Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Private Attorney General comments re: "States Can Tell Feds to Shove It," by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) (1/25/2010)

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    Many thanks, Robert, for your kind words below ... See also my recent exchange with author Michael LeMieux on this very same subject:
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Many thanks, Robert, for your kind words below ...

      See also my recent exchange with author Michael LeMieux
      on this very same subject:

      http://www.newswithviews.com/ LeMieux/michael108.htm

      Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:59 AM
      Subject: Re: constitutiondenied.com-Form Submission
      To: Michael LeMieux <author@...>

      Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@...>


      Many thanks, Michael.

      You have entered into a discussion of what we believe is one of
      THE most important frauds ever to originate in the CON-gress
      of the United States.

      [IQ Test for Senators and Representatives:  What are the first three letters of "Congress"?]


      Just a few more points to help clarify -- and synchronize --
      the debate on this all important issue:

      (1)  "Citizen" is consistently spelled with an UPPER-CASE "C"
      in the organic (organizing) version of the U.S. Constitution,
      before the Bill of Rights was ratified:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mitchell/quals.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ whuscons/18stat18.gif
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ whuscons/18stat23.gif
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ whuscons/18stat24.gif
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ whuscons/18stat26.gif


      (2)  "citizen" is consistently spelled with a lower-case "c"
      in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and in the so-called
      14th amendment [sic]:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ 1866cra/
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ 1866cra/1866.cra.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ whuscons/whuscons.htm#14th- amend


      (3)  the problem identified in the Dred Scott decision
      could have been easily rectified, as directed by
      Chief Justice Taney, by amending the Constitution
      as follows:

      "The status of Citizen of one of the United States of America
      shall not be denied, or abridged, by the United States
      or by any State, on account of race."

      This qualifier -- one of -- also occurs in key places in the
      historical record e.g.:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ sanmarco/complain.htm#one-of


      (4)  note the careful wording above, which clearly intends to
      distinguish "United States of America" from "United States":
      this distinction is maintained in Federal statutes even today;
      [however] the term "United States" in those Qualifications Clauses
      means "States united":  People v. De La Guerra
      see also 28 U.S.C. 1746:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/ 31answers.htm#Q16  (explained here)
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/28/1746.html
      (latter is the ONLY place in Title 28 where "USA" occurs)


      (5)  even if it had been properly ratified -- which it was NOT --
      Courts have ruled that the so-called Fourteenth amendment was merely
      declaratory of existing law -- that "existing law" being the 1866 Civil Rights Act;


      (6)  that Act is demonstrably void for vagueness for attempting
      to confuse "Citizens" and "citizens", and by failing to define
      "United States" as it should have been defined -- i.e.
      to refer to Congress acting in its capacity as the Legislature
      for the federal zone, where Congress has EXCLUSIVE
      legislative jurisdiction: (7)  as such, even if it is constitutional (which is entirely doubtful),
      the 1866 Civil Rights Act was, and still is, Federal MUNICIPAL law,
      limited in its territorial reach to D.C., Federal Territories and
      Possessions, and all Federal enclaves, but NOT within any of
      the several (now 50) States of the Union;


      (8)  the existence of two (2) classes of citizens can even be
      inferred from the very language of the so-called Fourteenth amendment:
      note well that a second "privileges and immunities" clause
      would NOT have been required if State Citizenship had been
      conferred upon all black slaves freed by the Thirteenth Amendment,
      because as State Citizens they would have been automatically protected
      by the organic Privileges and Immunities Clause [4:2:1]:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:2:1


      (9)  the real (dead?) giveaway in the so-called Fourteenth amendment
      is Section 4:  the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned:
      WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP
      OF EITHER CLASS UPON FREED BLACKS?  ANSWER:  NOTHING!!

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/lyon/tdocws.htm
      (only one error [I could find] in this essay:  "USA" is not a corporation)


      (10)  when all is said and done, the vague term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
      in Section 1 means "subject to the MUNICIPAL jurisdiction of the Congress":

      http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/ 31answers.htm#Q6


      Conclusions:  both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the so-called
      Fourteenth amendment were unconstitutional ab initio.
      Unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment,
      not from any decision so branding the Acts in question:


      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett  (27 < 28:  always has been!!!)

           In order  to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment,
      it was  necessary to  count those states which had first rejected
      and then  under the  duress of  military occupation had ratified,
      and then  also to count those states which initially ratified but
      subsequently rejected the proposal.
           To leave  such dishonest  counting to  a fractional  part of
      Congress is  dangerous in  the extreme.  What is  to prevent  any
      political party  having control  of both  houses of Congress from
      refusing to  seat the  opposition and then without more passing a
      joint resolution  to the  effect that the Constitution is amended
      and that  it is  the duty  of the  Administrator of  the  General
      Services Administration (7) to proclaim  the adoption?  Would the
      Supreme Court  of the  United States  still say  the problem  was
      political  and   refuse  to   determine  whether   constitutional
      standards had been met?
           How can  it be  conceived in  the minds  of  anyone  that  a
      combination of  powerful states can by force of arms deny another
      state a  right to  have representation  in Congress  until it has
      ratified an  amendment which its people  oppose?  The  Fourteenth
      Amendment was  adopted by  means almost  as bad as that suggested
      above.



      http://www.supremelaw.org/ fedzone11/htm/chaptr10.htm


                  The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose;  since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be[,] had the statute not been enacted.

       

                  Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ....

       

                  A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

       

                  No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.

       

      [16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, emphasis added]


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

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



      From: Robert-Garvin: Moore <robertgarvin@...>
      To: paulandrewmitchell2004@...
      Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 1:56:42 PM
      Subject: Private Attorney General comments re: "States Can Tell Feds to Shove It," by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) (1/25/2010)

      Excellent job Paul!

      //Robert//


       

      ----- Forwarded Message ----

      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
      To: sheriffmack@...
      Cc: Henry Makow <henry@...>; SupremeLaw <supremelaw@...>
      Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 8:59:28 AM
      Subject: Private Attorney General comments re: "States Can Tell Feds to Shove It," by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) (1/25/2010)

      http://www.henrymakow.com/the_states_can_tell_the_feds_t.html

      Greetings Richard and Henry:

      I do appreciate the positive sentiments and pertinent authorities which you documented
      in this recent essay entitled "States Can Tell Feds to Shove it".

      Congratulations!  I believe that all Americans need to study that excellent piece.

      I do wish you had taken the next step after citing Article I, Section 8:
      the Clause at 1:8:17 is a very important key to understanding
      why the Republic is devolved into near extinction, of late:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:17
      ("exclusive" here means no State jurisdiction whatsoever)

      And, this key Clause is THE reason why D.C. cannot join the Union
      without a Constitutional Amendment expressly permitting it to do so.


      If you will take the time to review the articles we have authored and
      assembled concerning the failed Fourteenth amendment [sic]
      and the ugly legal consequences of its historical aftermath,
      it shouldn't be too difficult for men of your intelligence
      to see how all of the following have served to empower the Feds and
      to dis-empower the States and their Citizens (UPPER-CASE "C"):

      (1)  federal citizenship is a Federal MUNICIPAL franchise
      domiciled in D.C.;

      (2)  there was only one class of State Citizens prior to the Civil War,
      and thus prior to 1866;

      (3)  the 1866 Civil Rights Act originally created federal citizenship,
      and it too was Federal MUNICIPAL law:  it could not and did not amend
      any of the Qualifications Clauses which mention State Citizens ONLY;
      in point of fact, those Clauses have never been amended;

      (4)  similarly, the "Citizens" mentioned in the Arising Under Clause and
      in the Privileges and Immunities Clause were likewise State Citizens ONLY
      (there was only one class of State Citizens between 1788 and 1866);

      (5)  without belaboring any of the other important historical details,
      it is now clear that the population of federal citizens who inhabit
      the 50 States are an absolute legislative democracy that is domiciled in D.C.;

      (6)  federal citizens owe their allegiance to a jurisdiction which is
      not protected by the Guarantee Clause;  strictly construed
      as it should be, that Guarantee Clause only guarantees
      a Republic Form of Government to the 50 States,
      NOT to the "United States" (federal government) read "D.C.";

      (7)  the consequences of this fraudulent scheme have been numerous,
      far-reaching and long-lasting, e.g.:

      (a)  presently only federal citizens can vote and serve on juries,
      whether grand juries or trial juries, whether criminal or civil juries;

      (b)  only State Citizens can serve in the House, Senate or White House
      (remember here:  the Qualifications Clauses have never been amended:
      as such, they retain today the meaning they had when they were
      first ratified on June 21, 1788 -- my birthday, by the way :)

      (c)  therefore, those who are qualified to be federal lawmakers
      cannot vote or serve on any juries -- State or federal, civil or criminal,
      grand or petit juries!

      (d)  those who are eligible to vote and serve on juries
      are not qualified to be federal lawmakers [or to serve in the White House];

      (8)  this obviously twisted situation has already been well documented
      in litigation, e.g. see these documents, for starters:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm  (and all links at the end)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/before.and.after.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/bohica.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/letter.to.consul.general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/votingaz.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/jurychal.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/usdc/staydcus.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-y.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett  (27 < 28 -- always has been, always will be!)


      Now you know why the Feds persist in harping on "democracy in America":
      in doing so, they are using false propaganda to perpetuate a majority
      of federal citizens who presently populate the 50 States, while doing
      everything within their power to ignore the State Citizens who also
      inhabit those same 50 States.


      Keep up the good work!



      --
      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


      --

       


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.