Time: Fri Dec 05 14:04:27 1997
To: dtal@mail.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: U.S. Supreme Court rejects States efforts (fwd)
Cc: <apta@discover.net>
Bcc: sls, friends, liberty lists, 3cc, psc

I believe they missed a great opportunity, 
because the "invasion" clause is part and
parcel of the Guarantee Clause, the proper
construction of which is now before the
8th Circuit in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF.

The "invasion" to which the states should
be objecting is the invasion by the federal
government, by exercising unlawful dominion
via the so-called 14th amendment.  The full
implications of this invasion are far-reaching,
manifested in part by all the fraudulent voter 
registration forms in all 50 states.  

Requiring inhabitants to be federal citizens, 
as a condition precedent to choosing their 
Representatives in the Congress, is a direct
violation of the Guarantee Clause.  See
the OPENING BRIEF now loaded in the Supreme
Law Library, at the URL just below my name here.

As I wrote to Richard Matsch, presiding over the
Terry Nichols trial:

"... [T]hose  who are  qualified to  make law  in  America  are,
nevertheless, prevented  from serving  on grand and petit juries,
or from  voting in  general elections.   Those  who can  serve on
grand and  petit  juries,  or  vote  in  general  elections,  are
prevented by  Law from  serving in  any federal  elected offices."

Sic transit civis Romana.  Sic transit gloria mundi.

The voter and juror qualification statutes at the federal level,
and in all of the several states, exhibit this fatal defect.

For proof, study the true history of the Qualifications Clauses,
and compare with the voter and juror qualification statutes.
Citizenship is a term of municipal law!  Roa v. Collector,
Philippine Supreme Court.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

>I am going to send a copy of this to someone in Arizona that might
>be interested.
>Doron Tal wrote:
>>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>           Supreme Court rejects States efforts
>>     to sue for Federal compensation for illegal aliens
>>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>> The Supreme Court has refused to rule in suits by the States of
>> Arizona and California against the Federal government.
>> These two states were seeking monetary compensations from the
>> Federal government alleging failure to prevent an influx of
>> illegal immigrants.  The Supreme Court let remain court decisions
>> holding the states' claims are "political questions."
>> Arizona and California claimed under the provision in the
>> Constitution that required the United States to protect states
>> against invasion.  The Court rejected the claim on the grounds
>> that the matter was one for Congress and the executive branch,
>> and that the term "invasion" was not meant to be used as stated
>> in the lawsuits.
>> The citations for these States' cases are
>> Arizona    v.  US, 96-1595
>>                              and
>> California v.  US, 96-1596.
>> Now I am even more confused, because my petitions for writ of
>> mandamus (demanding from the executive branch to act under US
>> law), had been denied by the US Supreme Court even without any
>> explanation.  Well, I am not as big as a State. ;-)
>> The citations for my mandamus cases are
>> In Re: Tal v.  US Secretary of Labor and the State of NJ     95-7225
>>                                                                     and
>> In Re: Tal v. INS and Civil Right's Div and ML Energy Inc. 95-7338
>> What else shall I say?
>>    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
>>         --Tacitus Publius Cornelius (Rome 56-120 A.D.)
>> American numerous laws are quite silky, twisted by the golden
>> triangle (the three branches).
>> peace :)
>> Doron Tal
>> dtal@mail.com

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail