Time: Wed May 28 18:51:26 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06234; Wed, 28 May 1997 16:01:07 -0700 (MST) id SAA17655; Wed, 28 May 1997 18:54:16 -0400 (EDT) id SAB17631; Wed, 28 May 1997 18:54:11 -0400 (EDT) id AA25859; Wed, 28 May 1997 18:54:08 -0400 by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA13372; Wed, 28 May 1997 15:45:45 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 18:18:40 -0700 To: snetnews@world.std.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: SNET: Fourteenth amendment [sic] -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List The so-called 14th amendment [sic] was never lawfully ratified, pursuant to Article V. For uncontroverted proof, see the plethora of facts recited in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968). Begin reading where "General Lee had surrendered ...." In Downes v. Bidwell, S.Ct. (1901), a lot of smoke, but very little light, was shed on the definitions of "United States." See the Harlan dissent, for the clearest analysis of the 5-4 holding in that case. The Harvard Law Review followed up with several scathing criticisms of the Downes majority. Time will prove Harlan right, I predict. Finally, in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court finally admitted that the term has three (3) meanings. These are repeated in the latest version of Black's Law Dictionary. This decision was issued during the first nuclear war on planet Earth, so people had a few other things on their minds. Please note that the term "United States of America" is not defined in Black's, although it is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856); in the latter dictionary, it means "Union". As such, the "USA" is a plural, collective noun which should be coupled with a plural predicate, e.g. "The United States of America are ...." and "United States of America, Plaintiffs" [sic]. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 06:08 PM 5/28/97 -0400, you wrote: > >-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List > >Far too many good constitutionalist patriots have been misled by self-styled >experts in the law into thinking that the federal government has no power of >them because their citizenship predates the Fourteenth Amendment. > Unfortunately, many have gone to jail due to their steadfastness in this >belief. ... and they were put there by corrupt judges, which I can prove, because I have already proven that they are corrupt. See 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq., and the Performance Management and Recognition System Termination Act of 1993. See also "The Kick-Back Racket" in the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com So, you have argued yourself into a corner, because the federal judiciary has now been shown to constitute a blatant extortion racket. Therefore, we should all kneel before an extortion racket? I don't think so. Confer at "Reductio ad absurdum" in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition. > >>From the beginning, references to "the United States" in the Constitution >mean the entire country, Objection. See Harvard Law Review articles on "The Insular Cases" circa 1901. This analysis has already been done, and it does not agree with your statement here. Confer at the Guarantee Clause, where the Constitution is clearly distinguishing between the federal government and the several state governments. There are many other examples of this distinction in the organic U.S. Constitution. See also 4:3:2 in pari materia with the Guarantee Clause, at 4:4. not just the areas where Congress is empowered to >exercise exclusive legislation under Article I, section 8. Anyone >questioning this statement should be pointed to Article I, section 8, >paragraph 1, where Congress is specifically given power to "provide for the >common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." The Framers >certainly never intended to prevent Congress from providing for the defense >of the whole nation, especailly since Article I, section 10 prohibits the >individual states from most military activities. > >The Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship both in the United States and >the person's state of residence upon "All persons born or naturalized in the >United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". As has already been >shown, the states are part of "the United States". Objection. The huge number of cases which attempted to construct Section 1 of this amendment, all came to a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to this statement. Furthermore, it is academic, because this proposal was never ratified, pursuant to law. The historical record is uncontroverted now, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause controls. Freedom is the welfare which was intended by the U.S. Constitution, and freedom shall always remain as its principal intent. See the Preamble for proof. A further question is >raised about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It too >has been misinterpreted much to the disadvantage of many patriots. One >cannot refuse to be subject to jurisdiction. You most certainly can, because travel is a fundamental Right. See "Right" and "Election" in Black's Law Dictionary. The issue should be properly framed to make clear distinctions between general federal laws, and federal municipal laws. See Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894). So, we enjoy the Right of Election, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, and Congress has enacted a law recognizing the Right of Expatriation, quite by coincidence in the same year (1868) that the so-called 14th amendment was declared ratified, contrary to law. Instead, the proper question to >ask is "If you passed military secrets on to an enemy nation during a war, >could you be prosecuted for treason?" <insert Clinton joke here> This is a straw man argument, because Congress is empowered by the Constitution to legislate penalties for treason, and that implies extending those penalties into the several states of the Union. Compare 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513, in pari materia, where Congress specifically extends the application of these statutes beyond the federal zone. If so, you >are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Objection. You have not defined "United States" here. If not, you are not >subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stated. Objection. Fallacious logic here. There actually are people >in the United States who are not subject to its jurisdiction - ambassadors, >consuls, and other recognized diplomatic personnal from other countries. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, in their "Basic Guide to Naturalization and Citizenship," U.S. Department of Justice, page 265, wrote: "You are no longer a subject of a government." Check it out!! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com > They are the only ones excluded under the Fourteenth Amendment. Assumes facts not in evidence (i.e. facts proving ratification). > >Fedgov has gone far beyone its constitutional powers, but this is because >Congress, the President, and the federal courts have all ignored the >limitations placed on their powers by the Constitution and amendments >thereto, not because the Fourteenth (or any other) amendment improperly >granted them radical new powers. Same Objection. Moreover, it can be shown that many municipal laws are being enforced unlawfully within the several states of the Union, where Congress is NOT the municipal authority. The most infamous of these overly extended municipal laws is the INTERNAL Revenue Service. See letter from Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly for an important admission proving the territorial reach of the IRC. See U.S. v. Lopez, S.Ct. (1995) for a great authoritative discourse on this entire subject. Kennedy's concurring opinion goes the farthest, by acknowledging that we are a Republic, and that there are Citizens of the several States. Read it! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com p.s. Please avail yourself of all the documents in the Supreme Law Library at the URL below my name. ======================================================================== 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 ======================================================================== -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com -> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail