Time: Tue Apr 15 04:26:49 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA13781;
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:03:40 -0700 (MST)
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA12790;
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:03:02 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 04:22:50 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: U.S. Citizens? -or- U.S. citizens?
At 07:42 PM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
>please send me a copy of Dyett v Turner 439 P.2d 266,270
See previous message, already sent.
>
>What is happening with the Boxer case?
Mexican standoff. California Appeals Court
denied the Petition for Mandamus, but Boxer
fell totally and completely silent, invoking
estoppel by acquiescence. That's where it
will sit, for all time.
>
>I have heard there is a paper battle going on with the government, for
example they are swamped with FOIA requests, etc and I never hear anything
about it.
They are saying they are swamped with FOIA requests.
That may be so, but they also have some very good
motives for neglecting to answer some of the more
serious ones, like the regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3231,
the grant of original jurisdiction to prosecute
criminal violations of Title 18 (the federal criminal
code). There are no such regulations, which invokes
the application of 44 U.S.C. 1505(a) (applies to
federal officers, employees, and contracts agents ONLY).
18 U.S.C. 3231 does not mention the USDC either,
only the DCUS!! [very significant finding, this]
> Has anything significant happened?
Yes, in People v. United States et al., the federal
judge attempted to remand the case back to the
state court whence it originated, but that would
mean that the FOIA request (for the credentials of
all 633 federal agents who rotated in and out of
the Freeman Standoff in Jordan, Montana) would not
ever get litigated, forcing a clear deprivation of
due process of law, and also a violation of the
FOIA itself. We just filed a very polite, and
nearly perfect, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, with
a MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT of that Motion,
with an additional challenge to the constitutionality
of one of the removal statutes for being too broad.
(I L-O-V-E to attack Acts of Congress for being
unconstitutional, in case you haven't noticed :)
This should make them stand up and listen. We already
know they are, but they are refusing to admit it.
My measure of success so far is that the courts,
and other government agencies, are now beginning to
realize that I mean business, and my knowledge of the
Law is correct, because they are now responding,
in writing, to almost everything which I submit,
particularly in court cases. In USA v. Looker,
for example, the U.S. finally responded to our
challenge to the Jury Selection and Service Act;
their answer was weak to non-existent; they only
had me on one matter of form, but not on matters
of any substance. Substance always prevails over
form.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
What is the status of this, i.e. will the federal gov't even acknowledge
any of these goings on?
If you write to the Clerk of Court in Billings,
Montana state, they will provide you an accurate
quotation for obtaining the entire docket file
in People v. United States, to date. You need to
know whom to ask, for what.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>----------
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell[SMTP:pmitch@primenet.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 10:51 PM
>To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
>Subject: U.S. Citizens? -or- U.S. citizens?
>
>"Citizen of the United States" as that term
>is used at 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5 in the
>U.S. Constitution means:
>
> "Citizen of one of the States United"
>
>See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
>De La Guerra was a judge who signed the California
>Constitution of 1849 into law, so he knew what
>he was talking about when he said:
>
> The United States in these provisions,
> means the States united.
>
>"citizen of the United States" as that term
>is used in the so-called 14th Amendment is
>a second-class person who is subject to the
>jurisdiction of the United States (federal
>government). This is a franchise, just like
>a corporate franchise, which Congress created
>in 1866.
>
>The ONLY difference between the two phrases,
>as far as their "appearance" is concerned,
>is the capitalization, or lack of capitalization,
>of the initial letter "C/c". But, there is a
>massive difference in the rights, privileges,
>and immunities which they enjoy.
>
>If they enjoyed the same rights, privileges,
>and immunities, there would never have been
>any need to restate a second privileges and
>immunities clause in the so-called 14th amendment.
>
>You MUST read Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270
>(1968); begin reading where "General Lee had
>surrendered ..." and you will be amazed, truly
>amazed. I have the case on disk, if you would
>like to request it.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:44 AM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>> Type: Not Moderated
>> Distributed on: 14-APR-97, 11:44:36
>>Original Written by: IN:autarchic@juno.com.
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>Greetings All,
>>
>>Are you a Citizen of the United States? NOT ME! When
>>someone asks me what State I was born in, I always
>>reply: "Nude!"
>>
>>
>> CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
>> DEFINED
>>
>> Compiled by John Freeman
>> Tuesday, May 24, 1994
>>
>>
>>1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>> United States and of the State wherein they reside.
>> See:
>> United States Constitution, Article XIV, 1.
>>
>>2. "Citizen of the United States" means (a) individual who
>> is a citizen of the United States or of one of its
>> possessions, or (b) a partnership of which each member is such
>> an individual, or (c) a corporation or association created or
>> organized under the laws of the United States or any State,
>> Territory, or possession of the United States, of which the
>> president and two-thirds or more of the board of directors and
>> other managing officers thereof are such individuals and in
>> which at least 75 per centum of the voting interest is owned
>> or controlled by persons who are citizens of the United States
>> or of one of its possessions.
>> See:
>> Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. 1301 (16).
>>
>>3. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of
>> Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States)
>> shall be considered, for the purposes of this section, as a
>> citizen of the United States.
>> See:
>> Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, U.S.C.A. 3121(e)(2).
>>
>>
>>Steadfastly, John Freeman
>>
>>"But if you mean we must obey the law of men,
>>then I wholeheartedly disagree. We can only
>>live with the legislative acts of men when
>>they agree with the Laws of God.... Only God
>>can create Law." Everett Sileven (Ramsey)
>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net
>>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
>>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
>> email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net
>>For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net
>>
>>========================================================================
>>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>========================================================================
>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
>web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
>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
>========================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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