Time: Sun Nov 10 07:03:08 1996 To: Dean Hines From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: "the State" and the fourteenth amendment and Vatican Cc: Bcc: >Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:44:32 >To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: "the State" and the fourteenth amendment and Vatican > >Dear Friends, > >Let me simplify: > >1855 California Supreme Court rules that > there is no such thing as a > "citizen of the United States" > in Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 > >1856 Dred Scott loses his attempt to > stand as a Citizen of Missouri, > solely because he is a Negro > > Chief Justice Taney holds that > apartheid is the law, but the > Constitution has a means to > amend itself, if we want to do so > >1861 horrific war breaks out, and the > Union Army reaches 525,000 strong; > the South is devastated by Sherman's > infamous march to the sea > >1865 war ends after massive casualties, > one of the worst wars ever in history > >1866 Civil Rights Act is enacted by Congress, > creating a franchise class of federal > citizens called "citizens of the United States" > >1868 14th amendment is shoved down the throats > of all southern states which refused to > ratify it; the one state which did, > is spared a second military invasion > > the 14th is so difficult to understand, > section 1 generates more litigation than > any other section of the Constitution, > except the First Amendment > > courts rule that the 14th did not CREATE > a second class of citizens, because that > class already existed; 14th merely recognized > existing law (1866 Civil Rights Act) > >1967 Louisiana delegation in Congress hires retired > state judge Lander Perez to assemble and brief > the evidence against ratification of the 14th; > Perez's brief is published in the Congressional > Record > >1968 Utah Supreme Court picks up the trail and > recites all pertinent historical details, > without rebuttal from anyone, proving that > 14th was never ratified, but Court did not > HOLD as such in Dyett v. Turner; this is > the 100th anniversary of the 14th > >1975 Utah Supreme Court again recites dictum that > 14th was never ratified, and cites its earlier > 1968 decision as historical precedent for > believing that 14th is a fraud > >1993 writing under a pen name, Paul Mitchell serves > upon the U.S. Supreme Court a formal NOTICE AND > DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST enforcement of any > and all laws and constitutional provisions which > make reference to non-existence provisions in > the U.S. Constitution, specifically citing the > mountain of legal and historical evidence against > ratification of the 14th amendment > >1993 Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court returns Mitchell's > NOTICE AND DEMAND because it does not conform > to local court rules > >1996 FBI invades Jordan, Montana, and Paul Mitchell > files for injunction against the United States, > on behalf of the People of the United States of > America; case is moved into federal court, with > intention to assemble competent and qualified > jury to award declaratory relief that the extant > historical evidence is sufficient to support a > legal conclusion that the 14th was never lawfully > ratified; all federal judges are disqualified to > preside, since they all currently pay income taxes > on their compensation, in direct violation of > Article III; Chief Justice Rehnquist is struggling > with a massive legal conundrum; Paul Mitchell is > not paid for 19 days of double-time work on behalf > of 20 Montana Citizens arrested and imprisoned by > the FBI, and his legal strategies solicit retaliation > from every quarter, including the Queen of England > >I hope this helps. > >I am standing by. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > > >At 01:00 AM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote: >>======================================================================= >>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >>======================================================================= >>I have had great difficulty in figuring out the fourteenth amendment and >>how it fits in the the dual citizenship that is required to be "sovereign >>people" as described in great detail in the Dred Scott case. I think I >>have finally got it thanks to a great book that unfortunately I do not >>"own", but have the use of until I can find one at a old book store and >>shall because of the my "greed" remain unnamed at present and shall be >>named "Book". >> >>The Dred Scott case explains in great detail that you must first be a >>"citizen of a State" and therefore if of the correct class of citizen, you >>are a "citizen of the United States". I could not figure out the how the >>fourteenth amendment sidestepped this provision, as on the first glance, it >>appears to be correct, which I absolutely knew was impossible. >> >>Its wording is as follows: >> >> >> Amendment XIV >> [1868] >> >>"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and >>subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law >>which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United >>States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or >>property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its >>jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." >> >>In 1866 Statutes at Large chapter 31, >> >>"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign >>power, excluding Indians not; taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of >>the United States;" >> >>1) Al persons born ....in the United States - 14th amendment and declared >>by Congress. >>2) All persons naturalized in the United States - 14th amendment and >>declared by Congress >>3) are citizens of the United States - 14th amendment >>4) are citizens ...of the State wherein they reside - 14th amendment >>5) Who is a citizen of "the State" wherein they reside? In Dred Scott case >>the wording is citizen of "a State". Now comes the "Book" with a >>definition of "the State". >> >>>From the "Book" - [under the heading of state] "Papal States.--the States. >>1. [Gt. Brit. & Canada] The United States. 2. Formerly, the Netherlands; >>the United Provinces." >> >>>From this I would be able to conclude that "the States" is the Papal >>States. Above this is the heading of state is the following: >>"States of the Church, a part of Central Italy which, before the >>unification of Italy in 1870, was under the sovereignty of the Pope. It >>included Rome, the Romagna, Umbria, the March of Ancona, and the towns of >>Bologna, Perugia, and Vierbo; capital, Rome. Compare DONATION OF PEPIN." >> >>[Interesting time in that 1871, 1874, and 1878 are the formation of a >>corporate government [corporation(s)] >> >>in the District of Columbia] >> >>>From the "Book" >>"Donation of Pepin", the grant by Pepin, king of the Franks, father of >>Charlemagne, of Ravenna, Emilia, and other territory captured from the >>Lombards in 755." >> >>It just goes on and on. >> >>Treaties with Italy, 1869. s/l Volume 18 part 2 pg 439 - One of the >>Parties was the Grand Cordon of his Order of the Saints Maurice and >>Lazarus. Another complete story, but this is not the plain Jane >>government. >>>From the "Book" >> >>Cordon is a ornamental lace, cord or ribbon worn to secure something in >>place, for adornment, as an indication of rank, or used as a heraldic >>bearing. The cord worn as a girdle by a Franciscan friar. >> >>Orders - from the "Book" - St. Maurice and St. Lazarus (10/6 1424) Amadeus >>VI.; service to the state, especially charities; white enameled cross >>botone against an S-pointed green cross. >> >>And again in Treaties with Italy, 1869 s/l Volume 18 part 2 page 439 we see >>in Article I "There shall be between the territories of the high >>contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation." What >>happened to the words of Untied States of American and Italy here????? >> >>Article II >>"The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to >>travel in "the States" and territories of the other territories of the >>other, to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to hire and occupy houses >>and warehouses, to employ agents of their choice, and generally to do >>anything incident to or necessary for trade, upon the same terms as the >>natives of the country, submitting themselves to the laws there >>established." >> >>Article XII >>"The high contracting parties agree that , in the unfortunate event of a >>war between them, the private property of their respective citizens and >>subjects, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from >>capture or seizure, on the high seas or elsewhere, by the armed vessels or >>by the military forces of either party; it being understood that this >>exemption shall not extend to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt >>to tenter a port blockaded by the naval forces of either party. >> >>This sure reads to me as though the "high contracting parties" are >>different than the "party". This reads very different from the actual >>citizens of each country or "State". And "high Contracting parties" does >>not seem to be used in contracts with other countries! Why? >> >>The "high contracting parties" is the Pope and his folks. So much more on >>this in the treaties that points as more prima facie evident of same. >> >>Now we add the "Office of Governor" and the legatees, legate and walla, the >>Roman Catholic Church again. It is all fitting. >> >>Next we add a certificate of birth, that is changed from the form that >>parents fill out on the "worksheet" in a previous post, to Birth >>Certificate from Bouvier 1843 "and those given to aliens that they have >>been naturalized" >> >>And for a little spice, again from the "Book" >>Legal - a legal reversion See reversion >> >>Reversion - The right of redemption of an estate that is security for a >>debt or judgment. The residue of an estate left in the grantor [England? >>or the sovereign - Pope?], to commence in possession at a determination of >>a particular estate created by him. The returning of lands to the >>possession of the grantor or of his heirs, on the determination of a >>particular estate created by him. >> >>We be in Deep do do folks, >> >>We now have "the State", "this state", "other state" and "another state". >>This is getting difficult to tell who is on first. "original States" and >>"several States" are seemingly the only good ones out there! >> >>I would say a prayer tonight, but I don't think in any manner with the >>"Vatican" in mind though. >> >>the best >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd >>citizen of the United States nunc pro tunc >>Citizen of the State of Kansas (equal footing with the original States) >>domiciled in the Territory of Alaska >>Born of natural born parents of the Posterity >>Sovereign State in Fact >> >>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better >>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not >>your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May >>your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our >>countrymen. >> Samuel Adams >> >>Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains >>and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may >>take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death. >> Patrick Henry: Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23,1775 >> >>My Homepage is: http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html >> >> >> >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail