Time: Thu Feb 13 09:38:56 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA15614;
Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:57:39 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:07 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Your morning ruminations
At 10:04 AM 2/13/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In order for me to play I would need to know what it is you want to
>accomplish. Like, the object of the game, the desired result you want to
>produce. I think we could spend our entire life chasing shadows. This is
>evident by the many "silver bullets" floating around. Would this be with a
>type of purpose to have the courts acknowlede the difference between
>citizens of the several states and federal citizens?
Hi Friend, [name redacted for privacy]
Yes, this is an important goal,
because so much issues from
such a judgment. Of course,
it is already res judicata,
in more ways than one.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
As the plaintiff you
>would have the burden to prove (according to your morning wanderings)
>1) that the Union States are, in fact, all collectively engaged in the
>practice of discriminating against the Citizens of the several States. Do
>you propose that the fact that they cant vote, serve on federal grand
juries,
>federal trial juries is partial evidence of this alleged discrimination?
Citizens have only three formal voices in
government: voting, grand juries, trial
juries. If those voices have been silenced,
then you have established that the major
objectives of the Preamble have been defeated.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>2) that these practices stem from (originate?) "systemic" violations of
>the Guarantee Clause. "systemic" violations are vague dont you think?
I meant to say "systematic", but they
are also "systemic." The population of
federal citizens is a legislative
democracy, because citizenship is a term
of municipal law. The federal zone is
not a Republic, but a democracy. Congress
has instigated the transformation, under
the fraudulent guise of the so-called
14th Amendment, which created the impression
that all humans would automatically become
federal citizens upon being born within
the "United States." But, notice that
section 1 of that "amendment" refers to
"persons," not to "Persons." One is a
Proper noun; the other is a common noun.
Moreover, the term "United States" has a
very specific set of meanings, and which
meaning is not clear in that section.
Finally, the Utah Supreme Court effectively
struck down the 14th Amendment, in
Dyett v. Turner, and then again in
State v. Phillips (1968 and 1975, respectively).
So, federal citizenship is confined to the
federal zone; just as state Citizenship is
confined to the state zone. There can be
no state Citizenship where there is no state
(this much should be obvious to everyone).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>3) that collectively there has been an attempt to "foist" a "legislative
>democracy" upon the Union States. didnt the Union States jump on the band
>wagon voluntarily?
Show me where! Now I shift the
burden of proof back to you.
at least when the states agreed to back up the federal
>bankruptcy debt by pledging our property as collateral they did. so where
>is the "foist"?
There is the rub: the bankruptcy
was not lawful, because it was
not adjudicated pursuant to a
lawful bankruptcy proceeding.
It was done in secret by the
President, in collusion with the
international bankers. See
"The Roosevelt Coup d'Etat."
Vern Holland has my last copy
of that great historical work.
Congress was never authorized to
create third-party obligations
in that manner.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>4)how can you deprive someone of a right to choose the elected
>representatives of a club to which they do not belong?
#1 All elective offices in the federal government
refer expressly to Citizens of the Union states
#2 Voting for representatives in the House and Senate
is a fundamental Right, pursuant to a court
authority we have found
#3 Therefore, depriving anyone of their fundamental
Right to choose their representative(s) is a
violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. Check it out!
We DO belong to the club. The People are
the Principals of this government. Article I,
Section 2, Clause 1 has not been repealed or
modified in any way! The apportionment of
congressional districts is also skewed by the
fact that state Citizens (who are not also
federal citizens) are not being counted, by
law, because the voter registration affidavits
require a verified declaration that one is a
federal citizen. Therefore, a 3-judge district
court panel can be convened, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2284.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>5)that a "wide spread criminal racket" exists with reference to
>depravation of these rights. tough call.
No, once you prove that the
voter registration affidavit is
a fraudulent violation of the
Guarantee Clause, you have
carried your burden of establishing
probable cause for violations of
that clause. Enter 18 U.S.c. 242.
I know we may break new ground
with this approach, but the
Guarantee Clause is pivotal in
this entire debate. State Citizens
are nowhere mentioned as such in
the IRC, for example!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
remember the guy you are trying
>to convince is on the board of directors of the "club" you say you don't
>belong to.
Wrong. We have neutralized every one of
them by showing that they all are paying
taxes on their compensation at the present
time. Until such time as 3 of them either
rescind their W-4, or they are ordered to
do so, the District Court of the United
States shall sit empty. That is a denial
of due process of law, thus activating
two international human rights treaties
which guarantee effective judicial remedies,
notwithstanding that the violations were
committed by persons acting in their
"official" capacities. Congress enacted
those treaties with specific Reservations,
to wit: if the United States fails to
perform its obligations under these treaties,
then the "localities" have legal standing
to compel U.S. obedience to same. This is
the pivot point which throws the entire case
back into the jurisdiction of the state
courts, where we can make the same argument:
no judges can sit as taxpayers, because there
is no law imposing the federal income tax
on state Citizens, unless they do what
Brushaber did and buy stock in a domestic
corporation (e.g. Union Pacific Railroad).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>Like I said, a destination always helps when choosing which road to travel.
>Where do you want to end up? Maybe I will play.
People v. United States,
Application for Intervention of Right.
Once you are in, you can plead like
any other party.
We want to start enumerating the
damages which the United States
has caused against the American
People. With that enumeration,
we can wash the federal debt away,
because 1997 is a Jubilee Year.
A three-judge DCUS can hear
bankruptcy matters. We can leverage
that case to compel the United States
to submit its "Proof of Claim"
(see Form 10, federal bankruptcy rules).
I can defeat that POC hands down,
e.g., Lloyd Bentsen never occupied
the office of Secretary of the Treasury,
therefore ALL actions of that Department
were ultra vires as long as he allegedly
occupied that office. See, for example,
IRC 7401 for the prerequisites to
initiate any civil action for collection
or enforcement of the federal income tax.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
p.s. Do you want the template documents
which we have prepared for the Application
for Intervention of Right?
Let me know, okay?
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0 on 80586 CPU
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail