Appendix P

 

Miscellaneous Letters

 


Reader's Notes:

 


Registered U.S. Mail #R 756 488 761

Return Receipt Requested

                                          c/o general delivery

                                          San Rafael

                                          California state

                                          zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

 

                                          December 29, 1993

 

Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice

Hon. Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Justice

Hon. John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice

Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice

Hon. Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice

Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice

Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice

Hon. Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice

Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street, Northeast

Washington, District of Columbia

 

Subject:  NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

 

Dear Honorable Justices:

 

      Notice is hereby formally served upon you, both individually and severally, that conclusive evidence now available to me proves that the so-called 14th amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was never properly approved and adopted.  I am under a legal and moral obligation to intervene on behalf of the many millions of Americans whose status has been unlawfully subsumed under federal jurisdiction, because this was done without either their knowledge or their informed consent.

 

      As required by Title 28, United States Code, Section 453 (Oaths of justices and judges), you have solemnly sworn (or affirmed) that you would administer justice without respect to persons, and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon you as Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help you God (see revision at 104 Stat. 5124).

 

      Please take formal notice that it is quite simply impossible for you, or for any other public officials anywhere in America, to perform your solemn duties under this oath (or affirmation), if the weight of material evidence should prove that the exact provisions of that Constitution are still in doubt.  Your oath (or affirmation) is a binding contract which I hereby seek to enforce, according to the dictates of my conscience, my Creator, and the supreme Law of the Land, as lawfully amended.

 

      Pursuant to the Guarantee Clause (4:4) and to the opinion of the California Court of Appeal in Steiner v. Darby et al., 88 Cal.App.2d 481, 199 P.2d 429 (1948: the year of my birth as a Sovereign natural born Free Citizen of one of the United States), it is not only my Right, but also my Duty, to inform you that the weight of material and historical evidence proves that the so‑called 14th amendment is not now, nor has it ever been, a lawful provision in the Constitution for the United States of America.  This proposed amendment failed to be ratified in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Constitution.  At the very least, the evidence which I now lay before you consists of the following public records and other documents:

 

      State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975)

      Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968)

      28 Tulane Law Review 22

      11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484

      House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq.

 

      Because the available evidence indicates to me that all Federal and State judicial officers, without exception, have taken solemn oaths (or affirmations) which disagree with the Constitution for the United States of America as lawfully amended, I am now left entirely without any unbiased judicial forum in which to seek review and declaratory relief in the matter of the following federal questions:

 

(1)   The constitutional qualifications for election to the offices of President, Senator, and Representative retain the meaning they had when the Constitution was first drafted (see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393-633 (1856)).

 

(2)   There is still no constitutional authority for the status of a "citizen of the United States", unlike the proper status of a "Citizen of one of the States United" (see 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, and People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311 (1870): the term "United States" here means "States united";  see also Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)).

 

(3)   There is still no constitutional provision prohibiting anyone from questioning the validity of the public debt, and freedom of speech is still guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

 

(4)   All provisions in Federal law are necessarily null and void, to the extent that they make reference, either implicitly or explicitly, to any section(s) of the failed 14th amendment.

 

(5)   All provisions in State constitutions and statutes are likewise null and void, to the extent that they make reference to any section(s) of the failed 14th amendment (e.g. see the attached letter to the California State Lands Commission, to which all recipients fell silent).

 

 

DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

 

      Therefore, by virtue of the superior authority which is vested in me by my Creator, as a direct consequence of my natural birth as a qualified member of the Sovereign People, "by whom and for whom all government exists and acts" (see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)), and on behalf of each and every member of the Sovereignty known and lawfully identified as "We, the People of the United States" of America (see Preamble), I hereby demand and do hereby order you to Cease and Desist from any and all of the following official acts on your part:

 

(1)   any and all official oaths or affirmations which are predicated in any way on the lawful ratification of the so‑called 14th amendment;

 

(2)   any and all judicial decisions or determinations which are predicated in any way on the lawful ratification of the so‑called 14th amendment, including but not limited to:

 

(a)   decisions or determinations which construe in any way the rights, responsibilities, privileges, immunities, and liabilities of "citizens of the United States" as that term is used in any and all Acts of Congress and administrative rules and regulations promulgated by any employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal government (e.g. 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c));

 

(b)   decisions or determinations which attempt in any way to enforce the administration of the individual income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code upon the People of the 50 Union States, or upon their private property (see Treasury Decision 2313 and Brushaber's pleadings);

 

(c)   decisions or determinations which uphold in any way the validity of the public debt of the Federal and State governments, acting in whatever capacity and through whatever agency, lawfully delegated or not (see 1:6:2);

 

(d)   decisions or determinations which recognize in any way the lawful existence of a "State within a state", with particular reference to the political body defined by the population of "citizens of the United States" who may inhabit the 50 Union States at any given moment, however those terms may be defined (see 4:3:1 and the case law interpreting the Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. 105-113).

 

      Until such time as you demonstrate officially that each and every one of you has executed a solemn oath which agrees with the Constitution for the United States of America as lawfully amended, I will take the absence of such an oath to mean that you are individually and severally biased in your understanding of the Constitution and that you are, therefore, unqualified to rule on these matters and hereby recused from doing so.

 

      The burden of proof is now upon you to authenticate the Constitution which you agree to uphold, now and at all times in the future, using established principles of Law and the published rules of evidence.

 

      I realize that this NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST may constitute an historically unprecedented act on my part, as an individual California Citizen who enjoys neither elected nor appointed authority of any kind at this moment in time.  Nevertheless, this act is necessitated by the fact that there is presently not one single judge, magistrate, or commissioner anywhere in America whose oath of office is not colored by faulty (non-existent) provisions in the federal Constitution which they are sworn to uphold.

 

      I realize also that this Notice and Demand must be general in nature and in substance, because of the far-reaching consequences which issue from the facts and Law which impugn federal "adoption" of the so-called 14th amendment.  It is not my purpose here to anticipate, nor to delineate, each and every such consequence.  Better minds than I should hesitate to assume such a weighty task by themselves.

 

      Therefore, for the time being, I will leave it to you, and to the capable expertise on your respective staffs, to find and recommend the course of action which will best execute this Demand with maximum justice, liberty, and domestic tranquility.  These are, after all, the stated goals of our chosen form of government in the united States of America (see Preamble).

 

      Furthermore, I do explicitly reserve my unalienable Right to take whatever steps I deem necessary and proper to correct, at any time, a government which has now drifted so far off course, it hardly resembles the constitutional Republic it was designed to be (see also Declaration of Independence (1776)).

 

      Thank you very much for your attention, and for your consideration.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

 

California Citizen, on behalf of the

People of the united States of America

 

All Rights Reserved AT LAW

 

 

NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.

 


copies:           Marin County Grand Jury, San Rafael

                  Bill Clinton, President

                  Pete Wilson, Governor of California

                  Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator

                  Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator

                  Lynn Woolsey, U.S. Representative

                  Janet Reno, Attorney General

                  Drew S. Days, III, Solicitor General

                  William K. Suter, Supreme Court Clerk

                  Frank D. Wagner, Reporter of Decisions

                  Alfred Wong, Marshal

                  Shelley L. Dowling, Librarian

 

attachment:       letter to California State Lands Commission

 

enclosures        (under separate cover to Librarian supra):

 

                  The Federal Zone, hard-copy second edition

                  The Federal Zone, electronic fourth edition

                  Chapter 11, from upcoming fifth edition

 

 

California All-Purpose Acknowledgement

 

 

CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC       )

                                )

COUNTY OF MARIN                 )

 

 

      On this twenty-ninth (29th) day of December, 1993, Anno Domini, before me personally appeared Paul Andrew Mitchell, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His signature on this instrument the Person, or the entity upon behalf of which the Person acted, executed the instrument.  Purpose of Notary Public is for identification only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.

 

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

 

 

 

_____________________________________

Notary Public

 


C E R T I F I C A T E   O F   S E R V I C E   B Y   M A I L

 

 

      It is hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been made on interested parties by mailing one copy thereof, on this twenty-ninth (29th) day of December, 1993, in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:

 

 

Registered U.S. Mail #R 756 488 761

Return Receipt Requested of:

 

Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street, Northeast

Washington, District of Columbia

 

 

Copies via first class U.S. mail to:

 

Hon. Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Justice

Hon. John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice

Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice

Hon. Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice

Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice

Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice

Hon. Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice

Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street, Northeast

Washington, District of Columbia

 

 

Dated:  December 29, 1993

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen/Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, "Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable Rights.

 


                                                                                                                c/o general delivery

                                          San Rafael

                                          California state

                                          Postal Zone 94901/tdc

 

                                          September 10, 1993

Ray Feyereisen

c/o general delivery

Houston, Texas state

Postal Zone 77253/tdc

 

Dear Ray:

 

      I did some more research today, to explore some of the cases which support the position that one can be a State Citizen without necessarily being a citizen of the United States.  You already knew about Crosse;  here are the relevant paragraphs:

 

            Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.  United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875);  Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73-74, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873);  and see Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 401-402, 31 A. 322 (1895).  See also Spear, State Citizenship, 16 Albany L.J. 24 (1877). ...

 

            [B]ut we find nothing in Reum [City of Minneapolis v. Reum, 56 F. 576, 581 (8th Cir. 1893)] or any other case which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.  As the authorities referred to in the first portion of this opinion evidence, the law is to the contrary.

 

[emphasis added]

 

Corpus Juris is another source of authorities which support this position:

 

      So a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States46 ....

 

[11 C.J., Sec. 3, p. 777]

 

Footnote 46 lists the following cases:

 

      Harding v. Standard Oil Co., 182 Fed. 421

      McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320

      State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602

 

      The reference librarian at the Marin County Law Library and I searched in vain for McDonel v. State;  they're going to put their special legal beagle on that search.  Here's what Harding said:

 

In the Constitution and laws of the United States the term ["citizenship"] is generally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States.  Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 Sup. Ct. 656, 30 L.Ed. 766.  A person may be a citizen of a state but not of the United States;  as, an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who is by local law entitled to vote in the state of his residence, and there exercise all other local functions of local citizenship, such as holding office, right to poor relief, etc., but who is not a citizen of the United States.  Taney, C.J., in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 405, 15 L.Ed. 691;  Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 74, 21 L.Ed. 394.

 

[Harding v. Standard Oil Co. et. al.]

[182 Fed. 421 (1910), emphasis added]

 

I really love the pertinent quote from State v. Fowler, which was decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1889:

 

      A person who is a citizen of the United States is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides.  But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States.  To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.  The sovereignty of the citizens of a republic has its highest assertion in representative government, and is constituted in its political order in the representation of persons, and not of classes or of interests.

 

[State ex rel. Leche v. Fowler]

[41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

[emphasis added]

 

The Crosse court cites Short v. State, which came to essentially the same conclusion in the following long passage:

 

      And then, as to the objection that this local law is repugnant to that clause in the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution which declares that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," it is sufficient to say that the interpretation of that clause by the supreme court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, is a complete answer to this objection.  There is a distinction, says Justice Miller, between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state.

 

[Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 401-402]

[31 A. 322 (1895)]

 

      The Crosse court cites Short v. State, but I could find in the latter decision no statements which took the exact position we are seeking;  nevertheless, it does cite the Slaughterhouse Cases and also Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130.  In the Bradwell case, Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, says:

 

The protection designed by that clause, as has been repeatedly held, has no application to a citizen of the state whose laws are complained of.

 

[emphasis added]

 

      Also, I think I have already mentioned this book, but it's worth mentioning again.  See if you can get your hands on a copy of A Treatise on Citizenship by Birth and by Naturalization, by Alexander Porter Morse, Boston:  Little, Brown, and Company, 1881.  Buried near the end of this voluminous treatise is a section entitled "State Citizenship -- Its Existence".  In addition to the big cases like Dred Scott, Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank, he mentions the following in his footnotes:

 

      Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C.C. 371

      Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. 591

      Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411

      Cully v. Baltimore, etc., R.R. Co., 1 Hughes 536

      Prentiss v. Brennan, 2 Blatchf. 162

      Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 267

      Reilly v. Lamar, 2 Cranch 344

 

He also writes, "That there is a state citizenship, see Registry Act of California of 1865-1866, sec