Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris c/o general delivery San Marcos [ZIP code exempt] TEXAS STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved, without prejudice At Law DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS STATE HAYS COUNTY Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Case No. CV-98-0547 ) Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT ) FOR DECLARATORY AND v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: ) City of San Marcos, ) Supremacy Clause; San Marcos Utility, ) Privileges and Immunities Community Action, Inc. ) Clause; Ninth and Tenth of Hays, Caldwell, & ) Amendments; Universal Blanco Counties, ) Declaration of Human Rights; Century Telephone, Inc., ) International Covenant on and Does 1 thru 25, ) Civil and Political Rights, ) enacted with Reservations; Defendants. ) Texas state Constitution ) _________________________) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona state, Federal Witness, Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General, and Candidate for the United States ("U.S.") House of Representatives, currently inhabiting Hays county in Texas state ("Plaintiff"), to petition this honorable Court for relief in the following sequence: Phase I: immediate preliminary injunctions; Phase II: declaratory relief from a competent and qualified jury; Phase III: all other lawful relief which this Court deems just and proper, the latter to include but is not necessarily limited to, permanent injunctions against certain named parties; actual, consequential, exemplary damages and costs resulting directly or indirectly from Defendants' deprivations, and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff, of His fundamental Rights to liberty, to privacy, to freedom of religious belief, to freedom of expression, to work for a living, and to avoid voluntary federal programs ("Right of Avoidance"). Said Rights are guaranteed to Plaintiff: by the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution"); by treaties enacted pursuant to the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, including specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration"), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the latter with specific Reservations by the U.S. Congress ("Covenant"); and by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the State of Texas ("Texas state Constitution"). JURISDICTION This Court has original jurisdiction over this case by virtue of the Texas state Constitution, and also the specific Reservations which Congress attached to the Covenant in the Document of Ratification of the International Covenant ("Ratification Document"). Article II, Section 5, of the Ratification Document reads as follows: (5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant. INITIAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff complains that Defendants violated the prohibitions found in 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 242, and in Texas state criminal statutes, which specifically prohibit extortion, false arrest, false imprisonment, deprivation of Plaintiff's fundamental Rights, and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff's fundamental Rights to liberty, to privacy, to freedom of expression, to freedom of religious belief, to work for a living, and to avoid voluntary federal programs. Said Rights are also enumerated, in part or in full, in the two Human Rights Treaties itemized supra. Plaintiff's AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE is hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein and filed concurrently herewith (see attached). PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an immediate ORDER temporarily enjoining all named Defendants from refusing telephone and electricity service to Plaintiff's dwelling unit, because of Plaintiff's inability to disclose, and refusal to apply for, a valid Social Security Number ("SSN"), as an absolute condition precedent to obtaining these essential utility services. Lex non cogit impossibilia ("the Law does not recognize impossibilities" in Latin). Plaintiff also requests that this Court issue an immediate ORDER temporarily enjoining Defendant Community Action, Inc., from refusing to Plaintiff its standard energy voucher, to be used for the sole purpose of paying the normal deposit required by Defendant San Marcos Utility on residential electricity service, in indigent cases. DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF Plaintiff hereby notifies all interested Parties of Plaintiff's specific intent to name additional Defendants in a proper and timely amended complaint, in place of one or more anonymous Does 1 thru 25, and/or to enlarge the number and nature of criminal torts itemized therein, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(1)(A), 1512, 1513, and other pertinent statutes not as yet specified herein. This action presently proceeds At Law, and sounds in criminal torts, from which Plaintiff intends to petition a Lawful and competent civil jury for relief including verdicts as to the actual, consequential, and exemplary damages suffered by Plaintiff, as to the true costs of conducting this suit, and judgments as to the proper construction and correct application of all pertinent Laws. NOTICE OF PERTINENT LAWS Plaintiff specifically requests that this Court take formal judicial notice of Public Law 93-579 ("Privacy Act Amendment"), which Amendment was enacted but never codified within the main body of the federal Privacy Act, at Title 5, United States Code ("U.S.C."), section 552a. See Historical and Statutory Notes following 5 U.S.C.A. 552a. By virtue of Plaintiff's natural birth on June 21, 1948, as a Citizen of Massachusetts state, via jus soli, and subsequent lawful Election in 1996 to become and remain a Citizen of Arizona state who is, by Right of Election, not also a citizen of the United States [sic] (aka "federal citizen"), Plaintiff's status is not, by Law, an "individual" as that term is defined in the federal Privacy Act. See definition at 5 U.S.C. 552a, section 552a(a)(2). Plaintiff thus claims no standing under said Act as such. Confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. Nevertheless, Plaintiff now invokes the Human Rights Treaties enumerated supra, in order to claim, to assert, and to enforce His fundamental Rights, as guaranteed by the Supremacy Clause, to privacy and to equal protection of the Law. See Declaration Article 12, and Covenant Article 17, for "privacy"; see Declaration Article 7, and Covenant Article 26, for "equal protection". Both Treaties are reproduced, for the convenience of this honorable Court, in the Exhibits attached hereto. Thus, Plaintiff argues that the Rights which Defendants violated correspond to remedies which arise from fundamental Laws. Said remedies are at least equal to, if not greater than, those other remedies which Congress created, via the federal Privacy Act, on behalf of the specific classes of persons mentioned in the definition of "individual" in said Act, i.e., citizens of the United States [sic] and aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence [sic]. The exact language of said definition now follows: Section 552a. Records maintained on individuals (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section -- ... (2) the term "individual" means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; [5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2)] See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), paraphrasing: "The guarantees of the U.S. Constitution extend to the federal zone ONLY as Congress makes those guarantees applicable -- by statutes." Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The unique class -- of state Citizens who are not also federal citizens -- is not mentioned in the definition of "individual" in the federal Privacy Act, quoted supra. Whatever was omitted, was intended to be omitted. There are two (2) classes of citizens under American Law never repealed, NOT one (1). See, e.g., Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872); U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875); Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738; Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. App. 263, 30 Am. Rep. 131; K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927). One can be a state Citizen without also being a federal citizen. See Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909); State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 601 (1889); Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 243 Md. 555, 221 A.2d 431, (1966). Strictly speaking, citizenship is a term of municipal law. See Roa v. Collector, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912). It is not a term of public international law, or of national federal law. A citizen of the United States [sic], who is not a Citizen of any state, is NOT within the language of the organic U.S. Constitution! See Qualifications Clauses at 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, and also 3:2:1 and 4:2:1; Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252 F. 910, 914; Alla v. Kornfeld et al., 84 F.Supp. 823 (1949); Ex parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855). The term "Citizen of the United States", as found in the Qualifications Clauses, is properly constructed to mean a Citizen of ONE OF the States which are united by and under the U.S. Constitution. This construction -- ONE OF -- is reiterated in the following passage from Words and Phrases, to wit: Citizens of a state, within the removal act [18 Stat. 473, March 3, 1875] means citizens of ONE OF the United States, and the suits contemplated are suits between citizens of ONE OF the states of the Union on one side, and foreign states, or citizens or subjects on the other. citing Roberts v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co., 121 F. 785, 789, 58 C.C.A. 61. (9th Cir. 1903) [capitalization added] [7 Words and Phrases 281] ["Citizen of State" (1952)] See also Hervey v. The Illinois Midland Railway Company, 7 Biss. 103, Fed. Cas. No. 6,434, as cited in Roberts supra; People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870). See also Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed concurrently herewith, and incorporated hereby, as if set forth fully herein, and all Exhibits attached hereto. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS Plaintiff hereby also incorporates the following exhibits, as if the same were set forth fully herein, to wit: Exhibit A: letter to Frank Cantu, 5/21/98; Exhibit B: letter to Century Telephone, 5/21/98; Exhibit C: letter to San Marcos Utility, 5/21/98; Exhibit D: documents attached to each of the above and served upon recipients named therein (see PROOF OF SERVICE infra); Exhibit E: letter to Dell Human Resources, summarizing religious, legal, and economic reasons for avoiding SSN's; Exhibit F: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Exhibit G: Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Exhibit H: 18 U.S.C. 245 -- Federally protected activities. Exhibit I: OPENING BRIEF, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, Topic "A", 8th Cir., St. Louis (filed) Exhibit J: Petition for Leave to File Enlarged Brief, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Cir., St. Louis (lodged) IMMEDIATE REMEDIES REQUESTED: Phase I All premises to date having been duly considered, Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this honorable District Court of Texas state: 1. issue a preliminary injunction against Defendant Century Telephone, Inc., enjoining same from refusing telephone service to Plaintiff's dwelling unit; 2. issue a preliminary injunction against Defendant San Marcos Utility, enjoining same from refusing electricity service to Plaintiff's dwelling unit; 3. issue a preliminary injunction against Defendant Community Action, Inc., enjoining same from withholding its standard voucher for payment of the normal deposit required on residential electricity service in indigent cases; 4. impose an automatic fine of $500.00 in lawful money upon Defendant Century Telephone, Inc., for violating Plaintiff's fundamental Right to privacy, and for failing to produce any authority(s) for same, said fine to be credited to a residential telephone account in Plaintiff's name; 5. impose an automatic fine of $500.00 in lawful money upon Defendant San Marcos Utility, for violating Plaintiff's fundamental Right to privacy, and for failing to produce any authority(s) for same, said fine to be credited to a residential electricity account in Plaintiff's name; 6. impose an automatic fine of $500.00 in lawful money upon Defendant Community Action, Inc., for violating Plaintiff's fundamental Right to privacy, and for failing to produce any authority(s) for same, said fine to be paid directly to Plaintiff; 7. order Century Telephone, Inc. to activate residential telephone service to Plaintiff without further delay; 8. order San Marcos Utility to activate residential electricity service to Plaintiff without further delay; 9. grant Plaintiff leave of 45 days to prepare and file an Amended Complaint, or, in the alternative, set a calendar deadline for same; 10. order the instant case to proceed to trial on the merits; 11. order all preliminary injunctions to remain in force, until such time as final judgments, or permanent injunctions, are issued in the instant case. VERIFICATION I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the above statement of laws and facts is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause. Dated: May 26, 1998 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, and Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives All Rights Reserved without Prejudice [See USPS Pub. #221 for addressing instructions.] # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. City of San Marcos et al.