ih`
...The following is some info that was brought into question in another blog, and I felt it warranted posting it here rather than having several replies in that other blog, considering the length of the content.
...Well here it is, I found it rather interesting considering I have been already learning about state vs. national citizenship and the like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:00:19 -0800
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" ..
To: pc
Subject:
More Re: [ronpaul-48] so does this mean mccain has the right to be
president?
What a large number of Americans still do not know
is that we have two (2) classes of citizens in America,
not one (1):
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htmThe case of Pannill v. Roanoke is particularly pertinent,
and dispositive, because it held that federal citizens
were not even contemplated when Article III was first
being drafted:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill>
The implications of the Pannill case are very far-reaching,
chiefly because that key holding is historically correct.
Because Arizona's voter registration application requires
that all applicants verify, under penalty of perjury, that they
are federal citizens, McCain's application can be used
as admissible evidence proving that he is a federal citizen,
NOT a State Citizen aka Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sanmarco/complain.htm#one
-ofMoreover, State Citizens are prohibited by Arizona State law
from registering to vote. If they are not also federal citizens,
they commit an act of perjury by executing that application
"under penalty of perjury". I was a Citizen of Arizona
during the 1996 Presidential Election, and I was barred
from voting in that Election:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/azvmitch/voting/Also, the term "United States" means "States united"
in all the Qualifications Clauses: People v. De La Guerra.
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/quals.htma>
Federal citizenship was first created by the 1866 Civil Rights Act:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/Because the Qualifications Clauses have never been amended,
the Qualification Clause for President requires that all candidates
be Citizens of ONE OF the United States of America,
i.e. Citizen of ONE OF the States united = State Citizen
born in one of the several States of the Union.
All of this means that federal citizens are who are not also
State Citizens are not eligible to occupy the Office of President.
One last thing: there is no constitutional authority for the
proposition that federal citizens are also Citizens of the
any State in which they may "reside".
The latter statement may be the most difficult for many
to accept, particularly anyone who thinks we are "insulting
their intelligence" -- when we definitely are not consciously
trying to do so.
Nevertheless, 27 has always been less than 28, and
the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified.
See Dyett v. Turner:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyet
tMaybe they are the ones trying to insult my intelligence instead,
e.g. by asking me to believe that 27 equals 28!!
If John McCain is a federal citizen, as evidenced by his voter
registration affidavit, that is another reason why he is not eligible to occupy the office of President, quite apart from his birth outside the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government).
Having been born in Panama, he is not a "natural born Citizen"
i.e. State Citizen born in ONE OF the 50 States of the Union,
as that term occurs at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
in the Constitution for the United States of America:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:
1:5No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President ....
I do think it is fair to say that my office has done
more research, and litigation, on these subjects
than any other lawyer anywhere in the USA, be they
government attorneys or private Bar-licensed attorneys.
For proof of this last sentence, please see "The Federal Zone"
here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/and the extensive litigation which has utilized
the fundamental findings documented in that book.
Thank you.
p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htmSincerely 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.htmCriminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
