Time: Mon Nov 10 08:24:55 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA17508;
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:18:45 -0700 (MST)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA23557;
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:18:04 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd023450; Mon Nov 10 08:17:49 1997
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:18:11 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: 14th Amendment (fwd)
<snip>
>
>The following is a letter from Wayne Stump, Arizona State
>Senator, explaining his perception of the 14th amendment.
>
>To Whom It May Concern;
>
>As my interest in constitutional law has expanded over the past
>years and the word of my interest spread, I have happily become
>the recipient of Patriot papers, circulars and letters from all
>over this great land.
>
>Many folks involved in the research and use of the principles
>involved in our "Republican" form of government have become
>personal friends. These friendships have enabled a great deal of
>activity, from diverse sources, to develop together for
>comparison and evaluation.
>
>I have, from time to time, endeavored to pass information, on a
>limited basis, from one source to another for enlightenment of
>individuals on general issues.
>
>This time, however, it would appear that the emerging principles
>are so fundamental to our form of government, and of such
>magnitude as to encompass every man, woman and child in our
>united Republics, that one wonders how they could ever have
>become obscured.
>
>The principles to which I refer are those heralded in the
>Preamble of the Constitution, which begins: "We, the People ..."
>and continues " ... secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves
>and our Posterity." These words, without question, were used to
>represent the interests of the signers of the Constitutional
>contract. That is to say, "The Founding Fathers and their
>Posterity."
>
>When one reflects on this meaning of "We the People" it would
>seem to mean that the Preamble People were a class of people who,
>with the aid of God, originally secured their Liberty with the
>protections they constructed into the Organic Constitution and
>the first ten Amendments thereto. This, being the case, tends to
>bring the import of the 14th Amendment into focus.
>
>The 13th and 14th Amendments, as we have been taught, were
>fashioned to give freedom to slaves and to secure for them
>privileges of citizenship.
>
>Our Educators, however, neglected to explain that the 14th
>Amendment creation was that of a new "class" of citizenship. It
>becomes clear when one studies the wording of the Organic
>Constitution, that the original people cited in the "Preamble"
>could not lose the "Blessings" secured thereby as long as the
>Constitution was intact, because our Constitution is perpetual.
>
>The 14th Amendment, then had to create another "position" for
>those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th
>Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were "subject"
>to the jurisdiction thereof and may not "question" the validity
>of the public debt.
>
>At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article
>are going into shock as they grab for their Constitutions to
>check out the phrase and "question" the validity of the public
>debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th
>Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.
>
>It would seem then, from the foregoing, that there are two
>"classes" of citizens in this country:
>
> 1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the
>meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the
>several Republics of the United States who enjoy full Citizenship
>of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which
>they inhabit.
>
> 2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th
>Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within
>the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a
>United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and
>immunities of "limited" citizenship.
>
>It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically
>involved in citations for the information introduced here, but
>only to outline an overview for those folks who claim
>"Constitutional Rights" and then wonder why the legislatures,
>courts and police don't respond in "kind" to these claims.
>
>When one seperates the classes along their appropriate dividing
>lines, it appears that:
>
> 1. Preamble Citizens:
>
> A. Have direct personal access to a God inspired,
>original Constitution and it's restraints on government for the
>protection of life, liberty and property.
>
> B. Have direct personal access to the Article III
>courts known as "justice courts" which deal with law.
>
> 2. Citizen "subjects":
>
> A. Have representative access to the first eight
>amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment.
>
> B. Have representative access to Article I courts,
>provided by legislature, that are known as "legislative courts"
>which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or
>officers of the court, known as lawyers.
>
>My concern here, stems from my observation that folks involved
>with the preservation of our beloved "Constitution" are unaware
>of the "limited" citizenship created by the 14th Amendment.
>Additionally, these folks don't realize that they are, or have
>voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance
>of the "benefits" of limited citizenship.
>
>The main "benefit" that I will mention here is Social Security.
>There are many other "benefits" such as the benefit of
>"regulation by licensing" that give control of your children to
>the State by making them "wards of the State" and subject to the
>"regulation" of the "legislative courts" by statute, etc.
>
>The intention of this article is to point out the apparent
>difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in
>the courts in serving these classes.
>
>I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal
>conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair
>in finding that "the court" or "government" is in violation of
>the Constitution without realizing that the court they are
>addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based
>on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.
>
>The reality of the following example of statute law is that the
>statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only
>question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether
>the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes
>or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it
>was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight
>and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The
>court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a
>justice court.
>
>The final question then would seem to be "where is the Article
>III "justice" court and who can use it?" I am very aware that
>many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able
>to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired
>deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, but
>for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears
>that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of
>legislative courts (tribunals) through recission of contracts and
>declaration of Article IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it
>appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set
>forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that
>this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may
>claim the protections of the first ten Amendments as written.
>
>As the truth of our personal status, and the responsibilities
>connected therewith unfolds, it becomes clear that the Article
>III "justice" court must be accessed individually by the person
>claiming that right. At present it is being done by common law
>filing of actions "in law" with the County Recorders who have
>been found to be "ex officio" clerks of the County courts. The
>authority for the exercise of the "justice" office is found in
>the 9th Article of Amendment and I believe all State
>Constitutions have similar provisions for their Preamble Citizens
>(also known as de jure Citizens).
>
>I will not go further with an attempt toward instruction but will
>leave this in the hands of the many patriots engaged in the
>research of these developments. My mission in presenting this
>information in a general sense is to help the unfortunate
>individuals who repeatedly bash themselves against the rocks of
>misinformation or ignorance in a vain, though laudable, effort to
>protect our beloved Constitution. I hope I have achieved this
>end.
>
>[Reprinted from Free Enterprise Society News, May 1989]
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail