Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

Citizen of California State and

Private Attorney General

c/o General Delivery

Na’alehu [ZIP code exempt]

HAWAII, USA

 

In Propria Persona

 

Under Protest and

by Special Visitation

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], )  Case No. 97-2099-MNST

                                ) 

          Plaintiff [sic]/      )  USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65

          Appellees,            ) 

     v.                         ) 

                                ) 

EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic],    ) 

                                ) 

          Defendant [sic]/      ) 

          Appellant.            ) 

________________________________) 

                                ) 

Everett C. Gilbertson,          )  DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65

                                ) 

          Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO

                                )  NOTICE OF INTENT TO

     v.                         )  PETITION SUPREME COURT FOR

                                )  PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

United States,                  )  In Re APPLICATION FOR

James M. Rosenbaum,             )  INTERVENTION OF RIGHT

and Does 2-99,                  )

                                )

          Respondents.          )

________________________________)

                                )

People of the United States     )

of America ex relatione         )

Paul Andrew Mitchell,           )

                                )

          Petitioners.          )

________________________________)


COME NOW the People of the United States of America (hereinafter "Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of California State, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"), Federal Witness, Counselor at Law, and Private Attorney General (hereinafter "Relator"), to submit this, Petitioners' FIRST SUPPLEMENT to Their NOTICE of specific intent to apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to compel this honorable Court to rule on Petitioners' previously filed APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY RIGHT in the instant case.

 

CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED THE CONSTITUTION

TO D.C. AND TO THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES

In Petitioners' previously filed NOTICE OF INTENT, mandatory judicial notice was thereby respectfully requested by this Court of 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871), to wit:

 

"... [A]nd the Constitution and all the laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the District of Columbia as elsewhere within the United States."  [bold emphasis added]

 

"To put to rest all doubts concerning the applicability of the constitution to the District, congress in 1871 specifically extended it thereto [citing Downes v. Bidwell;  16 Stat. 419, 426;  Curry v. D.C., 14 App. (D.C.) 423]."

 

[18 C.J. 1358, Sec. 11;  notes 93, 93[a]]

 

WAS THIS STATUTE EVER REPEALED?

After discovering said statute (hereinafter "extension statute"), Petitioners were confronted by allegations that it was subsequently repealed, as part of a comprehensive revision of numerous federal laws which occurred in The Revised Statutes of the United States, dated December 1, 1873 (hereinafter "R.S.")

Petitioners have investigated these allegations and have confirmed that they are false.  What follows is an exposition of the evidence proving that 16 Stat. 419 at 426 was never repealed.

In Title LXXIV of the R.S., Section 5596 reads as follows:

 

... and all acts of Congress passed prior to said last-named day [Dec. 1, 1873] no part of which are embraced in said revision, shall not be affected or changed by its enactment.

 

[R.S., Section 5596, 18 Stat. 1085, Part 1]

[Dec. 1, 1873, brackets added for clarity]

 

No part of the extension statute is embraced by the R.S. and, therefore, the extension statute is not affected or changed whatsoever by enactment of the R.S.

This conclusion is supported by careful examination of the R.S. sections which correspond to the seat of government, including the public buildings.  In Title XXI of the R.S., Sections 1795 thru 1835 inclusive, there is no mention whatsoever of any statute(s) repealing, or modifying, the extension statute.  See R.S. at 18 Stat. 319 thru 323, Part 1, Dec. 1, 1873.

Further evidence that Congress never intended to repeal the extension statute is found in a similar statute which expressly extended the U.S. Constitution to all federal Territories, present and future.  The heading and body of the following R.S. section are found on separate pages of the Statutes at Large.

First, the heading reads:

 

1891.  Constitution and laws of United States

       made applicable to all the Territories

 

Second, the body reads:

 

1891.  The Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within all the organized Territories, and in every Territory hereafter organized as elsewhere within the United States.

[R.S., Sec. 1891, 18 Stat. 325, 333]

[bold emphasis added]

 

The margin notes for Section 1891 expressly reiterate the purpose of this second extension statute, to wit:

 

Constitution and laws of United States made applicable to all the Territories

 

[R.S., Sec. 1891, 18 Stat. 333, Dec. 1, 1873]

 

PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT OF UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS

This Court of Appeals has recently issued a ruling in Anastasoff v. United States of America, No. 99-3917-EM, filed August 22, 2000, which held that Rule 28A(i) is unconstitutional, insofar as it limits the precedential effect of this Court’s prior decisions.

Although Relator was never notified or properly served with this Court’s decision in the instant appeal, Relator did happen to discover recently that said decision was UNPUBLISHED [sic].

Petitioners now have even more reasons to intervene, because this Court’s decision in the instant appeal wrongly concluded that the Internal Revenue Code is not vague.

Such a decision is bad precedent, and should be reversed.


CONCLUSIONS

Congress expressly extended the U.S. Constitution to the District of Columbia in 1871, and to all federal Territories in 1873.  Despite a comprehensive revision of many federal laws on December 1, 1873, the 1871 extension statute was never repealed.  The conclusion, therefore, is that the U.S. Constitution binds all Acts of Congress within the District of Columbia, within all the federal Territories, and within all of their respective political subdivisions.  Moreover, even though a federal statute is municipal in scope, it is still unconstitutional if it is demonstrably vague for violating the “void for vagueness” test established by published precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Dated:  October 14, 2000 A.D.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

_______________________________________________

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator,

Citizen of California State, Federal Witness,

Counselor at Law, and Private Attorney General

 

All Petitioners' Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 


PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

 

FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION SUPREME COURT

FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

In Re APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:

 

Attorney General                   James M. Rosenbaum

Department of Justice              United States District Court

10th & Constitution, N.W.          300 South Fourth Street

Washington [ZIP code exempt]       Minneapolis [ZIP code exempt]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA               MINNESOTA STATE

 

Solicitor General                  Henry Shea

Department of Justice              United States Attorneys

10th & Constitution, N.W.          300 South Fourth Street

Washington [ZIP code exempt]       Minneapolis [ZIP code exempt]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA               MINNESOTA STATE

 

Courtesy copies to:

 

William H. Rehnquist, C.J.         Clarence Thomas, J.

U.S. Supreme Court                 U.S. Supreme Court

One First Street N.E.              One First Street N.E.

Washington [ZIP code exempt]       Washington [ZIP code exempt]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA               DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.   Alex Kozinski (supervising)

Private Attorney General on record Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

c/o General Delivery               125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200

Na’alehu [ZIP code exempt]         Pasadena [ZIP code exempt]

HAWAII STATE                       CALIFORNIA STATE

 

Speaker of the House               President of the Senate

House of Representatives           United States Senate

Washington [ZIP code exempt]       Washington [ZIP code exempt]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA               DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

 

[See USPS Publication 221 for addressing instructions.]


Dated:  October 14, 2000 A.D.

 

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

_______________________________________________

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator,

Citizen of California State, Federal Witness,

Counselor at Law, and Private Attorney General

 

All Petitioners' Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

 

Webmaster’s comment:

 

See “Taking Judicial Notice,” by Robert V. Pambianco,

Chief Policy Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation