Time: Wed May 21 08:15:46 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA21447;
	Wed, 21 May 1997 07:26:32 -0700 (MST)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA21650;
	Wed, 21 May 1997 07:26:11 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 08:13:24 -0700
To: cen11156@centuryinter.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Amendments to Constitution
References: <3382778C.7D4E@ptialaska.net>

You have a conflict of law here, at the very least,
because the Full Faith and Credit Clause binds
federal government officers, employees, and agents
to give full faith and credit in each state to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings 
of every other state.  Accordingly, all government
employees are bound to give full faith and credit
to the historical facts recited in Dyett v. Turner,
439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).  Begin reading where
"General Lee had surrendered ...."  To my mind,
"full faith and credit" means to take formal Notice
of the facts which are in evidence, and to avoid 
basing conclusions on facts which are not in evidence.
On this basis, if a U.S. Secretary of State certifies
the 14th amendment, he has based his certification on
facts which were not in evidence, in violation of the
Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Thus, his act fails,
because it is null and void for violating this clause.

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



At 08:13 AM 5/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Epperly wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Ray
>> 
>> I have been pondering over the wording of 1 USC 106b:
>> 
>>         "Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and
>> Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution
>> of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of
>> the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith
>> cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying
>> the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same
>> has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
>> Constitution of the United States"
>> 
>> I am having a problem with the phrases:
>> 
>>         1.  "Whenever official notice is received at the National
Archives and
>> Records Administration ...."
>> 
>> What constitutes "official notice" and who is it that gives "official
>> notice"?  The Constitution only gives Congress the power to "propose
>> amendments", it does not give Congress the power to give notice.  To me
>> the "official notice" must come from the individual states.
>> 
>>         2.  "has been adopted, according to the provisions of the
Constitution"
>> 
>> Who has the authority to determine if an Amendment has been ratified in
>> accordance to the provisions of the Constitution?  As you know, the
>> Courts says it is a political question, and the Congress doesn't want to
>> touch the subject with a ten foot pole.  Does this mean that Congress
>> has delegated the authority to the National Archives and Records
>> Administration to make that determination?
>> 
>> I am beginning to wonder if I should not be submitting the 14th
>> Amendment to the National Archives and Record Administration for a
>> determination.  Hmmm. I wonder if one can go to the Courts and obtain a
>> "Writ of Mandamus" if the National Archives and Record Administration
>> does not co-operate?
>> 
>>             Gordon Epperly
>
>Gordon, here's some input to your questions:  The Congress has stated,
>     through former Senate Majority Leader, Mitchell, now retired, that
>     the amendment becomes law upon the certification of the Secretary
>     of State.  If he didn't come right out and say it like that, it was
>     his meaning.  The courts have ruled the same, as you mention above,
>     through their "political vs. judicial" decisions.  These decisions,
>     especially on the 14th, is verification of the change of constitu-
>     tional government, brought about by the Civil War, which was the
>     intent and purpose of that war.  And--it implies that we are still
>     under martial law, since the constitution was blatently disregarded
>     when Congress, in 1868, declared the 14th 'constitutionally' passed
>     when they knew it was not, and forced the Secretary of State to so
>     certify, even after his ruling a week before that an insufficient
>     number of states had ratified the 14th to make it law.  This was a
>     bayonet order from the Congress to the Secretary, which implies
>     martial law.
>Another prognosis of the recovery of these two (and other) amendments
>     to their constitutionally viable status lies with the traitorous
>     Congress of today, coupled with the jew-filled Supreme Court, which
>     hates the mention of the word "constitution."  It is tantamount to
>     yesterday's ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that jury
>     nullification will not stand against 'law,' and that any member of
>     the jury who practices nullification is, him/herself breaking the
>     'law.'  Since we have only 'rules' instead of 'law,' what does that
>     tell us?
>Another thought to consider is that the National Archives most probably
>     DOES have the official notification from Virginia that the original
>     13th was ratified by that state, but they have literally millions
>     of unfiled documents laying around to be processed, and that noti-
>     fication may be under that mess some place.  Since the ratification
>     took place AFTER the war of 1812, it is not likely that the British
>     burned it with the capitol building.  
>Lawfully, the certification by Mr. Leigh, in 1819, that the information
>     he had compiled for the state of Virginia, would hold more water
>     than a certification from the Federal Secretary of State, but 
>     again, we have no law, but rules, and that is the guiding authority
>     of today.  It is all part of the general conspiracy and this is 
>     what we are up against.
>There would be nothing wrong with pursuing your suggestion; that
>is,      filing for a court opinion of some kind, but what court would
>you       file it in?  This subject is very interesting to me, so
>let's           pursue it further.
>
>					Ray
>
>

========================================================================
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