Time: Wed Jul 09 12:39:26 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA11536;
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:26:47 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:26:22 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLF: Open Letter to Schweitzer, Broderick, et al.
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