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