Time:    Mon May 12 17:01:45 1997
Date:    Mon, 12 May 1997 16:58:37 -0700
To:     "Whitehouse, Douglas X (PB-d4xwhit)" <d4xwhit@msg.PacBell.COM>
From:    Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: expatriation


Hi Doug,

Once you understand the legal existence
of two classes of citizenship, you have
every Right, under the Tenth Amendment,
to change from being a citizen of both,
to a citizen of only one.  I think it
is an amazing "coincidence" that Congress
enacted the expatriation statute at almost
exactly the same time that the 14th amendment
[sic] was adopted (1868).  I have a brief
which explains this in detail.

Think of it as changing political parties.
The ONLY difference is that, unlike political
parties, you can be a citizen of both classes.
Other than that, choosing which class of 
citizenship is the same as choosing political
parties.  For authority, confer in Black's
Law Dictionary at "Right/Constitutional Rights/
Political rights" -- the power to participate,
directly or indirectly, in the establishment or
administration of government, such as the 
right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the
right to hold public office, and the right
of petition.  So, it is a First Amendment
Right, under the Petition Clause, for sure!

The high Court has ruled that the Petition Clause
in the First Amendment is the Right conservative
of ALL other rights.  

THAT'S RIGHT!  :)

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com 


At 12:26 PM 5/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Paul, 
>
>
>
>What do you think of the inherent right to expatriate from the United
>States?  i.e. state specifically that one is expatriating, then the
>legality of the fourteenth ammendment and second class citizenship
>status become moot.  One simply expatriates from the district of
>columbia to the California Republic, for example.  This would give one a
>clean slate as far as status is concerned and all the mumbo jumbo with
>the IRS, SSA, etc would have to reference the expatriation.  Then all of
>the federal contracts and fraud become moot as to status.  
>
>The idea is to create a basis of state Citizenship.  Do you think this
>idea has merit?  I realize it is essentially the same as revoking
>signatures. The difference is the argument that one cannot revoke one's
>signature falls away.  The focus becomes: state Citizenship does not
>imply fourteenth ammendment citizenship.   
>
>Thanks for your comments
>
>Doug Whitehouse
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail