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

At 08:58 AM 7/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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.

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