But, courts have no authority to alter legislative intent, ever! (remember this when you cite political COURT OPINION!)

Subject:

Comments:
: ! But, courts have no authority to : : alter legislative intent, ever! : : : : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell : ================================================= : : 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 : : in meaning. : : 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

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: