Time: Mon Nov 04 08:59:21 1996 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 08:56:31 -0800 To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: LLAW: Citizenship? ======================================================================= LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing ======================================================================= William, See Chapter 11 and Appendix Y in The Federal Zone, available on the Internet via the Alta Vista search engine. This will provide you with precise legal language for expressing your status properly. /s/ Paul Mitchell Citizen of Arizona state [sic] At 10:40 AM 11/4/96 +0100, you wrote: >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >======================================================================= >Okay folks, here we go. > >My Christian Appellation is William Gordon of the family Kay. >I have been doing research for about five years on all types >and kinds of issues. I have come to a conclusion of which I >would like input. > >1. According to the definitions I have been able to locate, >I cannot be a sovereign citizen. The reason for this is due >to the fact that the term sovereign means to be vested with >authority. If only I vest myself with authority, I have only >authority over myself and my house. Besides, if I am a >Christian, the religion upon which the nation of America was >predicated, then I have actually vested Jesus Christ with >authority and therefore, cannot myself be sovereign. > >2. Do I want to be a citizen of the STATE OF FLORIDA, the >UNITED STATES or the united States of America? The answer to >all three is no. I can give an oath of allegiance to the >state (Republic) of Florida, hence making me a citizen of the >Republic of Florida. As to any other citizenship, forget it. > >3. Of which nation am I? This question is very important, >for it declares under which Law you are to be traveling. To >better understand this, let us go back in time. "Hey you >over there, snug up that belt, this time machine can take >some nasty sudden leaps!!" > > The people in America were mostly folks who were >attempting to escape the laws in other countries. Laws which >were prohibitive. The "Church of England" was not >sympathetic with anyone who claimed to be of a denomination >which was not of its "faith", so there was >religious persecution as well. Folks came here to escape >persecution and also to find their "fortunes." > Originally, there were no towns, no counties, no >states,simply homesteads and forts. The people lived outside >the fort gates, taking any and all risks as would come their >way. Granted the Kings troops <French and English, not to >mention German, Austrian, Portuguese, Italian, and Russian> >would man the forts, giving protection to anyone who could >get inside before the gates were shut and locked, but for all >intents and purposes, each man on the land was his own law >unto himself. And it was an understood and accepted >situation. > You see, at this time in history, God and the Bible were >the law. Each man took unto himself, the nature of >Christianity and endeavored to use that law to their own >ends. > So, the deal was, each man on the land was, while on his >property, the king of his castle. This, however, caused >problems. Let me demonstrate an example. > John and Mark who are neighbors, are walking in the >woods on John's property. They come upon a dog, wounded and >dirty. John says to Mark, "ugly dog, what you wanna do with >it?" Mark says "well, I could take him home, clean him up >and see what happens after that." And he does. > Next day, Mark shows the mutt to John, who says "Wow, he >cleaned up nice, I wouldn't mind having him." Mark on the >other hand, has a problem with that and immediately takes the >dog back onto his property. "Hey!" exclaims John, "what >gives? You gonna give me the dog or what?" > "Nope," says Mark, "I believe I'm gonna keep him." > Now, this creates a controversy. In order for these >two guys to resolve this controversy, without resorting to >bloodshed, they have to find a mutually agreeable venue. >Why? Well, if Johns rules apply on John's property, and >Mark's rules apply on Mark's property, would either fellow be >wise to step into the venue of the other? Of course the >answer is no. Why not? Conflict of interest. "Huh?" you >might be thinking. > Conflict of interest. Hmmmm. Let's see... what do we >know about this. Well, we know that Madison claims that the >reason that Article III, section two, clause two of the >compact between the freely associated compact states was set >up to avoid conflicts of interest between citizens of a >state whenever the state should bring a case against said >citizen. The supreme court of the united States was there to >guarantee to a citizen a fair and impartial trial. Hmm. > So what did Mark and John do? They did exactly what you >would expect them to do. They decided to go to an >arbitrator. It's Biblical. They decided upon a mutually >acceptable man, most likely Christian, to whom they could >bring forth their controversy, in essence, stepping into HIS >venue to accept his ruling. Fair and impartial. > Think about it. A county, at the time, was an area of >land, usually having one major <or minor as the case were> >town in it. The town was the seat of power, where the >elected citizens of the county held their office. The rest >of the county consisted of the citizenry upon the land. Only >landowners could cast ballots. Why? Because renters and >lessors were considered transients and did not have a vested >interest in the goings on in the county. If they didn't like >something, they could just up and leave. > But what happens now, say two counties come to grips >about a border dispute? Who, like John and Mark, can they >appeal to in order to obtain a fair and impartial hearing and >airing of the grievance? Enter the state. The state was >developed in order to vest venue in an entity which could >oversee and hear controversies between counties, and also to >intercede and act as referee in business between the >counties, just like the counties were doing in their own >venue. > Do ya'll remember the recent "border" dispute between >New York and New Jersey? New Jersey claimed that because a >small strip of "land" had developed between itself and Ellis >Island, Ellis Island was now within Its borders. Regardless >of the nature or even the merit of the issue, whom did they >bring the case before? Why the supreme court of the united >States. Why? Because neither wanted to walk into the others >venue. It only makes sense that the united States came >together to develop a central government to deal with >controversies, trade, and protection of the several states >participating. > You see, under the old confederacy of States, no state >actually had to obey any of the laws, dictates, or orders as >handed down by the central government. They were at liberty >to pick and choose the items of which they wanted to accept. >Sort of like the line item veto now bandied so much about by >politicos. Take what you like, leave the rest. Very un- >economical, and truly a pain when attempting to get two >venues to obey the ruling or order as handed down. > Think about these things, and while you're at it, look >up the terms "nation" "national" "county" "sovereign" "vote" >and "elector". > >Thank you for your comments > >In the quest for truth and knowledge, I am > >William Gordon of the family "Kay" of the clan McKay. > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail