Time: Wed Oct 15 18:12:04 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA11343;
	Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:02:30 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:00:45 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: People v. De La Guerra

At 12:46 PM 10/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I'd like to read the whole De La Guerra case.

You can get it from any county library in
California.  Just call any librarian, and
ask them for a quote to copy it and mail
it to you.  I have always found them to be
extremely helpful.  I could do it for you
also, by going to the Univ. of Arizona
Law Library, but you would have to pay our
standard hourly rate of $75.  Do you have
a major university law library near you?

> What was it about?

De La Guerra's claim to the office he occupied
was challenged, as I recall.  I can't remember,
exactly, if it was an application for Writ
Quo Warranto, or a challenge to the election
outcome.  I will need to read it again;  it has
been many years since I read it (1992, when I
wrote the book :)

>What is the status of his comments, considering 
>that he was not the judge of the case, 
>but a party to it?

I regard his comments to have much weight,
for two reasons:  he was a judge holding
office at that time, and he also signed
the California state Constitution of 1849.
Thus, the man knew what he was talking
about.  The qualifier "ONE OF" is a CRUCIAL
clarification, imho.  The California Supreme
Court upheld his claim to that office.

Back then, the courts used to publish
the pleadings on which the court based its
majority opinion.  In "The Federal Zone,"
we properly recognized his Brief for
Respondent as such.  The California Supreme
Court did side with him, too.  Our quote
from their holding clearly distinguishes
two classes of citizenship.  You must
also review this case in light of that 
Court's similar holding in Ex Parte Knowles,
5 Cal. 300 (1855), to wit:

  "... there is no such thing 
   [as a citizen of the United States]."  !!!

That is, they issued this holding BEFORE
the Civil War.

In other words, a state must join the Union
before its Citizens can be considered a
sovereign body;  before then, those [federal]
citizens are subjects of Congress.  I do not 
believe that this is an oversimplification, in any
way, given that there are two (2) and only two
classes of citizenship (NOT one (1), NOT three (3)).

Thus, if we are not talking about one, then
we MUST be talking about the other, because
there are two and only two possibilities,
when it comes to citizenship.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

 These aren't holdings, are they? What weight do
>these comments have?

See above.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail