FORMAL NOTICE OF CLASS DISCRIMINATION
IN THE GRAND JUROR ELIGIBILITY STATUTE
TO: Office of the Jury Commissioner
Superior Court of California
P.O. Box 121531
San Diego 92112
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of California, Damaged Party
DATE: June 19, 2004 A.D.
SUBJECT: California Penal Code section 893(a)(1)
exhibits prohibited discrimination
Greetings Jury Commissioner:
I am writing to lodge this formal complaint against the grand juror eligibility statute at section 893(a)(1) of the Penal Code.
Please note, from the exhaustive research and litigation enclosed, that we have two (2) classes of citizens in America, not one (1). These two classes are legally identified as:
(1) Citizens of the United States aka State Citizens; and,
(2) citizens of the United States aka federal citizens
Also, because the so-called Fourteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, there is no constitutional authority for the proposition that federal citizens are necessarily also Citizens of the State in which they reside. See Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).
Please also see the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, as cited and quoted in the attached, that federal citizens were not even contemplated when Article III of the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D. This holding is definitive and dispositive on this particular point of fact and Law.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that class discrimination in jury selection is unconstitutional and therefore prohibited by Law. See Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950); Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 (1945); and Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939).
Specifically, an intentional discrimination against a class of Persons, solely because of their class, by officers in charge of the selection and summoning of grand or petit jurors, is a violation of the fundamental Rights of Citizens.
Moreover, such a violation is not excused by the fact that the persons actually selected for jury service otherwise possess the necessary qualifications for jurors, as prescribed by statute. See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460 (1961).
If this problem now comes as a surprise to you, the best way to understand the problem is to study the decision in U.S. v. Cruikshank. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that we have in this country a federal government, and we have governments of each of the 50 States. Each of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own (hence 51 separate jurisdictions).
Many people are deceived into believing that federal citizenship is a political body that spans the entire nation. We have now proven that such deception is intentional. But, just as we have a federal government and not a “national” government, similarly there is no such thing as “national” citizenship in America.
Federal citizenship, strictly speaking, is a federal municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia. See Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885) and Roa v. Collector, 23 Philippine 315 332 (1912). Confer at “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
Accordingly, it necessarily follows that Mr. Thomas E. McCarthy was not the Foreman of a lawfully convened grand jury at any time during the preceding twelve (12) calendar months. Consequently any actions taken by him were lacking in authority because a panel of exclusively federal citizens is not, and can not be, a lawful grand jury.
I trust that you will take prompt and appropriate steps to correct this unconstitutional discrimination against the very same Persons who are qualified to serve in the Congress of the United States and in the Office of President of the United States of America.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
copy: Sgt. Martinez, Court Services Bureau, County Sheriffs
other law enforcement and Superior Court personnel
Marcia Gravette Jespersen
enclosure: George W. Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board,
with all incorporated Exhibits