Diversity Statute is a MAJOR KEY

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on May 21, 1998 at 21:02:13:

In Reply to: Diversity Statute is a MAJOR KEY posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on May 13, 1998 at 15:27:03:

: Alla v. Kornfeld et al., 84 F.Supp. 823
: No. 48 C 801


: Quoting from published decision:

: [5-8] There is a recognized distinction
: between citizenship of the United States
: and citizenship of a particular State, and
: a peson may be the former without being
: the latter. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall.
: 36, 21 L.Ed. 394. In order to constitute
: a person a citizen of a State, so as to
: sue or be sued in the courts of the United
: States, that person must hae domicile in
: such State. If a person establishes domicile
: in a foreign country, he loses his State
: citizenship but not necessarily his United
: States citizenship. He loses the latter only
: where he renounces or otherwise abandons
: or loses it. Hammerstein v. Lyne, 8 Cir.,
: 200 F. 165. Here it would appear that
: Lillard has lost his State citizenship but not
: his United States citizenship. Hence, as
: between him and plaintiff, the present ac-
: tion cannot be said to be a controversy
: between citizens of different States, nor be-
: tween a citizen of a State and a citizen
: of a foreign state. At first blush, this
: might be deemed an inequitable situation,
: but it must be remembered that, in his
: present status, Lillard is similarly precluded
: from maintaining an action in the federal
: courts. The following cases support the
: result achieved here. Although, under the
: present Judicial Code, a resident of the
: District of Columbia may sue and be sued
: in the federal couts, the rationale of the
: Land Co. case is still applicable to the cir-
: cumstances of the instant cause of action.
: "The defendant Smoot moves to dismiss
: the bill as to him for want of jurisdiction.
: This motion must prevail, because it is
: well settled that a citizen of the District
: of Columbia is not a citizen of a state
: within the meaning of the judiciary act
: and the subsequent acts conferring juris-
: diction upon the circuit courts of the United
: States, and the jurisdiction of this court
: does not extend to a controversy between
: an alien and a citizen of the United States
: who is not a citizen of a state. Hepburn
: v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, [2 L.Ed. 332];
: Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280,
: [18 L.Ed. 825]; New Orleans v. Winter,
: 1 Wheat. 91 [4 L.Ed. 44]." Land Co. of
: New Mexico, Ltd., [sic] v. Elkins, 2 Cir.,
: 20 F. 545.
: "As has been said, citizens of the Dis-
: trict of Columbia were not granted the
: privilege of litigating in the federal courts
: on the ground of diversity of citizenship.
: Possibly no better reason for this fact exists
: than such citizens were not thought of
: when the judiciary article of the federal
: Constitution was drafted. It is even more
: probable that citizens of the United States,
: occupying the very unusual status that
: Pannill does, were also not thought of; but
: in any event a citizen of the United States,
: who is not a citizen of any state, is not
: within the language of the Constitution."
: D.C., Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252
: F. 910, 914.

: [end of extended quotation]

: Here is the holding:

: "In any event a citizen of the United States,
: who is not a citizen of any state, is not
: within the language of the Constitution!"

: This means that the references to
: "Citizen of the United States" at
: 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1
: all refer to Citizens of ONE OF the
: several States of the Union (as we have
: been saying all along).

Dear Friends,

It has taken a very long time to find a
federal court decision which hits the
mark so directly, but this one does
exactly THAT!

Take a single sheet of paper, and arrange
is horizontally, in "landscape" mode
(11" side parallel to the horizon).

Draw one horizontal line across the page,
then bisect this line at the midpoint.
This bisecting vertical line is the year
1866, the year of the first Civil Rights Act.

To the left of this line, there was only
one class of Citizens in America, and
these were state Citizens.

To the right of this line, there were
two classes of citizens in America:
one class was the original class of
state Citizens; and the other, second
class was the new class of federal
citizens, also known as "citizens of
the United States."

We have already fully documented the
many court cases which have upheld
the existence of two classes of citizens.
See the Petition for Leave to File
Enlarged Brief, in USA v. Gilbertson
in the Supreme Law Library:


The cases which have adjudicated the
diversity statute have opened up a
whole new line of research. It is here
that we found the Pannill case.

Note where the judge in Pannill clearly
held that federal citizens were NOT within
the language of the organic (original)
Constitution. This can ONLY mean that
the provisions at 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5
(which are collectively known as the
Qualifications Clauses), 3:2:1 and 4:2:1
all refer to Citizens of the several
states of the Union, and no other, since
until the enactment of the 1866 Civil
Rights Act.

The so-called 14th amendment [sic] did not
"create" a second class of citizens;
that so-called amendment was, at best,
merely declaratory of existing law, i.e.
the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Pannill thus provides us with an
excellent point of departure, to carry
our burden of proving, beyond any doubt,
that a second, inferior class of
federal citizens has existed in parallel
with state Citizenship, ever since the
end of the American Civil War.

Thus, add a second horizontal line,
right below your original horizontal line,
only this second line extends to the
bisecting vertical line, which marks
the year 1866, and extends no further
to the left.

The two parallel lines are like two
different rails on a railroad track.

Both lines continue indefinitely to the
right of the page, however, since the
Union is perpetual, and Congress will
always have its "federal zone," where
Congress is the "State" government,
for all local, municipal purposes.

I hope this helps.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]