Fwd: Fw: Fwd: Notice that De Facto Statutes, Rules. and Regulations Do NOT apply

NOTICE THAT DEFACTO STATUES,RULES,and REGULATIONS: DO NOT APPLY

"Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing that is covered that shall not be revealed:
and hid,that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the housetops" (Jesus, in Matthew 10:26,27)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: jack danials <cornmash007@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Notice that De Facto Statutes, Rules. and Regulations Do NOT apply
To:

--- On Sat, 3/10/12, Michael Silva <msilva6465@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Michael Silva <msilva6465@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Fwd: Notice that De Facto Statutes, Rules. and Regulations Do NOT apply To: "rod class" <itconstitutional@aol.com> Date: Saturday, March 10, 2012, 8:42 AM passing on information.   michael silva  T.S.D. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: michael silva  T.S.D. msilva6465@yahoo.com To: Sent: Friday, March 9, 2012 8:46 PM Subject: Fwd: Notice that De Facto Statutes, Rules. and Regulations Do NOT apply To: BESC email list and selected others: Thanks to Annie!! (Notice the first cite [ A.) ] below. Sherwood is about 93 yrs. old, and is living in Orland, currently recovering from a fall that broke a bone or two.) Begin forwarded message: From: Date: March 9, 2012 8:09:29 PM PST Subject: Notice that De Facto Statutes, Rules. and Regulations Do NOT apply Another Big Wow! Annie Point 112.  Affiant has no evidence or record that de facto statutes, rules, and regulations are applicable to Affiant; and that; Affiant has no record or evidence that proves he is a "Man in the Public", and not a "Man in the Private", a Private Man exercising Private Rights, as made more explicit in EXHIBIT 112 - NOTICE THAT DE FACTO STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY.   ADMIT - Libellees listed in this document admit to the truth that de facto statutes, rules, and regulations do not apply to Affiant, a man in the Private.         EXHIBIT 112 - NOTICE THAT DE FACTO STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY     A). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Sherwood T. Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan, Sec. of Labor 769 F 2d 1344 (1985) Held: "Rodrigues asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him….We do not find the due process challenges insubstantial."   B). And, Ex Parte Frank Knowles  5 Cal 300;  1855  Cal Lexis 119( July 1855), Held: "Courts do not have jurisdiction over the rights of the people as ordained by Almighty God."   C). "The Supreme Court has explained that the power to adjudicate private rights must be vested in an Article III court. Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 63-76 (1982) (plurality opinion).   D). Absent the creation of a separate administrative mechanism for administration and adjudication of civil forfeitures, such cases must be assigned in the first instance to Article III judges. Assignment of such cases to Magistrate Judges, who are mere adjuncts to United States District Judges, see Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 872 (1989), cannot satisfy the Article III requirement." MEMORANDUM TO STEF CASSELLA DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY AND LITIGATION ASSET FORFEITURE OFFICE, December 6, 1993   E). Although the adjudication of public rights need not be assigned to an Article III court, both civil and criminal forfeiture cases involve disputes over private, not public, rights. The Court has held that no criminal case can be conceptualized as a public rights dispute even though the United States is a party to all criminal proceedings. Id. at 70 n.24 (citingUnited States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955)).   F). Similarly, the Court has ruled that Congress generally "cannot `withdraw from [Art. III] judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty,'" id. at 69 n.23 (quoting Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856)), and every civil forfeiture action indubitably constitutes a matter that is the subject of a suit at the common law or in equity. See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 680-83 (1974) (tracing history of forfeiture).  Annie THANK YOU for deleting my address, any other addresses, and personal information, from this e-mail, if you plan to forward it. THANK YOU also for using "Bcc " instead of "To " and "Cc " when initiating both individual and group e-mails.  This helps prevent spammers and hackers from obtaining addresses,  thus limiting the proliferation of spam. Supreme Court case law says in Caha v. United States: "The laws of congress do not apply within the territorial limits of the states but have force only within the national government." "Fear them not therefore; for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed: and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the housetops" (Jesus, in Matthew 10:26, 27) If you no longer wish to be included on this "BESC email list", please Reply and put REMOVE in the Subject field.  NOTICE: Nothing herein may be taken or construed as "legal advice", as such advice may only be offered by a licensed attorney, and there are none.  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This document along with any attachment(s) is intended only for the living soul or entity recipient named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, as specified by the sender, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in relation to the contents of the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited, and you are commanded to destroy this document in its entirety, and notify the sender.  Access to this document by any other person or entity is unintended and unauthorized. "All rights are reserved/Without Prejudice"