Time: Mon Nov 04 08:59:21 1996
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 08:56:31 -0800
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: Citizenship?
=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
=======================================================================
William,
See Chapter 11 and Appendix Y
in The Federal Zone, available
on the Internet via the Alta Vista
search engine. This will provide
you with precise legal language for
expressing your status properly.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Citizen of Arizona state [sic]
At 10:40 AM 11/4/96 +0100, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Okay folks, here we go.
>
>My Christian Appellation is William Gordon of the family Kay.
>I have been doing research for about five years on all types
>and kinds of issues. I have come to a conclusion of which I
>would like input.
>
>1. According to the definitions I have been able to locate,
>I cannot be a sovereign citizen. The reason for this is due
>to the fact that the term sovereign means to be vested with
>authority. If only I vest myself with authority, I have only
>authority over myself and my house. Besides, if I am a
>Christian, the religion upon which the nation of America was
>predicated, then I have actually vested Jesus Christ with
>authority and therefore, cannot myself be sovereign.
>
>2. Do I want to be a citizen of the STATE OF FLORIDA, the
>UNITED STATES or the united States of America? The answer to
>all three is no. I can give an oath of allegiance to the
>state (Republic) of Florida, hence making me a citizen of the
>Republic of Florida. As to any other citizenship, forget it.
>
>3. Of which nation am I? This question is very important,
>for it declares under which Law you are to be traveling. To
>better understand this, let us go back in time. "Hey you
>over there, snug up that belt, this time machine can take
>some nasty sudden leaps!!"
>
> The people in America were mostly folks who were
>attempting to escape the laws in other countries. Laws which
>were prohibitive. The "Church of England" was not
>sympathetic with anyone who claimed to be of a denomination
>which was not of its "faith", so there was
>religious persecution as well. Folks came here to escape
>persecution and also to find their "fortunes."
> Originally, there were no towns, no counties, no
>states,simply homesteads and forts. The people lived outside
>the fort gates, taking any and all risks as would come their
>way. Granted the Kings troops <French and English, not to
>mention German, Austrian, Portuguese, Italian, and Russian>
>would man the forts, giving protection to anyone who could
>get inside before the gates were shut and locked, but for all
>intents and purposes, each man on the land was his own law
>unto himself. And it was an understood and accepted
>situation.
> You see, at this time in history, God and the Bible were
>the law. Each man took unto himself, the nature of
>Christianity and endeavored to use that law to their own
>ends.
> So, the deal was, each man on the land was, while on his
>property, the king of his castle. This, however, caused
>problems. Let me demonstrate an example.
> John and Mark who are neighbors, are walking in the
>woods on John's property. They come upon a dog, wounded and
>dirty. John says to Mark, "ugly dog, what you wanna do with
>it?" Mark says "well, I could take him home, clean him up
>and see what happens after that." And he does.
> Next day, Mark shows the mutt to John, who says "Wow, he
>cleaned up nice, I wouldn't mind having him." Mark on the
>other hand, has a problem with that and immediately takes the
>dog back onto his property. "Hey!" exclaims John, "what
>gives? You gonna give me the dog or what?"
> "Nope," says Mark, "I believe I'm gonna keep him."
> Now, this creates a controversy. In order for these
>two guys to resolve this controversy, without resorting to
>bloodshed, they have to find a mutually agreeable venue.
>Why? Well, if Johns rules apply on John's property, and
>Mark's rules apply on Mark's property, would either fellow be
>wise to step into the venue of the other? Of course the
>answer is no. Why not? Conflict of interest. "Huh?" you
>might be thinking.
> Conflict of interest. Hmmmm. Let's see... what do we
>know about this. Well, we know that Madison claims that the
>reason that Article III, section two, clause two of the
>compact between the freely associated compact states was set
>up to avoid conflicts of interest between citizens of a
>state whenever the state should bring a case against said
>citizen. The supreme court of the united States was there to
>guarantee to a citizen a fair and impartial trial. Hmm.
> So what did Mark and John do? They did exactly what you
>would expect them to do. They decided to go to an
>arbitrator. It's Biblical. They decided upon a mutually
>acceptable man, most likely Christian, to whom they could
>bring forth their controversy, in essence, stepping into HIS
>venue to accept his ruling. Fair and impartial.
> Think about it. A county, at the time, was an area of
>land, usually having one major <or minor as the case were>
>town in it. The town was the seat of power, where the
>elected citizens of the county held their office. The rest
>of the county consisted of the citizenry upon the land. Only
>landowners could cast ballots. Why? Because renters and
>lessors were considered transients and did not have a vested
>interest in the goings on in the county. If they didn't like
>something, they could just up and leave.
> But what happens now, say two counties come to grips
>about a border dispute? Who, like John and Mark, can they
>appeal to in order to obtain a fair and impartial hearing and
>airing of the grievance? Enter the state. The state was
>developed in order to vest venue in an entity which could
>oversee and hear controversies between counties, and also to
>intercede and act as referee in business between the
>counties, just like the counties were doing in their own
>venue.
> Do ya'll remember the recent "border" dispute between
>New York and New Jersey? New Jersey claimed that because a
>small strip of "land" had developed between itself and Ellis
>Island, Ellis Island was now within Its borders. Regardless
>of the nature or even the merit of the issue, whom did they
>bring the case before? Why the supreme court of the united
>States. Why? Because neither wanted to walk into the others
>venue. It only makes sense that the united States came
>together to develop a central government to deal with
>controversies, trade, and protection of the several states
>participating.
> You see, under the old confederacy of States, no state
>actually had to obey any of the laws, dictates, or orders as
>handed down by the central government. They were at liberty
>to pick and choose the items of which they wanted to accept.
>Sort of like the line item veto now bandied so much about by
>politicos. Take what you like, leave the rest. Very un-
>economical, and truly a pain when attempting to get two
>venues to obey the ruling or order as handed down.
> Think about these things, and while you're at it, look
>up the terms "nation" "national" "county" "sovereign" "vote"
>and "elector".
>
>Thank you for your comments
>
>In the quest for truth and knowledge, I am
>
>William Gordon of the family "Kay" of the clan McKay.
>
>
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail