Time: Tue Oct 21 19:31:37 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15161;
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:30:00 -0700 (MST)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27517;
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:24:55 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd027499; Tue Oct 21 19:24:48 1997
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:25:42 -0700
To: bork@u.washington.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Easy law question
I am not making any such assumption.
Federal citizenship was first created,
as such, by the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
It is a franchise, created under federal
municipal authority. Ex parte Knowles,
5 Cal. 300 (1855), held that there
was no such thing as a "citizen of
the United States" [sic], as of that year.
That was the California Supreme Court!
So, it is clear from the pertinent
cases that there was no such thing
as federal citizenship prior to the
1866 Civil Rights Act. The Qualifications
Clauses have been deliberately misconstrued,
primarily by licensed bar members who often
fail to understand the controlling cases.
Confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's
Law Dictionary, for starters.
It is possible to be a state Citizen, without
also being a federal citizen. This was the
holding by the Alabama Supreme Court in
Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155,
48 S. 788, 791 (1909), to wit:
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.
[Gardina vs Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
Note the date on this case: 41 years AFTER the so-called
14th amendment was declared ratified.
The Louisiana Supreme Court was clearly the most eloquent
on this particular point, as follows:
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is
necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which
he resides. 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.
[State vs Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
This is pure Tenth Amendment logic, and it still stands today!
Again, this decision was issued AFTER the so-called 14th
amendment. The Philippine Supreme Court has also held
that citizenship is a term of municipal law.
Finally, the remainder of the proof is found in the pleadings
now filed in Gilbertson's appeal to the 8th Circuit, and
in the book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code
of Internal Revenue." Please help yourself to all of the
pleadings now filed in the Supreme Law Library, at the URL
just below my name here. Chapter 11 from "The Federal Zone"
has been re-filed several times in federal courts, in support
of the MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF
THE CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE JSSA.
Gardina and Fowler are the answers to your questions below.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
At 03:21 PM 10/21/97 +0100, you wrote:
>I know I'm going to hate myself for doing this, but I'll bite anyway.
>
>>Subject: Easy law question
>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, pmitch@primenet.com
>>To: Conservative Law List, bork@u.washington.edu
>>
>>The federal Jury Selection and Service Act
>>is unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited
>>discrimination against the class of People
>>known as Citizens of the several States,
>>who are not also federal citizens, by
>>Right of Election.
>>
>>The so-called 14th amendment was never
>>ratified.
>
>So?
>
>Apparantly, you are assuming that prior to the (non-?)-passage of the
>14th amendment, there were two distinct classes of citizens - federal
>citizens and state citizens. What evidence do you have to support that
>assumption?
>
>I submit that federal citizenship and state citizenship have always been
>linked. It has never been possible, since the approval of the Articles of
>Confederation, for a person to be a state citizen but not a federal
>citizen. Once you become a citizen, whether natural-born or naturalized,
>you are automatically a citizen of both your individual state and of the
>United States. And you remain a citizen of both until you physically
>leave the U.S. and renounce your citizenship.
>
>Mark
>
>
>--
>Mark White
>President, Arkansas Federation of Young Republicans
>jmwhite@comp.uark.edu
>--
>"Socialism is simply Communism for people without the
>testosterone to man the barricades." -- Gary North
>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
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