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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Vote Ron Paul News Update - February 4th, 2012 | Main | Problem in Pinellas re: Constitutional Convention,. »

Private Attorney General confronts Mario Apuzzo, Esquire. re: the Qualifications Clauses in the Constitution

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A327296&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
 
 
I started reading Apuzzo's analysis above, but immediately encountered so many errors, that I had to stop.
 
When I was doing the necessary research before writing "The Federal Zone," and before the Internet became widely available, it was very difficult and time-consuming to track down standing court cases which held that we have two (2) classes of citizens in America, not one class.  We've summarized those cases here:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm
 
The second class -- uniquely called "federal citizenship" -- did not even exist prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
 
This can only mean that all 3 Qualifications Clauses refer to the one and only primary class of State Citizens, namely, Citizens of ONE of the States united.  See People v. De La Guerra:  "United States" in these clauses means "States united".
 
Although Mr. Apuzzo makes a valiant attempt to appear scholarly in his article above, he does his readers a great disservice by confusing those two classes, and by failing to identify any errors in the decisions he cites.
 
Most dramatically, the so-called Fourteenth amendment was never properly ratified:  Dyett v. Turner (27 < 28 !!)
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett
 
Here is the proper and historically correct way to distinguish those two classes:
 
"Citizen of the United States" means State Citizen, i.e. Citizen of ONE OF the States united
"citizen of the United States" means federal citizen, i.e. citizen of the District of Columbia
 
Accordingly, he leaves his readers almost totally incapable of deciphering what Apuzzo, and the Courts he cites, really do mean when they persist in using the term "citizen parents" -- citizens of WHAT, please?
 
Things get even muddier when Apuzzo repeats the vague phrase "born in the United States".
 
It doesn't help Apuzzo's argument that the Supreme Court has now defined "United States" to have three (3) different legal meanings, each different from the other two.  Hooven & Allison v. Evatt.  Thus, "born in the United States" must have three different meanings too!
 
Because the three Qualifications Clauses refer to the one and only primary class of State Citizens, it necessarily follows that both parents would need to be State Citizens for their offspring to be eligible for the Office of President.
 
This conclusion necessarily follows from the fact that only one class of State Citizens existed when the Qualifications Clauses were being drafted.  See Pannill v. Roanoke for a ruling that is definitive, and dispositive, on this key point:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill
 
 
But, I have come to suspect that licensed attorneys in America remain as brainwashed as the "robes" they envy, because they cannot seem to rid themselves of this false and rebuttable myth that we presently have only one class of citizens in America.
 
If you are interested in pursuing these details much further, please have a look here:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
 
Summary:
Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in the Dred Scott decision solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body.  Instead of proposing the correct constitutional amendment, Congress attempted to bypass Article V by creating a second class of federal citizens intended for black Americans who were recently freed by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

From: Phil Holtz <philholtz54@yahoo.com>
To: PAUL MITCHELL <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 8:17 AM
Subject: Fw: Check out "ALL THAT IS WRONG WITH GEORGIA STATE JUDGE MALIHI'S DECISION - By Mario Apuzzo, Esq." on Constitutional Emergency

 

 
 
Twana Blevins
Check out the discussion 'ALL THAT IS WRONG WITH GEORGIA STATE JUDGE MALIHI'S DECISION - By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.'

Discussion posted by Harry Riley:

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi‚Äôs Decision that Putative President                                            ...

Discussion link:
ALL THAT IS WRONG WITH GEORGIA STATE JUDGE MALIHI'S DECISION - By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

About Constitutional Emergency
This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Constitutional Emergency 5445 members
6784 photos
2539 videos
7571 discussions
170 Events
9153 blog posts

February 4, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink