FORMAL PETITION TO AMEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
March 10, 2010 A.D.
Hon. Xavier Becerra
Member of Congress
1910 Sunset Blvd., Suite 810
Los Angeles 90026
CALIFORNIA, USA
Greetings Rep. Becerra:
As an associate of the Supreme Law Firm in good standing, we jointly submit our Formal Petition to the Congress of the United States, to forward a proper Resolution to the 50 State Legislatures promptly proposing the following article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, in full compliance with Article V of that Constitution:
Section 1. 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 of the Union on account of race, color or previous condition of
servitude.
Section 2. The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is hereby repealed with prejudice.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
We have attached a meaningful sampling of research and litigation which the Supreme Law Firm has performed in connection with the relevant history and pertinent laws now in existence. For your convenience and ready access, the Supreme Law Firm maintains a full set of related documents on the Internet (see links below).
We are quite satisfied that a
major fraud was committed against all succeeding generations by the devious
language and fraudulent intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D. Cf.
“fraud in the inducement” in law dictionaries.
Accordingly, in harmony with our
qualified Private Attorney General, with authority to represent the United
States (Federal government) legally in all American Courts, we hereby also notify
you formally of our intent to challenge the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil
Rights Act. We offer to prove that said
Act is void for vagueness ab initio, and
specifically for violating the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Dred Scott v. Sandford,
60 U.S. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691
(1856), as later elaborated in Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit:
Congress
... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone
it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that
power can be lawfully exercised.
The pertinent court authorities we have already investigated did hold that unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment, not from any decision so branding the Act in question. See 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177.
Thank you, Representative, for your professional consideration and for your timely and appropriate actions in reply to this FORMAL PETITION.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Rev. Fr. Prisco E. Entines
Rev. Fr. Prisco E. Entines, Sui Juris
Citizen of California (expressly not a federal citizen)
U.S. Mail:
Rev. Fr. Prisco E. Entines
419 N. Mountain View
Ave. #207
Los Angeles 90026
CALIFORNIA, USA
Attachments:
“Citizenship for Dummies,” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (3/4/2010), Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
(see also all links at end)
“Author’s Comments Clarifying ‘Citizenship for Dummies’,” URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice