Fwd: Fw: Title 18 meets Bond v U.S.!

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, jack danials <cornmash007@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- On Thu, 12/22/11, debtor1 <debtor1@gmail.com> wrote: From: debtor1 <debtor1@gmail.com> Subject: Title 18 meets Bond v U.S.! To: itconstitutional@aol.com, "Private Attorney General" <justice0927@sbcglobal.net>, rudithomas1011@gmail.com, forever2again@tds.net, cornmash007@yahoo.com, kenickes@gmail.com Date: Thursday, December 22, 2011, 8:12 PM You requested the release of useful information. You might like to see this, inspired by you all at AIB.   It proves with certified exhibits of Congressional records and journals that Title 18 USC is not enacted into positive law - to be cited and quoted in an indictment by itself - without also citing and quoting an underlying statute which is positive law. It attacks the federal prosecution of mail fraud from a number of angles, but always getting to the ultimate threshold issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction from the beginning. A threshold issue is one which prevents a party from even accessing the court. Bond v U.S., decided in June, makes it clear that  convicted defendants have standing to challenge validity of a law that contravenes the structure of government - and this paper exposes the huge loophole created by Congress and the President back in 1948 when they purportedly "enacted" Title 18 by breaking all the rules. The validity of all of Title 18 (including the rules of criminal procedure) is challenged on grounds of constitutional limitations on the way Congress conducts its business. Sorry folks, but the paper also points out that Title 28 was also never enacted into law, which probably leaves the old 1940 version intact to this day. These issues have been generally raised across the country before but when you actually become very familiar with the issues, it's easy to spot where the arguments/conclusions were not quite right or were not properly supported, and relief was easily denied. Some courts have even gone so far as to declare the invalid enactment of Title 18 a myth. It is no myth! And if this is true, what other "laws" are "no law at all?" A few months ago, Carl read from a news clipping about this prosecution in an AIB broadcast, scolding that the defendant should have fought it. He did, better late than never. This petition is now pending. I am told to release this now that a full month has gone by without decision by the court. It's all in the court record. Might want to order certified copies of the exhibits for anyone dealing with Title 18 issues. May God bless America. -Chuck Penn. In New York, hero Supreme Court Judge Schack explains a threshold issue: Plaintiff's lack of standing "Standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked. The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress." (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 812 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]). Professor Siegel (NY Prac, § 136, at 232 [4d ed]), instructs that: [i]t is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . . A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies; (2) a plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy; and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it.  "Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request." (Caprer v Nussbaum (36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 2006]). If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff may not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 2002]). "Standing is jurisdictional and goes to a court's authority to resolve litigation, we [the Court] can raise this matter sua sponte." (Axelrod v New York State Teachers' Retirement System, 154 AD2D 827, 828 [3d Dept 1989]).