Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« A Timely Email | Main | Freedom Watch »

Supreme Law Firm will initiate a Congressional RESOLUTION to amend the U.S. Constitution and overturn the 1866 Civil Rights Act

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: Phil Sandy <philsndy@gmail.com>
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 2:41:10 PM
Subject: Supreme Law Firm will initiate a Congressional RESOLUTION to amend the U.S. Constitution and overturn the 1866 Civil Rights Act

>  Paul, these people must be delusional! We have to kick the bums out!


Yes, Phil,

I think we've succeeded in focusing attention where it needs to be, as far as Citizenship in America is concerned:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

The distinction between "citizens of the United States" and "white citizens"
at 42 U.S.C. 1982, in retrospect appears to be an artifact of legal decisions
made immediately after the Civil War.  It is definitely a very revealing artifact,
in this context, because it makes all the more obvious the facts that federal citizenship was originally intended for black Americans recently freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, and ONLY for those black Americans; it also mandates the unavoidable inference that "white citizens" are NOT
"citizens of the United States", as least as far as that statute is concerned!

The defensible points that have emerged from our latter essay are these:

(1)  none of the 3 branches of the Federal government has any authority to amend the Constitution for the United States of America; this means, simply, that Congress may NOT do so with any Act of Congress whether those Acts be municipal in scope (1:8:17 + 4:3:2) or national in scope (see the remaining Clauses at Article I, Section 8);

(2)  the Qualifications Clauses, the Diversity Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause have never been amended, in point of fact;  and, the 1866 Civil Rights Act certainly did not do so;

(3)  rather than to amend that Constitution properly after the Supreme Court issued their decision in Dred Scott, Congress attempted to bypass Article V by unilaterally enacting the 1866 Civil Rights Act instead;  in other words,
Congress did NOT consult the several State Legislatures, nor did Congress attempt to obtain the approval of three-fourths of those State Legislatures, when it enacted that Federal statute;

(4)  although some Courts have correctly assigned credit to that Act for creating a second class of "federal citizens", our careful analysis confirms the following grounds for challenging its constitutionality now, as follows:

(a)  as we now know, the term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings, but which of those 3 meanings Congress intended for the phrase "citizen of the United States" was not defined in that Act;

(b)  attempting to confuse "Citizens" with "citizens" was fraud in the first instance, specifically because it was fraud in the inducement, as defined in legal dictionaries e.g.: "the heart of this type of fraud is misleading parties
as to the facts upon which they will base their decision to act";


(c)  "United States" could never have meant the several (now 50) States of the Union, because the Supreme Court only 10 years earlier had explained in enormous detail that admitting black Americans into State Citizenship --
i.e. being "Citizens of ONE OF the States united" -- required a Constitutional Amendment;

(d)  "United States" could never have meant the nation, using a different legal meaning of that term, because Citizenship strictly speaking is a term of municipal law: Roa v. Collector;

(e)  there is only one possibility remaining: using a simple and straightforward process of elimination, "United States" in the term "citizen of the United States" must mean, and can ONLY refer to, the District of Columbia as the seat of municipal government for the entire federal zone;

(f)  subsequently deceiving the vast majority of succeeding generations of Americans to identify themselves as "citizens of the United States" was also fraud in the inducement, using devious propaganda such as claims that America is a "democracy" -- when the Guarantee Clause clearly requires a Republican Form of Government for the several (now 50) States;  democracies enjoy majority rule, whereas Republics enjoy the Rule of Law;

(g)  strictly construed as it should be, the Guarantee Clause does NOT require a Republican Form of Government for the federal zone e.g. D.C., so Congress was legally free to create a different form of government there, and so it has; the federal zone is an absolute legislative democracy, as confirmed by Justice Harlan's dissent in Downes v. Bidwell;

(h)  further along these same lines, the current population of federal citizens who now inhabit the 50 States of the Union are an absolute legislative democracy, by law, because their owe primary allegiance to a jurisdiction which is not protected by that Guarantee Clause, namely, D.C.;

(i)  nevertheless, when Congress expressly extended the entire Constitution into D.C. in 1871 -- specifically when it incorporated D.C. but NOT the "United States" as such -- it necessarily forced us to compare "United States", as that term occurs in the legal terms for each of 2 classes of citizens;  and, it also forced us to compare all occurrences of "Citizen" in the organic Constitution, with the widespread occurrences of the word "citizen" as originally authorized by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and by all subsequent Federal legislation e.g. Privacy Act, Internal Revenue Code, etc. ad nauseam;

(5)  accordingly, I believe we now have sufficient grounds for formally challenging the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, as being void for vagueness ab initio:  unconstitutionality dates from the moment of its enactment, not from any decision so branding that Act;

(6)  furthermore, we also have sufficient grounds for proposing the correct Constitutional Amendment now, which will need to add an enforcement clause like the one found in the Thirteenth Amendment, and ideally also a clause which expressly repeals the so-called Fourteenth Amendment with prejudice;

(7)  in conclusion, time and resources permitting, my office now intends to submit a formal PETITION to the U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives from Washington State, to sponsor the appropriate RESOLUTION for a vote in the House and Senate, to initiate the correct process for amending the Constitution as described above.


Thank you for your continuing interest in this ongoing saga.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Phil Sandy <philsndy@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul, these people must be delusional! We have to kick the bums out!
 
Respectfully in truth and liberty,
 
Phillip  Sandy       Patriot and one of the People of the Preamble and the Sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins US 118. 356

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

We're not being racist here:  Congress is!

re: 
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm  (recently published

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001982----000-.html

§ 1982. Property rights of citizens

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

[end quote]

What's the OBVIOUS implication to be drawn from the statute above?
Answer:  that "citizens of the United States" and "white citizens" are two different groups of human beings!



Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Your Common Law Traffic Default Docs. - fix for highlight problem
To: Phil Sandy <philsndy@gmail.com>
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>


>  when you declare your personal as well as political status as a sovereign the statutes, acts, ordinances, codes and all the mumbo jumbo they use as (word art) law, or should I say under the color of law doesn't apply to you. How can it unless you consent to it, as you are the source of law and not subject to it.


EXCELLENT SUMMARY, Phil.  FYI:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm  (recently published)

This is PARTICULARLY true whenever and wherever those statutes, acts, ordinances, codes and miscellaneous mumbo jumbo are really just Federal MUNICIPAL laws that apply ONLY inside the federal zone:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

... like Social Security:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif

... and the Federal Privacy Act:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552a.html

(2)
the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (both of whom are SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION OF THE CONGRESS)


BTW: same "individual" as in "U.S. Individual" on IRS Form 1040 (what a coincidence, yes?  :) and the same human beings for whom the IRS attempted to create a specific liability for Federal income taxes by means of a Regulation BUT WITHOUT AN ACT OF CONGRESS:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#b

BUT THAT WAS ILLEGAL!  See Commissioner v. Acker now:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Phil Sandy <philsndy@gmail.com> wrote:

This is the common law default I was mentioning, and will show the difference between being a 14th Amendment (c)itizen and a Sovereign American National. Pay particular attention to the case of Yick Woo v. Hopkins, US 118. 356. This clearly shows the facts that when you declare your personal as well as political status as a sovereign the statutes,acts, ordinances, codes and all the mumbo jumbo they use as (word art) law, or should I say under the color of law doesn't apply to you. How can it unless you consent to it, as you are the source of law and not subject to it. This set of documents cost me nearly one hundred dollars, yes I know they are just dollars but currently this is what we use as a barter value system so being that I have been laid off for several months , was quite expensive to me, but I pass it along to you all for free. I only ask that you pass it along to your email list of friends,family and co-workers so that they too may understand what it means to be sovereign.
 
Respectfully in truth and liberty,
 
Phillip Sandy            Patriot,and one of the People of the Preamble and the Sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins US 118. 356

March 6, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink