Subject: Re: Fw: Big Al's response re: BATF misraid against the Highbargers Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:30:33 -0500 From: Big Al To: nodebt@bellsouth.net References: 1 Thanks and when you read Evans v Gore, Woodruf v O Malley you will understand that it is not I that says there are no article three judges, it is the courts themselves that say there are no article three judges left in this country. The last article III judge died in 1969. Therefore, with no article III judges there can be no article III courts conviened. Sorry but it is the courts that say that not me. You have to read Cochran v St Paul Lumber Co to understand what courts exist and then follow up with U.S. v Woodley. Now until you read these cases then you cannot state there are any article III courts because these judges prove there is no such animal and you are just kidding yourself into beliving a myth and leading everyone astray. Now I have to leave for two weeks today so there is no need to reply because I won't be here till after March 5th so that gives you plenty of time to read the cases, and eat humble pie. Thanks for changing to my new address to eply because I am no longer on Gloryroad and all mail sent there is lost as I can't get it. Big Al Bill James wrote: My Compliments Big Al, Great come-back. Bill James >Hi James, >Rotez just sent me your post. I am no longer on Gloryroad and get nothing from >there otherwise I would have responded. So thank you for all the complements >and I accept you wanna be status. The next time you take a trip on the banana >boat will you let me know so I too can book on the trip? Thanks Big Al > >Roetz wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roetz >> To: Big Al ; Bill James >> Date: Sunday, February 20, 2000 8:36 AM >> Subject: Re: Big Al's response re: BATF misraid against the Highbargers >> >> >Mr. James, apparently you have misunderstood BigAl's statement. He has >> >proven by his own research that Article III courts do not and can not >> exist. >> >If you can not make a constructive rebuttal consisting of facts then why >> >make any at all. I would be interested in any documented wins that you can >> >produce. >> >Thank You >> >Patrick Lynch >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Bill James >> >To: Big Al >> >Date: Saturday, February 19, 2000 10:36 PM >> >Subject: Re: Big Al's response re: BATF misraid against the Highbargers >> > >> > >> >================ Bill James' response to an Honest Man ================ >> > >> >Hello Big Al, Bill James here; >> > >> >I SEEEEE; Sooo, if You, Biblically speaking, are the only Honest Man out >> >there, who may therefore, under the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, >> >throw the first stone at the apparent corrupt judiciary; then who and what >> >am I ? ? ? >> > >> >After all, the clothes on My back were obtained by theft, under color of >> >Law, through tender of fraudulent War Scrip Federal Reserve Note >> >counterfeit Worthless Securities [See foreign Law U.S.C. Title 26 at >> >Subtitle A, Ch. 1B, Part VI, Sec. 165(g)] at stores of apparent entrapment, >> >which do not accept real money (gold and silver coin) from Honest Men such >> >as You. >> > >> >I've been waiting for yeeeaaaars to meet a really Honest Man. Thank You >> >soooo much for coming forward. >> > >> >May I be quite forward and inquire how a really Honest Man, such as >> >Yourself, obtains clothes, food, shelter, entertainment, transportation, >> >etc. without debasing Oneself? >> > >> >I am desperate to gain the KNOWLEGE of how to move forward, in truth, >> >virtue, morality, honesty, integrity, justice, probity, and rectitude as an >> >Honest and Uprighteous Man (just like You) ! ! ! >> > >> >Do you suppose that if I took off all of my stolen clothes, and went naked >> >to court to meet with the Judge, that he might be willing to disrobe also, >> >so as to meet me halfway ? ? >> > >> >I've been grooming myself for yeeaars to become Republicable as a Sovereign >> >sitting on King's Bench in the position of Gate Keeper of the Public >> >Morals, so that I could step down from that lofty moral position and become >> >a noble and BONDABLE Public Servant. >> > >> >Wanting desperatly to be an Honest and Uprighteous Man (just like You), I >> >earnestly await your earliest scholarly reply. >> > >> >Your wannabee servant, >> > >> >Bill James >> > >> >=================== Big All wrote: =========================== >> > >> >>The only way you can turn any court into an article 3 court is to have >> >judges >> >>that do not pay income taxes, have no driver licenses etc., etc. So you >> >will >> >>never have an article III court till that happens and it ain't gonna >> >happen. >> >>Pull Evans v Gore and woodruff v O.Malley and you got the whole picture of >> >just >> >>what constitutes an article III court. Oh, they might call them article >> >III >> >>courts but they are not staffed by Article III judges that do not have >> >their >> >>salary diminished, ergo they are not article III courts >> >>Big Al >> >> >> >===================== Bill James wrote: ======================= >> >> >> >>> Dear Readers; >> >>> >> >>> Jack not only gave me the permission which I asked, but he separately >> >>> published the following: Thanks Jack for the integrity and intestinal >> >>> fortitude. >> >>> >> >>> Bill James >> >>> >> >>> ============ Jack's reply to Bill's request ================= >> >>> >> >>> I understand. To your P.S. Yes. If we cannot muster the courage to face >> >our >> >>> enemies we will never be free.....Jack >> >>> >> >>> ====================== Bill's request ========================= >> >>> >> >>> Hello Jack, Bill here >> >>> >> >>> I have not yet tried to turn the Article 2 Executive Courts back into >> >>> Article 3 courts: however, I do understand the procedure. But just as >> >>> Christ once said, "He who is free of sin, shall cast the first stone." >> >>> We cannot look over our shoulder at all of the past dirty deeds of the >> >>> other side: we must first turn ourselves back into virtuous men, and >> >>> then we may control and punish the wrong-doers, but only for those >> >>> acts against us as comitted after we turned virtuous. That is what >> >>> the Common Law Court is created for, and only that: the moving >> >>> forward in honor, virtue, morality, integrity, probity, and rectitude: >> >>> One does not have a Moral Right to use the Common Law Court until he >> >>> or she first has CLEAN HANDS at Law. That is why the OKC CL Court >> >>> went astray: no integrity, etc.. The Judges wear whatever hat that >> >>> they are required to wear: however, they would be supreme idiots if >> >>> they agreed to wear Article 3 hats, knowing that the newly awakened >> >>> Masters were going to dredge up all the old dirty deeds, but ignore the >> >>> newly awakened Masters' (Sovereign's) own old dirty deeds. >> >>> >> >>> Bill James >> >>> >> >>> P.S. Would you please publish this, or allow me to do so using your >> >>> name and address? I have cleaned it up some. It would be a good >> >>> learning curve for those people who wish to join that class of >> >>> newly awakened Masters. >> >>> >> >>> ==================== Jack's question ============================ >> >>> >> >>>>Can the County Courts be turned into Art 3 Courts by filing certain >> >>>>papers as some have suggested. I have heard that there are no Art 3 >> >>>>Judges available anymore...jack >> >>>> >> >>>>====================== Bill's Reply=========================== >> >>>> >> >>>>From: Bill James >> >>>>To: Jack Aiken Lancaster >> >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 12:23 PM >> >>>>Subject: Re: BATF misraid against the Highbargers >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Jack; >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I create My Common Law Court whenever the need arises: all by >> >>>>> myself if necessary, as, in Law, the Paperwork IS the Court; and I >> >>>>> am the Sovereign opening the court (i.e. creating the paperwork). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will try to send some Writ samples this eveneing. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Bill James >> >>>>> >> >>> ====================== Jack's question ======================= >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Bill, Do you have a Common Law Court? Do you have any sample >> >>>>>> Common Law Writs you can send. I am interested in using a >> >>>>>> Common Law Court. >> >>>>>> We have a lot of Corruption here in Grants Pass, Oregon, which >> >>>>>> means that the Judges are corrupt or it can not happen...Jack >> >>>>>> >> >>> ==================== Original Message ===================== >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> From: Bill James >> >>>>>> To: Jack Aiken Lancaster >> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:34 PM >> >>>>>> Subject: BATF misraid against the Highbargers >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Has anyone talked to these people about useing Common Law >> >>>>>>> Writs to stop the BATF actions? I have found that it works on >> >>>>>>> enforcement agencies as well as on the Judges and Courts. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I am unable to locate that cite; am not sure whether the cite >> >>>>>>> came from a completed action or not; but I remember that I got >> >>>>>>> the info from Richard McDonald some years ago: Richard may be >> >>>>>>>contacted at: >> >>>>>>> richard@mail.caprica.com >> >>>>>>> http://www.state-citizen.org >> >>>>>>> BBS 818-888-9882 >> >>>>>>> (818) 703-5037 voice >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Have you considered staying out of the enemy's court by opening >> >>>>>>> your own Common Law Court? My multiple experiences tell me >> >>>>>>> that it works exceedingly well to shut down any and all court >> >>>>>>> actions of any nature. ``The first Congress, in the Judiciary Act >> >>>>>>> of 1789, declared the jurisdiction of the federal courts over >> >>>>>>> causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to be exclusive, >> >>>>>>> yet saved to suitors in all cases `the right of common-law remedy, >> >>>>>>> where the common-law is competent to give it.' '' [1 Stat 76 Sect. >> >>>>>>> 9 (now found at 28 USC 1333(1)] ``This provision ... has been >> >>>>>>> amended in phraseology, but not in substance ... it has been upheld >> >>>>>>> as valid against assertions of unconstitutionality'' [2 AmJur 2d, >> >>>>>>> Admiralty, Sect. 105, pg. 782-783] >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The U.S. Supreme Court in 1870 ruled that ALL insurance cases of >> >>>>>>> every kind were under Admiralty Jurisdiction. Don't recall the >> >>>>>>> cite. What is Social Security??? How about car, home, health and >> >>>>>>> life insurances, or warranty, or extended coverages on purchases? >> >>> >> >>>>>>> In Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1992 ed, at Rule 60, 1940 >> >>>>>>> Amendment, Page 159, middle of page it states: ``... remedies are >> >still >> >>>>>>> available, although the precise relief obtained in a particular case >> >by >> >>>>>>> use of these ancillary remedies is shrouded in ancient lore and >> >>>>>>> mystery.'' THEY ARE SPEAKING OF ANCIENT `COMMON LAW WRITS', as I >> >>>>>>> use in My Court! ! ! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>I have been using Common Law Writs quite successfully now for >> >>>>>>> several years. I believe that as soon as enough people get back to >> >the >> >>>>>>> old Common Law, rather than trying in vain to find the nuggets they >> >>>>>>> seek in Case Law and Statute Law, we will in fact clean up >> >>>>>>> government. But most patriots do not wish to listen: they want to >> be >> >>>>>>> shown Case Law where use of the Common Law Writs and Maxims at >> >>>>>>> Law have won in Court: they will not find such Case Law Opinions, as >> >>>>>>> the Common Law is about application of truth, honor, virtue, >> >>>>>>> rectitude, morality, integrity, and probity, all of which are >> >superior >> >>>>>>> to, and corrective of, Statute Law and Admiralty decisions; but >> >>>>>>> Common Law, properly applied, is foreign Law (Lex non scriptae) to >> >>>>>>> Statute Law (Lex scriptae), and is not allowed on the record; i.e. >> >they >> >>>>>>> dismiss the case and the records dissappear. That is because, in >> >Law, >> >>>>>>> Common Law is FOREIGN LAW to Statutory, Civil, Corporate, and >> >>>>>>> Admiralty forms of Law. That is why at 28USC 1333(1) they refer to >> >>>>>>> the `Savings to Suitors Clause'; and in the Federal Rules of Civil >> >>>>>>> Procedure at Rule 60, 1946 AMENDMENT in the 1992 ed., they go on for >> >>>>>>> almost 2 pages protecting the Suitors Rights at Common Law, but they >> >>>>>>> never specifically mention the term `Common Law', rather they refer >> >>>>>>> to it as `ancillary remedies shouded in lore and mystery'. They are >> >>>>>>> protecting the Sovereignty's Right to transfer the case, whatever it >> >>>>>>> may be, to the Sovereign's own Common Law Court, even where `Under >> >>>>>>> Cause of Necessity' you are the Judge, Jury, and Prosecutor. I've >> >been >> >>>>>>> using that approach for over three years, and have not yet failed to >> >>>>>>> have the case(s) quietly transferred to MY court, although I have >> >>>>>>> continuing fun with follow-up letters, repeatedly asking for a >> >>>>>>> response, while educating the clerks (clerics?). While it almost >> >>>>>>> boggles the mind, can you imagine a better WIN? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The following paragraphs are excerpts from the introduction to one >> of >> >>>>>>> My Writs at Common Law: After reading those paragraphs, do you >> think >> >>>>>>> that they want to go where I offer to lead them, if I display no >> >>>>>>> integrity? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The highest station of Public Office one can fill is >> >`Citizenship´; >> >>>>>>> and the highest form of Citizenship is that of `Civilian´, where >> >>>>>>> `Civilian´ is defined in Common Law as a Student, Professor, or >> >Doctor >> >>>>>>> of `Common Law´ (leges non scriptae ), and perhaps of Equity, Civil, >> >>>>>>> Roman, the Law Merchant, the Law of Nations, and other law (leges