Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 13, 1998 at 12:54:20:
In Reply to: Re: More Historical Evidence (legal ruse + deception) of 2 Classes of Citizens posted by Two Cities on September 12, 1998 at 23:35:01:
You are correct to focus on the voter
registration forms. They are a major
part of the problem, and of the proof we
have already presented to several courts.
Again, Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF boldly
attempted to redress this grievance, by
convening a 3-judge District Court of the
United States, to adjudicate the apportionment
of congressional districts in Minnesota state,
and by logical extension, the 49 other states.
If state Citizens are not and cannot be registered,
pursuant to statute, then the geographical pattern
of registered voters is suspect -- for being
most probably skewed. Moreover, state Citizens
are presently barred from choosing their
Representatives in the House of Representative.
This is an even more blatant violation of
their fundamental Rights.
Choosing representatives in Congress has already
been held to be a fundamental Right, and yet
the federal government presumes to have authority
to tax these very same People. This is taxation
without representation, at its worst. The Right
is unalienable (read "un-lien-able").
As you have discovered and documented, the
root problem is the voter registration
affidavits. Gilbertson offered to prove
that widespread fraud exists on all
voter registration affidavits which require
voters to verify, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,
that they are federal citizens. Given the
proven existence of 2 classes of citizens,
it is painfully obvious that one whole
class is now being prevented from voting, and
also from serving on grand and petit juries,
both state and federal. As such, this class
discrimination violates the Guarantee Clause,
which has also never been amended. The People
are the source of sovereignty in America and
this point is too well decided to warrant
any further debate.
Gilbertson's challenge, in turn, is rooted in
the cases (e.g. Gardina) which HELD that one
can be a state Citizen without also being
a federal citizen. To repeat, these were
HOLDINGS, not dicta. Moreover, those
holdings were issued AFTER the so-called
14th amendment was declared ratified.
Confer also at "Right of Election,"
Maine Supreme Court, Appleton concurring,
clarifying the Dred Scott holding to the
Maine state legislature. "Right of Election"
and "Freedom of Choice" are roughly equivalent
The advocates of unlawful federal dominion
conveniently avoid these all important
decisions, to their great discredit.
It is evident that the federal courts
began their expansive construction of
section 1 of the so-called 14th amendment
circa 1924! But, courts have no authority to
alter legislative intent, ever!
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Post a Followup