Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on August 27, 1998 at 21:44:53:
In Reply to: Re: He who walks with wise men becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. Proverbs 13:20 posted by Patrick Henry on August 23, 1998 at 19:20:28:
Alla v. Kornfeld confirms one of the basic
premises of Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
namely, that federal citizens were not
even contemplated when the organic
U.S. Constitution was first enacted.
See discussion elsewhere in this forum.
Thus the term "Citizen of the United States" [sic]
at 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1
has the exact same meaning in each clause,
because there was only ONE class of citizenship
at that crucial point in time. Confer at any
hand-written manuscript of the original
organic U.S. Constitution.
Gilbertson shot himself in the foot when
he did a sudden and unexplained 180-degree turn,
when he refused to file the application
for leave to file enlarged brief. That
brief contains still more substantiating
cases -- of the "res judicata" variety.
Second, the 8th Circuit has yet to rule
on an application for intervention filed
by the People of the United States of America,
immediately after their weak and irresponsible
opinion in that case.
Just because three biased and liberal
federal judges refuse to confront the
mountain of evidence before them, does
NOT mean that we have failed to prove
that the IRC is truly a municipal code.
On the contrary, by every relevant rule
of law, DOJ has failed to rebut any of
the major points in that OPENING BRIEF.
Those 3 judges had the same conflict
of interest as the district judge --
for having signed a W-4 creating a
contract with Trust #62 in Puerto Rico.
But, there were many equally significant
other issues raised in that OPENING BRIEF.
The ONLY confirmed error to date was
a typographical error: 18 U.S.C. 242
instead of 18 U.S.C. 241 (the latter
of which is the felony to which the
OPENING BRIEF referred).
The frequent re-occurrence of ad hominem
criticisms in this forum is proof,
further still, that the critics have
nothing better to offer. So, attack
the man. Such argumentation is already
known to be inferior and unpersuasive
as to the main lines of logic.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General