Dear Friends,
 
This is a copy of the recent letter which
I wrote to an editor at Reason magazine.
 
To date, I have not yet received any reply.
 
We hope you enjoy it!
 
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
 
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library:
 
 http://www.supremelaw.org/
 
[letter now follows:]
 
 August 3, 2000 A.D.
 
Hello Virginia,
 
"Dodging dirty issues is a prescription for symbolic
politics that let you feel superior while the world
is shaped by the ideas and policies of others."
 
Follow this scenario, if you will, please:
 
Lincoln is shot, Andrew Johnson takes over.
 
Johnson is presented with a giant mess 
in the Statutes at Large, which badly
need organization, from top to bottom.
 
He commissions 3 attorneys, to recommend
a structure to organize this mess.
 
They conceive the idea of "codifying" 
the Statutes at Large (not a bad idea,
in principle).
 
But, these 3 conspire to produce two parallel
sets of laws: one set is a group of
municipal codes, for D.C. and other places
which are not States (think of the "blue zone"
on the American flag).
 
The other set is worded to appear as if
it applies throughout the nation, but
Congress has no lawful jurisdiction to
extend its municipal laws into the
several States.
 
The idea catches on, among government
insiders, so a contrived case reaches
the U.S. Supreme Court -- Downes v. Bidwell.
 
Basically, the high Court holds that the
Constitution of the United States, as such,
does NOT extend beyond the limits of the
States which are united by, and under, it!
 
Harvard Law Review publishes an anonymous
critique which bristles with objections
to this 5-to-4 monstrosity. Harlan's
dissent tells the whole story!
 
So, with the flood gates now open, Congress
goes into full swing, enacting municipal
laws which are worded to appear as if they
are national in scope, and which run rampant
over the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
 
Internal Revenue Code is one such municipal law.
 
Federal Reserve Act is another such municipal law.
 
Later, Social Security Act is still another 
such municipal law.
 
Idea is so deceptive, almost everyone is duped.
 
In 1945, while the world had other things on its
mind (e.g. 2 nuclear weapons), Supreme Court expands
this specious "Downes Doctrine" -- by ruling that
the guarantees of the Constitution extend to 
the federal zone, ONLY as Congress makes those
guarantees applicable -- by statutes!
 
Conveniently, Supreme Court has overlooked that
Congress DID expressly extend the Constitution
into D.C. in 1871, and into all federal 
Territories in 1873. These laws have 
never been adjudicated! Wonder why?
 
See:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.htm#1871
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.htm#1873
 
In 1992, "The Federal Zone" is published,
spawning a nationwide research explosion
to isolate other federal "laws" which 
exhibit the same deception.
 
In 1995, Justice Kennedy uses "federal zone"
as a household word in U.S. v. Lopez, giving
the term a permanent place in the history
of American constitutional jurisprudence.
 
The book documents a "smoking gun" -- a judge
of a D.C. court, addressing the Columbia
Historical Society circa 1899, tells the
audience that President Andrew Johnson's
3-man commission committed a fraud:
the nationwide codes have no authority
whatsoever; they are ONLY lawful within
Congress' municipal jurisdiction (now termed
"the federal zone").
 
Now, is this a "dirty issue," or not?
 
Is the nation going to dodge this issue,
and thereby let others (foreign banks?)
dictate their ideas and policies upon
the rest of us?
 
"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."
Proverbs 12:22
 
A municipal law worded to appear as a national law,
is nothing if it is not an ugly lie.
 
 
Your comments will be most appreciated.
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
 
alias John E. Trumane:
 
 http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/lawless.htm
 
 
p.s. Rehnquist put both feet in his mouth
in a subsequent class which I attended
at the University of Arizona. More on that
later, okay? :)