Time: Sun Sep 28 18:46:34 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA17512;
	Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:59:58 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA12821;
	Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:49:50 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:49:22 -0700
To: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Conner's Statements Not Accurate (fwd)q

Just show him the shocking and sordid
history of the so-called 14th amendment,
explained -- with authority -- by the Utah 
Supreme Court in 1968, in Dyett v. Turner;
then summarized in State v. Phillips (1975).

Begin reading where "General Lee had surrendered ...."
If that doesn't change his mind, then nothing will!

The pertinent sections of Dyett v. Turner are
now available in the Supreme Law Library, 
at the URL just below my name here.  See the
case of U.S.A. [sic] v. Knudson: NINTH NOTICE

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

At 08:42 PM 9/28/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Recently I wrote a posting called "A Wartime Charter for the SCV" in which
>I said I thought the South's best bet for beating back the Northern
>liberals and their Scalawag and black-activist would be by overhauling the
>SCV completely and turning it into an activist organization, such that it
>would then defend our culture wherever attacked, and simultaneously
>counterattack the Northern liberals.
>Lee Collins of the HPA responded.  Not surprisingly, he didn't think too
>much of my proposal.  What struck me the most sharply about his response
>was its thoughtfulness and thoroughness.  
>Had our positions been reversed, I'm not sure I could have done as good a
>job of it as Lee did.  As I know from other circumstances, to put all your
>time and energy and sweat into building up an organization--having to break
>new ground at every step along the way, and then to have some joker sitting
>on the sidelines (which is precisely who I am) come along and take cheap
>shots at you is not an easy burden to bear with equanimity.
>In his response, Lee says he addressed our SCV camp in Newnan just after we
>had organized it.  He surely did; and I am grateful to him for taking the
>trouble.  He adds, "I am by no means a great speaker, but I give a fiery
>speech."  I don't know how you define "a great speaker," but I don't
>believe that anyone from our camp who heard his speech three years ago has
>forgotten it, or will soon forget it.  Certainly I haven't and won't.
>Further, Charles Lunsford, another of the key players in the HPA, has taken
>the trouble to come to Newnan and address our SCV camp several times since
>then.  In fact, it was an earlier speech by Charles that first got me
>interested in wanting to preserve the culture of the South--thus the white
>Southerners as a people.
>Lee is a fighter, and that's something the Southern-patriot movement is
>pathetically shy of these days.  But we seem to have lots of appeasers.
>I find much to agree with in Lee's response to what I had said--much more
>than I disagree with.  What he says stands on its own feet and needs no
>interpretation or validation by me.  And I'm not going to try to nitpick
>his stuff or go through a long list of "but-I-said" "but-you-said"
>arguments, because that would be a waste of time; Lee and I disagree on one
>major point which makes any of our other disagreements inconsequential.
>That major point is the importance and feasibility of hacking out an
>important voice in the regional mass-communications media, so as to defend
>our turf and conquer our enemies.
>Basically, our visions (Lee's and mine) re the way to defend the South are
>different ones.  I don't think that resolving them is a matter of dredging
>up one or the other sets of facts to support our own positions and convince
>the other man that he's wrong.  Interestingly, Lee could have argued
>powerfully (but he did not) that he has been leading his own parade and
>gaining experience right along, while I've been one recent small face in a
>large crowd--and he'd have been perfectly correct to do so.  Anyone who is
>following this discussion or argument or whatever it is, should certainly
>bear that point carefully in mind: experience counts for a lot, and in this
>particular case, Lee has it--as much as or more than anybody else in the
>field; and I do not.
>But in the end, I think that such a vision is more nearly based upon a
>visceral viewpoint on life than anything else.  I proceed from the
>viewpoint that in the ideological war now being waged against us, we are
>surrounded by our enemies--to a far-greater extent than our Confederate
>ancestors were.   Our liberal enemies now dominate our own
>regional-institutions, as well as the national ones.  Our enemies are
>dedicated to our ideological destruction, and they WILL destroy us unless
>we can discredit and destroy them first.  Our enemies isolate us more and
>more from our fellow Southerners with each passing year, rendering us
>increasingly helpless.  
>If we leave the liberals and our other enemies in place in our Southern
>school-systems, news-media, state- and local-governments, pro-sports, and
>churches, they will destroy us.  The only way we can neutralize and then
>root them out of our institutions is if we have local public-opinion firmly
>on our side for those actions.  
>Southern public-opinion supports us now whenever the black activists
>attempt to pull down the battle flag or one of its derivitives.  But public
>opinion does not rise up in our support whenever some black-activist calls
>our ancestors "Nazi concentration-camp guards" in all the news media.  It
>does not rise up in our support when the liberals in our school systems
>teach the Southern children that the Confederates were evil.  And so on.
>In the areas that really count, Southern public-opinion is not behind us.
>Which instruments shape public opinion most effectively in the 20th
>century?  Television and motion pictures are probably the most-powerful
>propaganda media in existence, because people tend to believe their
>eyes--whether or not what they're seeing is labeled fiction.  The hostile
>liberals own and control those media.  Virtually all of the regional and
>national news-media are under the control of the hostile liberals.  The
>liberals deploy those weapons nonstop to destroy us, and they're succeeding.
>Yes, we can defeat the hostile media and all of our other hostile
>institutions with speeches and debates to defend the most-obvious
>Confederate symbol of all, the battle flag.  But we cannot in that manner
>defend our truly-important treasures--the accurate teaching of Southern
>history, and (even more important) the accurate portrayal of our
>traditional Southern-values, in the schools and the news-and-entertainment
>media.  Our enemies are too powerful for us there.  And without the
>unhampered ability to teach our history and our values to all the
>Southerners via the schools and the media, we're lost.
>The Northern liberals--who focused upon abolition--quickly grasped the
>supreme importance of mass communications enabled by the invention of the
>steam-driven web-fed rotary printing-press during the first half of the
>19th century.  And so, although few in number, they quickly dominated the
>(Northern-based) mass media, and they refined the art of propaganda into a
>weapon of iedological mass-destruction.  Most Southerners, on the other
>hand, believed that actions speak louder than words; therefore, propaganda
>(here I use the word in the beneficial sense) was both loathesome and
>unnecessary.  Most Southerners still believe it.  That is why we were led
>like sheep by self-interested Yankees into the War of Northern Aggression;
>and that's why the Yankees and their followers have been grinding us into
>the mud ever since.  Consequently, we're so helpless today that we can't
>even prevent the liberals from infiltrating our own Confederate museums and
>converting them into black-civil-rights museums before our very eyes!
>We cannot hope to prevail unless we gain a regular and powerful voice in
>the mass-communications media.  Of course the liberals are not going to
>hand that to us on a silver platter.  But unless we become smart enough and
>determined enough to infiltrate the mass media systematically, and carve
>out our own power bloc there, then in the long run we're just playing
>"let's pretend" with our battle flags and uniforms and swords.  Yes, we
>need camps or chapters spread all over the South; yes, we need to show the
>flag; yes, we need orators and debaters of the quality of Lee Collins and
>Charles Lunsford; yes, we need row upon row of smart, vicious
>hairtrigger-lawyers; and yes, we need shrewd and dedicated politicians.
>But unless we concentrate upon infiltrating and controlling the regional
>news-and-entertainment media, our efforts are doomed from the start,
>because we will not persuade public opinion in the South to our side--to
>the extent that we may then weed the liberals out of all our institutions.
>To me, trying to fight and win with the Southern media aligned solidly
>against us would be like setting out to build a battleship to gain control
>of the seas, in this age of air power.
>We have one advantage now that we never had before: the liberals are badly
>demoralized, because 30 years ago their religion was put into practice as
>government policy, and it proved a total failure.  If we can build up a
>strong-enough voice in the media fast enough, we can counterattack and
>destroy liberalism in this country.  Otherwise they will cling to power,
>always demanding a bigger hammer to make their secular religion work; and
>they will finish their task of destroying us.
>The leaders of Southern-patriot organizations may--after years of trying
>unsuccessfully to buck the hostile news-media--dismiss out of hand my
>particular vision, which is centered upon gaining some control of the
>regional news-and-entertainment media.  Until now, all the ones I've
>discussed it with have done so.
>Conversely, I do not see the national leadership of any Southern-patriot
>organization doing anything useful about infiltrating the regional media at
>the grassroots level.  And that is why I do not believe that any existing
>Southern-patriot-organization as presently constituted can defeat the
>Northern (and Hollywood) liberals and their supporters. 
>For that reason, I would arbitrarily select the SCV as the most-promising
>raw material from which to construct a successful activist-organization
>today, simply because it is the largest and oldest Southern-patriot group,
>and I do not yet see any other organization rapidly overtaking it.  Of
>course, for the SCV to be of any real value, the SCV membership would have
>to become activist-oriented; and the SCV would have to toss its current
>charter and adopt a new one; and the SCV would have to elect activist
>leaders and adopt long-range goals and a program for attaining them.  None
>of that is likely to happen anytime soon.
>I'm just one guy walking down the street, and what I have said here is
>merely my opinion--based upon my particular vision of how to win the
>ideological war.  I may be dead wrong about every bit of that; I can't
>prove I'm not.  But in general, I believe that mine is the only
>order-of-battle which stands a chance of winning the ideological war; so
>I'll stick with it unless some Southern-patriot organization comes along
>and wins the war with some other combination of weapons.
>And maybe the HPA or the LS or the SHA or some other Southern-patriot
>organization will get on a roll and eclipse the SCV in terms of membership;
>or maybe the SCV will soon fall apart of its own weight again, the way it
>did in the late 1920s because it was all dressed up with noplace to go.  (I
>am really worried about the rate at which the SCV leadership is becoming
>multicultural these days; I don't believe the morale of the membership can
>support much more of that).  I'm not much good at reading the crystal ball;
>so maybe one of these things will happen very soon, leaving my predictions
>to twist slowly, slowly in the wind.  
>Anyway, the point is that Lee Collins and I have different visions.  I
>could write reams of copy without changing his central beliefs one iota.
>Similarly, I'm locked into the belief that the subversion of the media is
>the most-important weapon in the arsenal of defense of the
>South--impossible though that may presently seem to nonbelievers; and I
>doubt that anybody is likely to change my opinion either.  
>I'm just a tired 64-year-old Southerner who remembers what it was like to
>live in the South before the Northern liberals and helpers began
>overhauling it to their satisfaction via Reconstruction II.  Mostly I liked
>it the way it was before all that--enough so that I write
>politically-incorrect stuff expressing my views about it.  But I have no
>political aspirations, within or outside of the Southern-patriot movement;
>consequently, I have no vested interest in competing with Lee.  Therefore,
>should I in future happen upon him in a suitable location (preferably one
>specializing in the commercial preparation of libations), I'd like to share
>with him my Daddy's secret to long life, and seek wisdom of comparable
>value from Lee--while we agree to disagree about the means to our region's
>Frank Conner
>Newnan, Georgia

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : 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://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