Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Point 011.

Affiant has no record or evidence that Libellee(s) has/have not been

NOTICED of their contribution to the erosion of Truth and lawful process and are further
noticed, as per EXHIBIT 011 - NOTICE of Communication, Facts Established.
ADMIT - Libellees listed in this document admit to the truth and guilt of being part of
and party to the erosion of truth and justice by way of deceit and devices of
"wordsmithing" to Affiant's hurt and injury.

EXHIBIT 011- NOTICE of Communication, Facts Established

COMMUNICATION Is not the sending of Letters, Documents,
Notices, Endorsements and the posting of Statutes, Rules,
Regulations, and Laws nothing more than Communication?
AND, are not all Codes, Statutes, Rules, Regulations and other
documents, commonly referred to as Laws, Copyrighted?
It is a measure of comprehensive intelligence to determine that all the
above items/issues of question are, indeed, Communications which are
Copyrighted!! If I cannot use copyrighted information against the state,
neither can the state use it against me.
1. With these established facts in mind, please follow:

Communications Act of 1934 / [47 U.S.C. 153]

Sec. 3. Definitions
(40) "State". - The term "State" includes* (see #5 below) the District of Columbia and
the Territories and possessions.
(51) "United States". - The term "United States" means the several States and
Territories, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States, but does
not include the Canal Zone.
2. For further definitions, see
Sec. 101. Definitions
Except as otherwise provided in this title, as used in this title, the following terms and
their variant forms mean the following:

"State" includes* (see #5 below) the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and any territories to which this title is made applicable by an Act of
The "United States", when used in a geographical sense, comprises the several States,
the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the organized
territories under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
3. Regarding an Act of Congress, such as a Communications Act, see:

Title 18 - Appendix; Rule 54 (c) "Act of Congress" includes* (see #5 below) any act
of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico,
in a territory or in an insular possession."** (see #6 below)
4. Regarding the limited authority (Power of Congress) of such Acts of Congress, we
find, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." [Emphasis added.]
5. *Includes means A term of limitation! Ex parte Martinez.
6. **None of the Union states, such as California or Missouri, are in the short list

"It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain."

Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum. - Maxim of law

Affiant hereby clings to the wisdom of the past and reiterates Affiant's reasons for being
dogmatic and belligerent claimant. It is for love of Creator, Family, and Country that
Affiant calls attention by way of "NOTICE" to the below example in hopes that justice
may better be served, as per;
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but
illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely,
by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can
only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the
security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal
construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the
right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the courts to be
watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy
encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta prinicpalis," [Mr. Justice Brewer,

dissenting, quoting Mr. Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed.
746, 6 Sup.Ct.Rep. 524] [Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)]
CONGRESS 1774, we find the following words:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power of
right to bind the people of America by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts
expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for
the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies,
established a board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers, and extended the
jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial
of causes merely arising within the body of the county." - JOURNALS OF THE FIRST
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, edited by W.C. Ford, Volume I, page 63 et seq.
Mens Rea
The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a
crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).
The mens rea is the Latin term for "guilty mind" used in the criminal law. The standard
common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act will not make a person guilty
unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an
actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the
defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). The exception is
strict liability crimes (in the civil law, it is not usually necessary to prove a subjective
mental element to establish liability, say for breach of contract or a tort, although if
intentionally committed, this may increase the measure of damages payable to
compensate the Plaintiff).
There are three general classes of mens rea (the words used may vary from one state to
another and from one definition to another) but the substance is: 1) intention; 2)
recklessness sometimes termed willful blindness which may have a different
interpretation in the United States; or 3) criminal negligence.
Bluntly presented, this Exhibit is to demonstrate the point that the eye of scrutiny will be
looking through an exacting process to determine that there is NO FRAUD in any
origination of documents, or processes, which may be presented against Affiant, from any
source, and that; the system of Equity and Judgment is not defiled to allow any "Fruit
From the Poisonous Tree Doctrine" to filtrate down to the Private Man level.
PURPOSE; To Show the Means of Estoppel of Errosion of Truth and Justice
"It [U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the
Common Law." -- U.S. vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456
"The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules." -- Schick vs.
U.S., 195 US 65, 24 Sup. Ct. 826, 49 L. Ed. 99
If the federal constitution, except for Art 4, Sect 3 and in particular Clause 2 must be
interpreted in accordance with the common law - then as an operation of law - the State
constitutions and their courts must apply the rules of the common law when dealing with
the individual.
There is no mention of Statutory Law. The Supreme Court clearly stated in the mid
1960's that constitutional and statutory law ARE NOT the same and they explained the
"All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide
protection for private rights (Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY 378), which duty is a debt
owed to it's creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual;
which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter
what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the
unenfranchised individual owes nothing to the government." Hale v. Henkel, 201
U.S. 43
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the
[federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress
can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution
entrusted to it: All else is withheld." -- Supreme Court Justice Field
"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether
judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596,
citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.
"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is
assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence,
100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)
" ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another [Good
and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative body] can
possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an object, are
injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the public at
large". People v. Fisher, 14 Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501