Teknosis: Constitution, citizens, and the united states; an interview with Paul Andrew Mitchell

« LIBERTY DOLLAR NEWS: September 2013 Vol. 15 No. 09 | Main | Jesse Ventura Piers Morgan FULL Interview. Government Shutdown To JFK Assassination »

Constitution, citizens, and the united states; an interview with Paul Andrew Mitchell

Update:

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

Blowing Whistles at Hurricanes
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/05/blowing-whistles-at-hurricanes-from-44202086-modeleski-mitchell-paul-unit-set-d-c-given-name-also-a-.html

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE : 28 U.S.C. 1654; and, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / (“SEALED”) Case No. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 [sic] (“ICCPR”)
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/notice-of-motion-and-motion-to-strike-28-usc-1654-and-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-.html

___

Interview w/ Paul Andrew Mitchell. So much for Wikipedia and RationalWiki. ".. the feds are trying to morph the entire country from a Constitutional Republic to a legislative Democracy."

Paul Andrew Mitchell: Notes and Resources

Many thanks to Randy Maugans, OffPlanetRadio.com

for the wonderful discussion on his Internet radio program

this evening: http://www.offplanetradio.com

> provide your winning BRIEF – to Dist. Ct. Calif- that was dismissed

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/oppososc.htm

(names were changed, to protect the privacy of families)

Later, Vaughn R. Walker turned up withOUT a license to practice law:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm

(scroll down to “walker.vaughn”)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/walker.vaughn/state.bar.record.htm

> the UTAH case “DIATT” ???? re: citizenship history, etc

Dyett v. Turner:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett

See also the 2 Law Review articles linked in Footnote (8).

And, there is much more on the failed 14th “amendment” here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/

You’re very welcome!

–

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

Following are some base lines for the show with Paul Andrew Mitchell”

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/maugans/Questions.htm

Why didn’t the 1866 Civil Rights Act operate as a Group Naturalization Law

for blacks freed by the 13th Amendment?

Hi Randy,

I’m anticipating that at least one of your listeners may call in

to ask this very pivotal question:

Why didn’t the 1866 Civil Rights Act operate as a Group Naturalization Law

for blacks freed by the 13th Amendment?

Clearly, because of the holding in the Dred Scott decision,

a proper constitutional amendment was needed, and

Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in that decision

solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by the Congress.

So, why wasn’t the 13th Amendment sufficient when taken

together with the 1866 Civil Rights Act?

I think it’s fair to say that the 13th Amendment did not confer

citizenship of any kind: it merely prohibited slavery and

involuntary servitude.

So, I tend to agree with the Radical Republicans who argued

that additional laws were needed to confer citizenship on

blacks who were freed by that Amendment.

Can’t the 1866 Civil Rights Act be regarded as a kind of “group naturalization” law?

This is an excellent question, for many reasons.

First and foremost, Congress has always had the power

to enact uniform rules of naturalization. The very first

Naturalization Act was enacted by Congress in 1790.

Let’s say that, instead of the exact language that

Congress wrote into the 1866 Civil Rights Act,

Congress made its intent crystal clear as follows:

(1) free blacks can become State Citizens

by either registering to vote, or by applying

for a CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION

with the nearest State court of general jurisdiction

or with any Federal court of general jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the combination of the 13th Amendment

and such a group naturalization law might have been

sufficient to confer State Citizenship upon all blacks

freed by that crucial Amendment.

This is obviously speculation, and the need for a

another Amendment would either have been

confirmed by subsequent litigation, or

subsequent litigation might have declared

another Amendment legally unnecessary.

Now, let’s go back to the original question:

why did the 1866 Civil Rights Act NOT operate

as a group naturalization law?

I believe the real answer to that question

is to be found in the real intent of Congress

in passing that law.

Some people even today still argue that

changing UPPER-CASE “C” to lower-case “c”

had no particular legal significance and

that everybody knows what “United States” means.

The “real intent” of Congress became painfully obvious

immediately after Congress proposed the 14th amendment.

The language of that proposal clearly reveals

the intent of Congress to recognize two (2)

distinct classes of citizens, the second of

which was intended to operate as a “franchise”

with the District of Columbia.

This conclusion is strongly supported by the

section of that proposal which amounts to a

SECOND privileges and immunities clause.

If Congress has truly intended to confer

State Citizenship upon all freed blacks,

there would have been no need for a

second privileges and immunities clause,

because the organic Constitution already

had a Privileges and Immunities Clause

for State Citizens!

Then, consider all of the horrible machinations that

ensued while State Legislatures were deciding to ratify

or not ratify the 14th amendment proposal.

The Southern States initially voted NO,

while the Northern States were voting YES.

Then, the Northern States got wise and

changed their votes to NO.

Finally, under duress of another military invasion

and military occupation, those Southern States

that had voted NO initially were forced –

at the point of a bayonet — to change their votes to YES.

It was the re-invasion of the Southern States,

under color of the Reconstruction Acts,

which really tipped the hand and revealed

the real intent of Congress.

And, despite all of that extra turmoil

– after the Civil War had ended –

and the twisted way in which only YES votes

were counted by the Secretary of State,

there were STILL only 27 YES votes.

These crucial historical details are recited

in Dyett v. Turner, which is a MUST READ

for anyone who wishes to study this problem

seriously .

Let’s spend some time during the interview going over some of those details: this may be the very FIRST time that your listening audience has ever heard this shocking story!!

If a State voted YES initially and changed its vote to NO after

comprehending the real intent of Congress in proposing the 14th amendment,

the Secretary of State counted that as a YES vote!

If a State voted NO initially and then changed its vote to YES

under duress of a military re-invasion and military occupation,

the Secretary of State also counted that as a YES vote!!

But, even counting in this crazy and fraudulent manner,

there were STILL only 27 YES votes.

For now, REMEMBER THIS: 27 does not equal 28,

it never has and it never will!

After Nebraska joined the Union, the Secretary of State declared

that 28 States were needed to ratify the so-called 14th amendment.