Time: Thu Mar 06 08:33:26 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA29283;
Thu, 6 Mar 1997 02:46:38 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 12:50:10 -0800
To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: 8 USC 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized
citizen;
Remember, Congress can change statutes
(like 8 U.S.C. 1481 etc.), but Congress
CANNOT change the Constitution
(like 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1).
Those provisions have never been amended
or repealed, so the terms used therein
retain the meaning they had when the
provisions were first written.
Build your house upon a rock, not upon sand.
Statutes are sand; the Constitution is a rock.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 04:54 PM 3/3/97 PST, you wrote:
>Guys,
>
>Most of you weren't around when the next two messages I'm sending you now
>were sent out. Thought you would find the information useful. There's
still MUCH research that needs to be done here, so PLEASE ..... do not
>take off on a tangent and use this without knowing what you are doing. It
can and will come back to bite you if it's not used and executed
>properly. I personally know people who have used this with success.
>Nevertheless, not all agree on the correct procedure, so a word to the
wise - DON'T USE IT FOOLISHLY.
>I'm only sending it only to a select few, because I think each of you who
>are to receive it are all Men (or Women) whom I trust and have the SMARTS
>not to use it incorrectly or abuse it. I would like to receive input on
>this myself [ am-her @juno.com ] after each of you have researched and
>studied the information contained in the next two messages.
>
>CAUTION: The trap here (in my opinion) is: How do you expatriate from
>anywhere without admitting you were ever really there in the first place
>??? I understand the issues of fraud in the factum involved, but PLEASE
>..... let's proceed with caution and think this information through before
someone goes off half-cocked and screws up a good thing for everyone
>else. Anyway, here goes:
>
>It appears to me that 8 USC needs some very serious research - especially
>those sections between 1401 and 1557. Keep in mind, guys, that
>"presumption" is what we MUST be able to overcome in their courts. AND,
>Unless and Until we can do this in way these foreign, black-robed pagan
>worshipers have no choice but to recognize and acknowledge, we will not
>win.
>
>More important than the wording of the body of the statute at 8 USC 1481,
>entitled " Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen;
>burden of proof; presumptions", look at what is found in USCS (Lawyers
>Edition) below the
>
>HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES:
>
>Other Provisions:
>Right of expatriation. Revised Statutes . 1999 provided: "Whereas the
>right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,
>indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle
>this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and
>invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed
>that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of
>foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas
>it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of
>foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore
>any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer
>of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the
>right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental
>principles of the Republic".
>
>Now tell me Florida America is not a foreign state with respect to the
>United States!
>I care not about their so-called Buck Act or anything else they try to
>use on use to hide what venue they are really operating in [ HINT: i.e.
"in the state" or "in this state"].
>
>Go back and review the E-Mail I previously sent to you on the subject of
expatriation and civilly dead. If you did not receive it, let me know.
I'll send it to you. As a memory-jogger, the first 2 paragraphs were as
>follows:
>
> On July 27, 1868, one day before the fourteenth amendment took
effect, an "Act" of Congress was passed. This act was 15 United States
Statute at Large, known as the Expatriation Statue. Though this statute
is no
>longer included in the United States Code, IT HAS NOT BEEN REPEALED AND
>IS STILL IN EFFECT. This Statute is extremely important because it is
>the public municipal law the individual can use for private trust law
operating in the public sector. That is, a private individual, who has
>found himself or herself bound by private law that is being used in the
>public sector to promote public policy of compelled performance which he
>did not have a choice in, can access the public positive statute law to
>move back under the liberty and protection of the Republic and its
>separation of powers.
>
> The preamble of 15 United States Statute at Large is unique in that
>Congress laid the legal discussions to rest before the statute took effect
to assure it would not be tampered with legally in any way. It stands
>as written and is there for the citizens to use as public law for the
>private purpose of moving themselves from one political or territorial
>jurisdiction to another. This means there is a way out at anytime of
>any United States government policy or law, including those of its
>political subdivisions, that is based on private law. Whenever you find
>yourself bound by any compelled performance you had no choice in, you are
>operating in the jurisdiction of the United
>States government and its political subdivisions, (i.e. "in the state" ;
"in this state") where there is no republican form of government and no
>separation of powers. By applying public laws for your private benefit
>you can break that dictatorial jurisdiction anytime you choose.
>
>I hope that all of you see the foregoing to be as important as I do. If
>all of us will do some deep research on this subject matter, and then
>converse back and forth with our collective thoughts, I believe we will
>be able to finally understand what the current private / corporate /
foreign / de facto "government" has unknowingly done to impose its private
>and foreign "laws" upon us, and how to go about removing ourselves
>(through the use of proper procedures) from its hot little clutches.
>
>As an integral part of doing this, I think it will also be important to
prove that their current "congress" [the second congress which they
>created at Article XX, Section 2]
>is a de facto / military "congress", since Article XX, Section2 did not
>amend, rescind, change, displace, supersede, or replace the de jure
>Congress at Article I, Section 4, Paragraph 2, since Article XX, Section
>2 contains no such wording stating same, and since according to much case
>law in existence, it is well settled that one part of the Constitution
>cannot be in conflict with another part of the Constitution.
>
>Am-Her
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail