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).
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