From: Arthur Stopes, III.
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:58 AMSubject: "To: (Sgt.) Camilo Mejia Castillo." - from C.U.R.E. (Complimentary Copy)
Subject: : Camilo Mejia Castillo. - from C.U.R.E. Sun, 01 May 2005 21:21:15 -0700 Arthur Stopes, III. <arthurstopesiii@yahoo.com> freecamilo@freecamilo.org Center for Unalienable Rights Education (C.U.R.E.)
2155 Acton Street, Suite 3, Berkeley 02, California state.
(510) 548–5238
www.US-usA.infoDear Camilo Mejia Castillo:
I have recently learned of your plight, and concluded that You are not being told of your "unalienable Rights", or being properly advised regarding them. (Your attorney would be sanctioned by the non-Constitutional "court" of which he is an officer, if he were to tell you anything about them.) I will explain...
I have read the suggested letter addressed to Major General William G. Webster, Jr., the open letter to 'President' George W. Bush, and the opinions of Amnesty International, et al. Also, I noticed the references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. None of those letters, opinions, or references address the most fundamental underlying substrate that is involved.
What is that?
While it is to your credit that you sought "conscientious objector status", and noteworthy that you are Amnesty International's "first prisoner of conscience in the USA since the first Gulf War"; it is very much more significant that your appeal has not been addressed to the government's VIOLATION OF CONTRACT.
Whether your lawyer will submit an appeal against your conviction, or your American supporters and Amnesty International members, worldwide, will ask the "Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces" to secure your release, you will nevertheless be in the unenviable position of "begging for amnesty", regarding your ill-advised Agreement to U.S. military service.
However... Have you been informed that your Agreement to U.S. military service is founded upon FRAUD?
It is. And therefore, inasmuch as you are "Latino" (speaking a Latin language), allow me to administer a Lawful Remedy, to your unhappy plight --- in Latin:
Ex dolo malo non oritur actio: "No right of action can have its origin in fraud."
Here is the underlying fraud: The U.S. government's omission of the governing conditions, or terms, of any Contract that You may have entered into. Specifically... The "Constitution for the United States of America" (Preamble "title"), at Article I., Section 8., makes it very clear that:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [Emphasis and note added.]
Clause 11 (relating to the emphasized parts of the governing conditions), states as follows:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" [Emphasis added.]
It is a well-known fact that, not since 1941, has the Congress moved "To declare War", according to it's governing conditions, as set forth and limited by the Constitution for the United States of America. Moreover, not one subsequent "war" (un-Constitutional, undeclared attack, invasion, or occupation), has
ever been necessitated "for the common Defence". (This, of course, would apply to Korea, Viet Nam, Granada, Afghanistan, and Iraq, for instance.)THEREFORE: Rather than subserviently making a "Protest", or "begging for amnesty", it would be far better and wiser to present the following Document:
"Affidavit of Non-Requirement to Participate in War not for the Common Defense"Such an Affidavit, setting forth the governing conditions under which the de facto "government" can lawfully declare War, in order to participate in War, (as indicated above), would make irrefutably clear the self-same conditions under which You, Camilo Mejia Castillo*, can lawfully participate in War, yourself.
The Affidavit should be signed by You, and two or three Witnesses.Your attorney most certainly ought to know, that an unrefuted Affidavit is the highest form of evidence; and, the de facto "government" could not prove that - contrary to it's own governing conditions - You (or anyone else), can be "required" to participate in an undeclared War, that is not for the common defense.
For the above reasons (and not to get too technical here), suffice it to say that your "Contract" (to join the military), was FRAUDulent, and is therefore VOID.
If you wish to explore this further, you may communicate with Me by calling (510) 548 - 5238, or e-mailing to
< arthurstopesiii@yahoo.com >.I hope to hear from you; tomorrow you will be in Oakland. If you call, we could meet there. Sincerely, Arthur Stopes, III.
* Camilo Mejia Castillo. : This is your Name; it is not to be confused with the nom de guerre, or "strawman", that is written "CAMILO MEJIA CASTILLO".Therefore, at the very beginning of your military hearing (when they called out what sounded like your Name), you could have simply but steadfastly stated:
"I am not the PERSON you seek." And, sat down. (!) Preferably, this is done in advance in written form, and it is called a "Petition for abatement". About such a rarely used procedure, a law compendium (Corpus Juris Secundum), makes quite clear that "abatement is a matter of right, not of discretion".
If a hearing is to be held in the future, you might wish to inquire into this matter. I append a rather dense "flyer" on the proposed "DRAFT", for your interest.
Quashing* the "DRAFT" (Rev. 4/2/2005)
Ex dolo malo non oritur actio: “No right of action can have its origin in fraud.”
This is the KEY... to your Right to not be "subject" to the DRAFT, by the United States Military:
The Military Selective Service Act*1 does not impose a "DRAFT" on American Citizens*2; but, The Military Selective Service Act*1 appears to impose a DRAFT on "U.S. citizens"*3; they are Federal subjects (cf. “14th Amendment”, Section 1.). [For notes, see back.]
That is why THE "DRAFT" (if and when it comes up), IS VOLUNTARY. Allow us to explain: There are several ways to lawfully challenge phases of the "draft"; the final step is described first.
8. Not stepping across the line, at the Selective Service Induction Center.
During the war in Viet Nam, many draft registrants were “invited” to present themselves at draft induction centers, and to "submit" to induction. The groups of nervous inductees were exhorted to raise their right hand, and "step across the line". That action was more than merely “symbolic”...
(Doing so, may be likened to writing one’s unique Signature , on a legal Contract.)
One of the many who then unwittingly did so, was Robert Kelly, who is now Publisher/Director of The American's Bulletin, Central Point, Oregon. Having learned much, after that, about our “unalienable Rights”, the paper features “Uncensored News and Information”, about American Law.
(Mr. Kelly is willing to receive some phone calls from sincere people, who would like to know
how he later learned and proved for himself, that the "DRAFT" is indeed VOLUNTARY. His telephone number is 1-541/779-7709; his Fax is the same. Please do have a "Representative" call.)
Other ways to lawfully challenge the "draft": [For brief Explanations, see back.]
1. Do not "register" (if not actually required);
2. Return wrongly addressed “Official Mail” from the "Selective Service" for good, lawful cause;
3. Demand to see a copy of the "Delegation of Authority" of a federal (or “State”) agent or officer;
4. Do not answer to a "NAME" in court or tribunal, that merely sounds like your Name (U/l case);
5. File a "Petition for Abatement" in court or “, due to a "NAME" that looks like your true Name;
6. Execute a "Conditional Acceptance"; learn to demand proof of authority to "DRAFT" You, etc.;
7. Present an "Affidavit of Non-Requirement to Participate in War not for the Common Defense",
signed by You (and also signed by two or three Witnesses), to lawfully challenge the "DRAFT";
(And 9. - IF you want to be treated as a federal subject, You may risk "Conscientious Objection".)
Partial text of the current Military Selective Service Act*1: [Emphases and notes added.]
"§ 453. Registration
(a) ... it shall be the duty*4 of every male citizen of the United States,*3 and every other male person residing in the United States,*5 who ... is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit*6 to registration at such time or times and place or places ... as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder."
Partial text of the proposed Universal National Service Act*1 of 2003-2004 (H.R. 163):
“SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.*4
(a) OBLIGATION*4 FOR YOUNG PERSONS-
It is the obligation*4 of every citizen of the United States,*3 and every other person residing in the United States,*5 who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER ... MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED-*7 [Read note *7 very carefully.]
Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking `male' both places it appears; (2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and” [etc.].
Notes: *Quash: Law. To abate, annul, or make void.
*1 The Military Selective Service Act is found in the United States Code; Title 50, “War and National Defense"; at Appendix, Sections 451 - 473. An "Act of Congress" is not a General Law; therefore, it is applicable only to the "United States".*5 This obviates the union states, such as California, and conforms to Congress' "Power to ... make ... Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"; i.e., Federal Areas. (See 18 U.S. Code, Appendix - Rule 54 (c) Application of Terms; "Act of Congress".) Although in the Act’s preamble, the qualifying phrase "for the common defense" is
absent from numbered Code sections. Thus, Congress “legally” authorizes police actions, and aggression.
Citizen, or citizen?; (notes *2 and *3):
*2 American Citizen (state Citizen): Were you born in a union state, such as California? An American Citizen has, as his or her Birthright, the unenumerated "unalienable Rights", of the “unanimous Declaration”.
*3 U.S. citizen: Were you born within the District of Columbia or other federal Territory? According to the Supreme Court of the United States, "The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States [U.S. citizens] do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government." (!) - Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 581 (1900).Also, please take notice: 'Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity".' (!!) - Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 (1936).
*4 Duty & Obligation: These terms are not necessarily synonymous with "requirement" (to register, etc.).
*5 United States: NOT the U.S. of A.; this term is defined in the U.S. Codes as the District of Columbia, and its Territories. (Cf. the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S. Code, Section(s) 7701(a)(9) and (10).)
*6 Submit: "To commit to the discretion of another." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.) This does not mean that acts of “signing up” for registration, or "crossing the line" at military induction, are REQUIRED.
*7 REQUIRED: The word “required” does NOT appear in the “Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a))” as is deceptively implied in the proposed Universal National Service Act. It is a principle of statutory construction that a caption has no legislative significance; thus, it is NOT “required”.
Explanations: [Serious Inquirers are urged to seek, or invited to request, further information.]
1. See text and note(s)*1 to Military Selective Service Act, Section 453. “Registration” (above).
2. “Official Mail” is never addressed to a true Name and union state. The de facto "U.S. Government" can only address misnomers - "JOHN DOE" instead of John Doe; or "CA" - a federal POSSESSION. Certain simple procedures are used to return such mail; (The writer once returned a court’s subpoena, with "CA".)
3. Most federal agencies have NO constitutionally delegated authority within a union state (California, etc.).
4. No answer to a "NAME"; if called, simply respond: "I am not the PERSON you seek." Then, sit down... (The writer's radio host on KZFR 90.1 FM, Chico, did this in a “traffic” case; the case was dismissed!)
5. Petition for Abatement: This is a special procedure to address an irregularity such as a wrong "NAME", or wrong state designation ("CA"), etc. Per Corpus Juris Secundum: "Where conditions for its issuance exist, abatement is a matter of right, not of discretion." (The writer caused a “custody” case to be abated.)
6. Conditional Acceptance: This is an administrative procedure; unanswered statements constitute court-admissible evidence. The "Judge" acts ministerially, not judicially; therefore, s/he has no discretion.
7. "Affidavit of Non-Requirement to Participate in War not for the Common Defense": Here, NO "protest"; the Lawful Remedy for honoring non-participation in war, not "for the common defense", is to assert the primacy of the Constitution for the United States of America (The Preamble’s “title”, above Article I.).
Quashing the "DRAFT" was prepared by Arthur Stopes, III.; Director of ‘Center for Unalienable Rights Education’ (C.U.R.E.), at Berkeley, California. Telephone 510/548-5238; see www.US_usA.info.