Time: Wed Jul 09 06:32:36 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA19780; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 06:32:15 -0700 (MST) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA02700; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 06:31:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:31:48 -0700 To: David Dodge <romans@gate.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: Open Letter to Schweitzer, Broderick, et al. References: <3.0.3.16.19970709035512.4057de9a@pop.primenet.com> Hello David Dodge, Thank you for your comments here. I respond as follows: Objection. Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 48 S. 788, 791, 160 Ala. 155 (1909), held that: "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person." And State ex rel. Leche v. Fowler, 6 S. 602, 41 La. Ann. 380 (1889), held: "But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty -- the right to declare who are its citizens." There are many, many more authorities for this same holding. I have been researching these specific cases for 7 years now, and I have no difficulty concluding that there are, indeed, 2 classes. Federal citizens are members of an association who owe their allegiance to the "United States" (federal government). The United States is not required to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to itself, only to the several states. See the Guarantee Clause. According, Congress is free to establish a legislative democracy within the federal zone, which is exactly what they have done. See Harlan dissenting in Downes v. Bidwell. He predicted a "legislative absolutism," and I believe that his prediction was prescient. The debate goes on! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 08:58 AM 7/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >Paul: > >Under the U.C.C., any debt or other obligation in the amount of $5,000. or >more must be evidenced by a written instrument; which, if not signed by >the debtor is unenforceable through court process. Attempts to collect in >any other manner could be interpreted against the collector. > >Like those who sold the $300 claims packages, these guys would be better >off pleading insanity than stand on the merits of their legal arguements. > >BTW -- the 5th amendment is a bar against inquisition by government >actors. It has no applicability other than don't do unto others what you >don't want others to do unto you. > >In addition, there are not two classes of citizenship in America. The >judges who adhere to foreign law would like to impose such a condition; >and, by that elevate themselves to the more powerful class [along with >their friends]. If you believe that equality no longer exists because of >judicial edict, then you ought to reconsider the difference between fact >and opinion. > >/David > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail