Time: Sun Oct 19 20:02:49 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA26698;
Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:01:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:01:18 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: Pablo De La Guerra
It was relevant to the past.
It is irrelevant to the present.
See human rights treaties,
in respect to race.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
At 12:07 AM 10/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
>This may be politically incorrect, but, it is NOT at 90 degrees. Yes, a
>"Citizen of the United States" in pre-Civil War documents means a "Citizen
>of ONE OF the States United". And who may be such a citizen, according to
>the State Constitution of every single one of such states? Whether you like
>it or not, or whether I like it or not or anybody likes it or not, it's a
>simple fact, and it's the law: every one of those Constitutions uses the
>words "free white" in describing who may be a citizen of such state.
>
>How can you say that the point of the case is that a "Citizen of the United
>States" means "Citizen of ONE OF the States United" and then say that it is
>at 90 degrees to inquire who may be such a citizen???
>
>It is the next logical step, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless, no?
>
>This case arose because someone challenged De La Guerra's ability to be a
>judge, claiming that he was not a "Citizen of the United States"; and he
>proved that he was a "Citizen of the United States" by proving that he was
>a "Citizen of one of the States United"; and he proved this latter fact by
>relying on the fact that he was white; am I wrong?
>
>How can you say that a crucial and necessary fact which this man relied on
>to prove that he was a Citizen of a State and thereby of the United States,
>is irrelevant to the fact that a Citizen of a State is a Citizen of the
>United States? How is this at 90 degrees??? It is utterly necessary to the
>case and it is utterly necessary to the issue.
>
>Perhaps you have some different answer to the question, who may be a
>Citizen of one of the States United? I would love to hear it. I am not
>terribly fond of the white issue, I would be just as happy if the organic
>law of this country said that anyone may be a Citizen of a State, but the
>fact is, it didn't, and facts are facts. Remember that the race issue was
>the wedge that was used to separate us from our Citizenship a hundred-plus
>years ago, and make everyone "equal" under the attempted 14th Amendment and
>similar efforts. If you are going to assert your Citizenship, you are going
>to have to confront the white issue. It looks to me like you are trying to
>cover it up. I am not particularly fond of the white issue, but I am less
>fond of cover-ups. I am sorry to use such harsh words to you because I have
>a lot of respect for you and your achievements. But facts are facts. And
>the question of who may be a Citizen of a State is not irrelevant to the
>issue of who is a Citizen of the United States.
>
>
>>The WHOLE point of quoting Judge De La Guerra
>>is his brilliant insight into the proper
>>construction, and common understanding,
>>of the term:
>>
>> "Citizen of the United States" [sic]
>>
>>in the Qualifications Clauses, which
>>term he correctly interprets to mean:
>>
>> "Citizen of ONE OF the States United"
>>
>>This is also the nomenclature which was
>>used in the Northwest Ordinance, which
>>was written at approximately the same
>>time as the U.S. Constitution. Thus, adding
>>"ONE OF" provides an essential clue to the
>>proper construction and common understanding
>>of this term. See also Ex Parte Knowles,
>>5 Cal. 300 (1855).
>>
>>If you want to go running off at 90 degrees
>>to the main point here, don't let me stop
>>you.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:25 PM 10/17/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>>At 12:47 PM 10/15/97 -0700, Rod Schmidt wrote:
>>>>Sounds like Pablo De La Guerra must have been a white Spaniard.
>>>>
>>>>What was his case about? Since he was a party to the case, and not the
>>>>judge on the case, what kind of weight do his comments carry?
>>>
>>>Robert Wangrud:
>>>Read the case. Mitchell removed the main point of the case "Free White" in
>>>his report.
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>===========================================================================
>>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
>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
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