Survive In Prison Or Jail - A How To Jail Guide
Speeding Ticket Secrets!
Surviving Martial Law!
How To Survive The Coming Food Crisis!
Crisis By Design!
What 300 Million Americans Need To Know!
Join The Movement To Impeach Barack Obama!
Easy Naturalization: Easy And Fast Way To Become A US Citizen!
How To Win Child Custody!
Focused Interviewing System Of Interview And Interrogation!
Legal Forms, Contracts And Agreements!
Dealing With False Restraining Orders.
Beat My Speeding Ticket.
Como Obtener Visa A Los Estados Unidos Facilmente!
Move along, folks... Nothing to be found here.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
The big conCitizens Support Speech Not Secrets
|
Wanna know a secret?It's about a big conThis story about a big con is actually about a big Con-stitution. The story of the con began way back in 1849, on the West Coast of America, in the California state. The story is called "Citizen of the State -Removed." We''ll just let Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Jan Precious, and Kathleen Carey tell it to you in their own words. Stephen Mitchell; Lisa Jan Precious; Kathleen Carey Plaintiffs/Demandants, vs. DAVID MISCAVIGE, a person, in the capacity as Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center and Inspector General of the Church of Scientology MIKE RINDER, a person, in the capacity as head of the Office of Special Affairs International JOHN/JANE DOE #1, a person, in the capacity as head of the L. Ron Hubbard Library JOHN/JANE DOE, #2-99 Defendants/Respondents, Case No. BC175367 Affidavit of Truth in Support of Verified Complaint for Libel The 1879 quasi-constitution has no lawful effect due to the following: 1. It is a fact that the "citizens of California" were expressly authorized to vote for the adoption of the Constitution for the State of California of 1849, see exhibit A. 2. It is a fact that "citizens of California" were never authorized to vote for the "adoption" of the 1879 quasi/constitution. Only "citizens of the United States" were authorized to vote for the 1879 quasi/constitution see Exhibit B. Note that "exhibit B" acknowledged that is was a revision of "exhibit A". The express statement of "citizen of California" was purposefully removed by "revision" in the creating of the quasi/constitution of 1879. 3. This revision hereinabove shown where "citizen of California" was removed, is especially notable when it is taken into consideration that another section from the 1849 Constitution, specifically Article XI, Section 2, see Exhibit C, remained unchanged when placed in the 1879 quasi/constitution at Article XX, Section 2, see Exhibit D, and specifically acknowledged the "citizen of this state". It is clear that the "citizen of this state", i.e. the "citizen of California", is acknowledged in, but not authorized to vote for the adoption of, the quasi/constitution of 1879. 4. It is indisputable that in the time frame of the 1870's, that it is defined in decisional law that a "citizen of the United States" as created under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution was specifically nothing more than one of the "freed slaves" (or their offspring) after the Civil War. See Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 349 [1874] see Exhibit E, and Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 [1872] see Exhibit F. 5. It is clearly documented that the effective date of the quasi/constitution was repealed November 8, 1960. 6. Virtually the entire quasi/constitution of 1879 was repealed and replaced from 1949 through 1976 without any lawful authority. The Plaintiff can find no source of any lawful authority to "repeal", whether it be in the quasi/constitution of 1879 or the organic Constitution for the State of California of 1849. 7. There is a fundamental, indisputable difference between the act of "amending" and the act of "repealing". 7a. Amend.
To Improve. To change for the better by removing defects or
faults. To 7b. Repeal. The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law ... . To revoke, abolish, annul, to rescind, or abrogate by authority. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. 8. The following is a listing of the great majority of repealing that took place which was beyond any authority to "amend" or "revise" if the quasi/constitution of 1879 was actually lawfully in effect. 9. In addition the fact presented hereinabove concerning the specific and limited authorization to vote for the adoption of the quasi/constitution of 1879, the fact of the "repealing" is hereby submitted as evidence that the quasi/constitution of 1879 was not, is not, and can't have any lawful effect as the valid "Constitution for the State of the California". Article
I, 10. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff demands and requires: 1Oa. This Court shall take judicial notice 'of the fact that the Constitution for the State of California of 1849 is currently valid and in effect. lOb. This Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that the quasi/constitution of 1879 amounts to nothing more than an "extension of the code" and any lawful effect that it may or may not have does not supersede the Constitution for the State of California of 1849. We, Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Jan Precious, and Kathleen Carey, hereby swear under penalty of perjury, under the law of the Land in California, one of the United States of America, that paragraphs numbered 1 through 10 hereinabove are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of our knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn this twenty-ninth day of the seventh month, in the year A.D. nineteen hundred ninety seven. [L.S.]
(SIGNATURE: STEPHEN MITCHELL) seal [L.S.]
(SIGNATURE: LISA PRECIOUS) seal [L.S.]
(SIGNATURE: KATHLEEN CAREY) seal
FOOTNOTE 1: Concurrent with and equivalent to the district court as created in the Constitution of the State of California of 1849, and the seventeenth judicial district, see Stats 1872, ch. CXIV, p. 116 |
 |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
