Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on October 01, 1998 at 23:59:35:
In Reply to: Re: US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation posted by ' on October 01, 1998 at 23:36:40:
That particular matter was first placed on the table
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health
Center Company.
Our FOIA requests for oaths of office were deliberately
intended to "smoke out" the exact, and full provisions
of the Constitution they had agreed to support, whatever
THAT might be.
We expressly reserved our right to compel disclosure
of those provisions, in writing, under subpoena power,
and to present those questions to a competent and
qualified jury.
Congress has already incorporated its version of the
U.S. Constitution in the United States Codes, and
federal courts must take judicial notice of those Codes,
particularly when they have been enacted into positive
law.
It is enough to show that the 14th was never lawfully
ratified; the facts recited in Dyett v. Turner must
be viewed under the mandates of the Full Faith and
Credit Clause. Those facts concern the verifiable Acts
of State Legislatures.
Under this approach, the conclusion is foregone:
the federal government is in the "wrong contract"
with the American People, to the extent that it is
attempting to uphold the 14th, 16th, and 17th
amendments. The 17th is a special case, because
it would have required 100% of the states to
ratify, because "no State shall be denied its
equal suffrage in the Senate". Senators are
supposed to be elected by State Legislatures,
and represent the States in the Congress.
Last but not least, the historical record proves
that the original Thirteenth Amendment was
ratified no later than 1819, when Virginia
put it over the top, and into the Constitution.
This fact, too, was entered into the record
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, by my Affidavit
certifying the authenticity of the evidence
attached thereto.
So, there is no question that the federal government
has been entering courts with unclean hands.
The matter of "brainwashing" is begging the
question, imho, and only serves to polarize
a situation which is already too polarized
as it is. If you want to start a psychology
thread, please do so somewhere else.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Supreme Law Webmaster
p.s. Please sign your real name to
all future posts. Thank you.