Time: Sun Nov 10 06:44:30 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: "the State" and the fourteenth amendment and Vatican
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Dear Friends,

Let me simplify:

1855  California Supreme Court rules that
      there is no such thing as a 
      "citizen of the United States"
      in Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300

1856  Dred Scott loses his attempt to 
      stand as a Citizen of Missouri,
      solely because he is a Negro

      Chief Justice Taney holds that
      apartheid is the law, but the
      Constitution has a means to 
      amend itself, if we want to do so

1861  horrific war breaks out, and the
      Union Army reaches 525,000 strong;
      the South is devastated by Sherman's
      infamous march to the sea

1865  war ends after massive casualties,
      one of the worst wars ever in history

1866  Civil Rights Act is enacted by Congress,
      creating a franchise class of federal 
      citizens called "citizens of the United States"

1868  14th amendment is shoved down the throats
      of all southern states which refused to
      ratify it;  the one state which did, 
      is spared a second military invasion

      the 14th is so difficult to understand,
      section 1 generates more litigation than
      any other section of the Constitution,
      except the First Amendment

      courts rule that the 14th did not CREATE
      a second class of citizens, because that
      class already existed;  14th merely recognized
      existing law (1866 Civil Rights Act)

1967  Louisiana delegation in Congress hires retired
      state judge Lander Perez to assemble and brief
      the evidence against ratification of the 14th;
      Perez's brief is published in the Congressional
      Record

1968  Utah Supreme Court picks up the trail and 
      recites all pertinent historical details,
      without rebuttal from anyone, proving that
      14th was never ratified, but Court did not
      HOLD as such in Dyett v. Turner;  this is
      the 100th anniversary of the 14th

1975  Utah Supreme Court again recites dictum that
      14th was never ratified, and cites its earlier
      1968 decision as historical precedent for 
      believing that 14th is a fraud

1993  writing under a pen name, Paul Mitchell serves
      upon the U.S. Supreme Court a formal NOTICE AND
      DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST enforcement of any
      and all laws and constitutional provisions which
      make reference to non-existence provisions in
      the U.S. Constitution, specifically citing the
      mountain of legal and historical evidence against
      ratification of the 14th amendment

1993  Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court returns Mitchell's
      NOTICE AND DEMAND because it does not conform
      to local court rules

1996  FBI invades Jordan, Montana, and Paul Mitchell
      files for injunction against the United States,
      on behalf of the People of the United States of
      America;  case is moved into federal court, with
      intention to assemble competent and qualified
      jury to award declaratory relief that the extant
      historical evidence is sufficient to support a
      legal conclusion that the 14th was never lawfully
      ratified;  all federal judges are disqualified to
      preside, since they all currently pay income taxes
      on their compensation, in direct violation of 
      Article III;  Chief Justice Rehnquist is struggling
      with a massive legal conundrum;  Paul Mitchell is
      not paid for 19 days of double-time work on behalf
      of 20 Montana Citizens arrested and imprisoned by
      the FBI, and his legal strategies solicit retaliation
      from every quarter, including the Queen of England

I hope this helps.  

I am standing by.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



At 01:00 AM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>I have had great difficulty in figuring out the fourteenth amendment and
>how it fits in the the dual citizenship that is required to be "sovereign
>people" as described in great detail in the Dred Scott case.  I think I
>have finally got it thanks to a great book that unfortunately I do not
>"own", but have the use of until I can find one at a old book store and
>shall because of the my "greed" remain unnamed at present and shall be
>named "Book".
>
>The Dred Scott case explains in great detail that you must first be a
>"citizen of a State" and therefore if of the correct class of citizen, you
>are a "citizen of the United States".  I could not figure out the how the
>fourteenth amendment sidestepped this provision, as on the first glance, it
>appears to be correct, which I absolutely knew was impossible.
>
>Its wording is as follows:
>
>
>                                Amendment XIV
>                                    [1868]
>
>"Section 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. No State shall make or enforce any law
>which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
>States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
>property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>
>In 1866 Statutes at Large chapter 31,
>
>"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
>power, excluding Indians not; taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of
>the United States;"
>
>1)  Al persons born ....in the United States - 14th amendment and declared
>by Congress.
>2)  All persons naturalized in the United States - 14th amendment and
>declared by Congress
>3)  are citizens of the United States - 14th amendment
>4)  are citizens ...of the State wherein they reside - 14th amendment
>5) Who is a citizen of "the State" wherein they reside?  In Dred Scott case
>the wording is citizen of "a State".  Now comes the "Book" with a
>definition of "the State".
>
>>From the "Book" - [under the heading of state] "Papal States.--the States.
>1. [Gt. Brit. & Canada] The United States.  2. Formerly, the Netherlands;
>the United Provinces."
>
>>From this I would be able to conclude that "the States" is the Papal
>States.  Above this is the heading of state is the following:
>"States of the Church, a part of Central Italy which, before the
>unification of Italy in 1870, was under the sovereignty of the Pope.  It
>included Rome, the Romagna, Umbria, the March of Ancona, and the towns of
>Bologna, Perugia, and Vierbo;  capital, Rome.  Compare DONATION OF PEPIN."
>
>[Interesting time in that 1871, 1874, and 1878 are the formation of a
>corporate government [corporation(s)]
>
>in the District of Columbia]
>
>>From the "Book"
>"Donation of Pepin", the grant by Pepin, king of the Franks, father of
>Charlemagne, of Ravenna, Emilia, and other territory captured from the
>Lombards in 755."
>
>It just goes on and on.
>
>Treaties with Italy, 1869. s/l Volume 18 part 2 pg 439 -  One of the
>Parties was the Grand Cordon of his Order of the Saints Maurice and
>Lazarus.  Another complete story, but this is not the plain Jane
>government.
>>From the "Book"
>
>Cordon is a ornamental lace, cord or ribbon worn to secure something in
>place, for adornment, as an indication of rank, or used as a heraldic
>bearing.  The cord worn as a girdle by a Franciscan friar.
>
>Orders - from the "Book" - St. Maurice and St. Lazarus (10/6 1424) Amadeus
>VI.; service to the state, especially charities; white enameled cross
>botone against an S-pointed green cross.
>
>And again in Treaties with Italy, 1869 s/l Volume 18 part 2 page 439 we see
>in Article I "There shall be between the territories of the high
>contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation."  What
>happened to the words of Untied States of American and Italy here?????
>
>Article II
>"The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to
>travel in "the States" and territories of the other territories of the
>other, to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to hire and occupy houses
>and warehouses, to employ agents of their choice, and generally to do
>anything incident to or necessary for trade, upon the same terms as the
>natives of the country, submitting themselves to the laws there
>established."
>
>Article XII
>"The high contracting parties agree that , in the unfortunate event of a
>war between them, the private property of their respective citizens and
>subjects, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from
>capture or seizure, on the high seas or elsewhere, by the armed vessels or
>by the military forces of either party;  it being understood that this
>exemption shall not extend to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt
>to tenter a port blockaded by the naval forces of either party.
>
>This sure reads to me as though the "high contracting parties" are
>different than the "party".  This reads very different from the actual
>citizens of each country or "State".  And "high Contracting parties" does
>not seem to be used in contracts with other countries!  Why?
>
>The "high contracting parties" is the Pope and his folks.  So much more on
>this in the treaties that points as more prima facie evident of same.
>
>Now we add the "Office of Governor" and the legatees, legate and walla, the
>Roman Catholic Church again.  It is all fitting.
>
>Next we add a certificate of birth, that is changed from the form that
>parents fill out on the "worksheet" in a previous post, to Birth
>Certificate from Bouvier 1843 "and those given to aliens that they have
>been naturalized"
>
>And for a little spice, again from the "Book"
>Legal - a legal reversion See reversion
>
>Reversion - The right of redemption of an estate that is security for a
>debt or judgment.  The residue of an estate left in the grantor [England?
>or the sovereign - Pope?], to commence in possession at a determination of
>a particular estate created by him.  The returning of lands to the
>possession of the grantor or of his heirs, on the determination of a
>particular estate created by him.
>
>We be in Deep do do folks,
>
>We now have "the State", "this state", "other state" and "another state".
>This is getting difficult to tell who is on first.  "original States" and
>"several States" are seemingly the only good ones out there!
>
>I would say a prayer tonight, but I don't think in any manner with the
>"Vatican" in mind though.
>
>the best
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd
>citizen of the United States nunc pro tunc
>Citizen of the State of Kansas (equal footing with the original States)
>domiciled in the Territory of Alaska
>Born of natural born parents of the Posterity
>Sovereign State in Fact
>
>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not
>your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May
>your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our
>countrymen.
>                Samuel Adams
>
>Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains
>and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may
>take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.
>        Patrick Henry:  Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23,1775
>
>My Homepage is:  http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html
>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail