c/o P. O. Box 6189
Postal Code 94903-0189/TDC
February 15, 1993
c/o 17332 Irvine Boulevard, #230
Tustin, California Republic
Postal Code 92680/tdc
I appreciated the opportunity to make your acquaintance at
the Libertarian Party Convention in Sunnyvale this past weekend.
I also regret that we didn't have a chance to spend more time
together. Your videotape is quite original and light-hearted; I
hope it brings you much success.
Had we found a way to spend more time talking with each
other, there is one important matter which I would definitely
have wanted you to consider more carefully. During our
conversation in the bar, while I was eating lunch, you implied
that one of your goals is to work towards a "democracy" for
America. Whether you intended it this way or not, such a goal
directly contradicts Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution for
the United States of America, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government ....
What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is
one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people
and exercised by the people. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, makes this very clear:
Republican government. One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by
the people, either directly, or through representatives
chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially
delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
Both the California State Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution state that the latter shall be the supreme Law of
the land. In the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
series of controversial cases now known as The Insular Cases.
These cases were predicated, in part, on the principle that the
Constitution for the United States as such does not extend beyond
the boundaries of the States which are united by and under it.
Accordingly, this principle set a crucial precedent whereby
Congress was free to establish a legislative democracy within the
federal zone, instead of a constitutional republic.
The federal zone is the area over which Congress exercises
exclusive legislative jurisdiction; it encompasses the District
of Columbia and such areas as Guam and the Virgin Islands. Even
more important is the fact that this exclusive legislative
jurisdiction extends to all persons who are subject to it,
regardless of where they may reside. As such, the status of
"citizen of the United States" (also known as "U.S. citizen")
causes one to be subject to the letter of all municipal statutes,
rules and regulations which Congress enacts under this exclusive
legislative authority. The constitutional definition of this
second class of citizens is alleged to be the so-called 14th
Amendment. However, two standing decisions of the Utah Supreme
Court have struck down the ratification of this amendment.
Coupled with all the evidence which that Court utilized to arrive
at these decisions, we have therein good cause to conclude that
the so-called 14th Amendment is null and void for fraud and
duress. My book The Federal Zone discusses the so-called 14th
Amendment as follows:
Not only did this so-called "amendment" fail to specify
which meaning of the term "United States" was being used;
like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this
time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The
House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all
the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th
Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15641 et
seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted
against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when
their Legislatures did so. "I cannot believe that any
court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly
hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted."
State vs Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975). The Utah
Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history
of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of Dyett vs
Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272 (1968).
With this background knowledge firmly in hand, it is easy to
explain why the federal government would reiterate the theme of
"democracy" and "democratic institutions" over and over in its
media propaganda. It is now obvious that such programming has
been entirely successful; witness the large percentage of
"Libertarians" who make repeated reference to their political
goal of "democracy" for America. Perhaps without knowing it,
they are participating in the slow but steady demise of the
nation symbolized by the Stars and Stripes, "the Republic for
which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all." The Insular Cases made it possible for
America to become divisible into a constitutional republic and a
legislative democracy. It is the strategy of "divide and
conquer", being applied once again with much success, this time
to our very own homeland.
I hope I have given you a few things to think about.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Account for Better Citizenship
enclosures: People v. Boxer pleadings
"Citizenship is a Term of Municipal Law"
copy: Jerry Collette