Time: Sun Dec 14 18:48:26 1997
To: libnw@circuit.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Seven Steps back to Slavery ("SSS")
Bcc: sls

The difference is significant, because we now
have a situation in which those who are eligible
to make law in America, are prohibited from 
serving on grand or petit juries, and from 
voting in general elections.  Those who can 
serve on grand and petit juries, and vote in
general elections, are not eligible to make
law.  This is the necessary result of properly
constructing the Qualifications Clauses, behind
which there is an awful lot of law, and history.

This is an extremely significant, and actionable,
violation of the fundamental principle of equal

Equal Protection!  Remember that?  Have we forgotten
so quickly?

So, "C" v. "c" hides a very deep deception which
has worked itself into our federal and state laws.
For proof, read Dyett v. Turner, Utah Supreme 
Court (1868).  While you are studying this
history, take time to read Section 4 of the
so-called 14th amendment [sic];  THERE is the
major pivot point.

The whole story is summarized, as tightly
as possible, in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF.  
If you don't bother to read and study this work,
you will condemn yourself to belittling the
fundamental differences between Citizens of
the United States of America, and citizens
of the United States.

I will not do your homework for you, however.  :)

On your point about judges, I don't believe
in pandering to prostitutes.  Read "The Kick-Back
Racket" for the rest of the story.  And I do not
recommend that anyone else pander to prostitutes
either!  Jurisdiction cannot be waived by anything
a litigant might do, or not do;  it takes an
Act of Congress to empower a federal court.

This is the Law in America, whether you like it,
or not.  But, thank you for your comment about
my being a religious mystic.  I take that as
a compliment.  Love makes the world go around,
not money.  The Most High is Love -- infinite,
eternal, and ineffable.  We forget these
fundamentals at our own great peril, which
peril is now descending around everyone's ears,
and how they wail!

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 11:18 AM 12/13/97 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-12-11 22:02:50 EST, you write:
>> Step 1: begin with sovereign Citizens, in theory only
>>          (require all lawmakers to be in this Class)
>>  Step 2: create a second, inferior class of citizens
>>          (small "c" instead of CAPITAL "C")
>>  Step 3: confuse the first Class with the second class
>>          (by pretending the former no longer exists)
>>  Step 4: ignore obvious equal protection violations
>>          (by treating everyone as slaves of government)
>>  Step 5: punish anyone who unravels the cunning required
>>          to implement the above, e.g. via heavy taxation
>>  Step 6: reward judges and prosecutors with lucrative kick-backs
>>          for maintaining this ruse at all costs; publish results
>>  Step 7: make this happen in the most free Land, then
>>          you are guaranteed world domination everywhere else.
>>  If this is the New Deal, what was the Old Deal?
>>  /s/ Paul Mitchell,
>>  Candidate for Congress
>>  http://supremelaw.com
> Why do you have such an affinity for things like capital and small "c", and
>other such arcane legalese.  You constantly hammer home the point that the
>courts, legislatures and executives don't follow the law.  If they don't
>follow the laws as written why concentrate so much on how the laws are
>written?  It is much more useful to awake the minds of people to the moral
>abuses of our elected officials then it is to point out the minutae of legal
>points that are violated.  What is the point of a sound legal arguement if a
>judge is going to ignore the law and decide the issue on how he feels.
>Writing "good" laws will do no good if officials feel free to ignore them
>without risk.
>You yourself are a religious mystic and do not believe in reality, why do you
>expect that elected officials and judges would rule with reason and logic when
>you yourself have rejected these arguments?
>LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE  Fidonet 1:346/16 (208) 267-9851
>"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on 
>the Fidonet Backbone..."  SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
>Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web: http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/
>Subscribe: libnw-on@circuit.com -- Unsubscribe: libnw-off@circuit.com
>...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail