Roy Bean provide an attorney approach and perspective here at Suijuris. They are quite helpful. It is amusing that nowhere will you ever find them spelling my name correctly (misnomer is fatal error in any court). JRB will even change David Merrill to David Merrill Van Pelt in the quotation citation the software assigns!

One has standing (he has jurisdiction) in his courtroom in the real world. Believe me, he knows what his true name is and he knows mine is David Merrill.