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