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

Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: "Is the Federal Government Supreme?" by Bob Greenslade at Tenth Amendment Center

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:23 PM Subject: Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Is the Federal Government
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 18, 2013

      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:23 PM
      Subject: Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: "Is the Federal Government Supreme?" by Bob Greenslade at Tenth Amendment Center



      I think your essay is begging the question ...

      The Federal government does have exclusive jurisdiction over D.C.
      and over all such Federal "enclaves" pursuant to 1:8:17, and
      it also has plenary, municipal jurisdiction over all Federal Territories
      and Possessions pursuant to the Territory Clause at 4:3:2:


      Thus, the power to exercise EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over Federal enclaves (like D.C.),
      Territories and Possessions IS DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES
      (meaning the Federal government, in this context).

      Inside those areas, which we have collectively called
      the "federal zone", there are no State Legislatures,
      no State Governors, and no State Courts
      (where "State" means a Union member, or
      a star on the American flag).

      Congress is the local, municipal Legislature for
      all areas within that federal zone:  Congress is
      the "City Hall" everywhere inside that zone.

      Now, federal citizens are, by definition, subject to Federal
      MUNICIPAL laws, regardless of where they may "reside",
      notwithstanding the failed Fourteenth "amendment":

      the laws which Congress enacts for the District of Columbia
      are being applied to those federal citizens because they are,
      by definition, SUBJECT TO those laws, whether they like it or not:

      The Federal UCC is a classic example -- enacted EXPRESSLY for D.C.:


      Call them "long-arm statutes",  call them whatever you want;
      by reason of their primary allegiance to the legislative "democracy"
      which Congress was free to create for the federal zone, federal citizens
      are SUBJECT TO that MUNICIPAL jurisdiction, first and foremost
      EVEN IF they inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union:


      Social Security is another such Federal MUNICIPAL law,
      and "legal experts" in 2 Federal government offices
      have confirmed that "State" at IRC 3121(e) includes
      ONLY D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and
      Puerto Rico:


      Read "their words / not mine!"

      Now, if I understand your essay correctly, Congress is "supreme"
      inside the federal zone
      , and all federal citizens owe their
      primary allegiance to that jurisdiction because they are
      exercising a Federal municipal franchise:


           The people  of the  United States***, as sovereign owners of
           the national  territories, have  supreme power over them and
           their inhabitants.  ... The personal and civil rights of the
           inhabitants of  the territories  are secured  to them, as to
           other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty,
           which restrain  all the  agencies of  government, state  and
           national;   their political rights are franchises which they
           hold as  privileges in  the legislative  discretion  of  the
           congress of  the United  States**.   This doctrine was fully
           and forcibly  declared by  the chief justice, delivering the
           opinion of  the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton,
           101 U.S. 129.
                                 [Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]
                                  [italics in original, emphasis added]

      If you don't want to attach my name to any of the above,
      then at least recognize Murphy v. Ramsey was decided in 1885 --
      again "their words / not mine".

      I added the asterisks easily to distinguish the three (3) definitions
      of "United States" that are found in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt
      decided in 1945 (during World War II, when people were probably
      distracted with lots of other things, like Stalin's atrocities, Iwo Jima,
      D-Day, nuclear war, or the bail-outs at Yalta):


      What I don't understand is why the "experts" at the Tenth Amendment Center
      persist in failing to elucidate this basic distinction between Federal jurisdiction
      and the 50 State jurisdictions: 

      That distinction is as old as the organic Constitution itself!


      Therefore, please tell us:  why is it not FRAUD to persist in concealing this all important distinction?

      I'm not trying to be difficult or insulting, but it IS time to call it the way I see it.

      "The Federal Zone" (book) has been in circulation since 1992.

      FYI: Lots of additional reading here on the two (2) classes of citizenship in America:

      http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm  (+ all links at the end)

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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

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