[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 13, 1998 at 12:13:58:

In Reply to: When the Civil War end? posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 13, 1998 at 11:39:17:

The Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional.
See Andrew Johnson's elaborate discussion
of the many reasons, e.g. they were a Bill of
Attainder upon 9 million people.

Unconstitutionality dates from the moment
of enactment, not from any decision
so branding them.

Mitchell v. Nordbrock et al. in Arizona set
the stage for a proper and lawful challenge
to the ratification of the 14th amendment,
under authority of 4 U.S.C. 101; that
case was obstructed by corrupt attorneys
and corrupt judges.

What else should we expect?

There remains, on the record, a verified
controvery at law, specifically: the
failed ratification is a fact which must
be recognized in all 50 Union states,
and in the federal zone as well.

Moreover, and more importantly, from an
historical point of view, the facts recited
in Dyett v. Turner find their main source in
the verifiable acts of state legislatures.
They are not simply allegations which show up,
now and then, on the front pages of
common newspapers.

These acts must be given full faith and
credit, pursuant to the Full Faith and
Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution,
which has never been amended.

It makes very little difference that the
Utah Supreme Court never HELD that the
14th amendment was never properly ratified
(your "dictum" point, I presume).

The facts speak for themselves, and all
office holders are bound by oath to
give full faith and credit to those facts,
because they are historical facts rooted
in the official acts of state legislatures.

The 14th amendment is not Law, and therefore,
the validity of the public debt can, and should,
be questioned. European banks took sides
supporting the opposing armies in the Civil
War, because their unspoken motive was to
create a precedent for interest-bearing
paper money. When Lincoln balked, they
murdered him. John Wilkes Booth was a
Rothschild agent.

Thus, section 4 of that proposal is evidence
of the real motive for its ratification,
and the second class of federal citizens,
identified in section 1, are the ones who are
intended to bear the onus of that public debt.
Compare 26 CFR 1.1-1 for contemporary proof.

And the Holy Bible tells us that the
love of money is the root of all evil --
not just money, but the love of money.

A major overriding purpose of the U.S.
Constitution is to restrain evil,
particularly the evil that inevitably
results from corrupt government officials
and their insatiable lust for power, money,
and oppression.

Thaddeus Stevens was one such official.

He never read the Perfect Law of Liberty.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]