Time: Mon Dec 01 10:49:33 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04481
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:47:52 -0700 (MST)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07656;
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:44:05 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd007590; Mon Dec 1 10:43:51 1997
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 10:43:51 -0800
To: Charles Petras <cpetras@stratos.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: On state citizenship...
Assumes facts not in evidence, i.e.,
votes by 3/4 of the states ratifying
the so-called 14th amendment.
/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com
At 10:51 AM 12/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
> "A person cannot be a "citizen" of a state unless
> she is also a citizen of the United States."
>
>Excerpted from
>
> *Coury v. Prot,*
> 85 F.3d 244, 251-252 (5th Cir. 1996)
>
>``A person cannot be a "citizen" of a state unless she is also a citizen of
>the United States. See e.g., Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490
>U.S. 826, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989); Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d
>1396 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 419 U.S. 842, 95 S.Ct. 74, 42 L.Ed.2d 70
>(1974). A United States citizen who is domiciled in a state is a citizen of
>that state. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-650, 24 L.Ed. 1057
>(1878). Thus, with few exceptions, state citizenship for diversity purposes
>is regarded as synonymous with domicile. E.g., Rodriguez-Diaz v.
>Sierra-Martinez, 853 F.2d 1027 (lst Cir. 1988); 1 J. Moore, Moore's Federal
>Practice sec. 0.74[3] n. 3. Accordingly, it has been held consistently that
>a diversity suit may not be maintained under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(a)(1) by
>or against a United States citizen who is domiciled in a foreign country,
>for a resident of a foreign country is not necessarily a citizen thereof.
>Smith v. Carter, 545 F2d 909 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 431 U.S. 955, 97
>S.Ct. 2677, 53 L.Ed.2d 272 (1977). Moreover, an American living abroad is
>not by virtue of that domicile a citizen or subject of the foreign state in
>which he resides so as to permit invocation of the alienage jurisdiction
>prescribed in 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(a)(2) of the Judicial Code. 13B
>Wright-Miller-Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure sec. 3621 (1984).''
>
> ###
>
>
>
>**********************************************
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
> majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
>with the message:
> subscribe ignition-point email@address
>or
> unsubscribe ignition-point email@address
>**********************************************
>http://www.telepath.com/believer
>**********************************************
>
>
===========================================================================
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