There Was No Quorum In The Creating The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and The Income Tax Reforms Act

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-government-has-now-conceded.html

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.


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 vote 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 to 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.

Contact Martin Michaelsson: MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com.
Brought to you by....
www.AmericansRestoringAmerica.com