c/o general delivery
San Rafael,
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
July 20, 1993
James R. Frey
Staff Counsel
State Lands Commission
1807 - 13th Street
Sacramento, California Republic
Dear Mr. Frey:
We do very much appreciate the consideration you showed in
answering our inquiry concerning California Government Code
Sections 126 and 127.
We are happy to learn that the files in question are available
for public inspection and copying, by appointment. We understand
that the index is actually a file cabinet, with files on
individual facilities.
As you may already know, many California State Citizens are
actively involved in private research and political action to
help solve the horrendous federal debt. Our research led us to
Government Code Section 126, in particular, because it makes
explicit reference to Section 4 of the so-called 14th Amendment:
(c) The United States must in writing have requested the
state to cede concurrent criminal jurisdiction within such
land and subject to each and all of the conditions and
reservations in this section and in Section 4 of Article XIV
of the Constitution prescribed.
[California Government Code, Sec. 126]
[emphasis added]
I use the language "so-called" because the evidence now available
to us proves that the 14th Amendment was never properly approved
and adopted. In the year 1968, the Utah Supreme Court detailed
the shocking and sordid history of the failed ratification in the
case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272. In the year 1975,
the Utah Supreme Court again struck down the ratification of the
14th Amendment with the following language:
I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its
faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was
properly approved and adopted.
[State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941]
To our knowledge, these two cases are still standing because the
U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule specifically on the validity
of the steps taken to "ratify" the so-called 14th Amendment.
The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains some
of the essential documentation on which the Utah Supreme Court
relied 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.
Additional historical evidence can be found in the following law
review articles: 28 Tulane Law Review 22 and 11 South Carolina
Law Quarterly 484. Even though one of these articles was written
by a man who advocated racial discrimination, a policy with which
I strongly disagree, his facts are very consistent with the
historical record as recited by these other authorities.
Faced with this clear preponderance of historical evidence and
standing court authorities, we are not only justified in taking
the position that the 14th Amendment was never ratified, we are
also justified in challenging all State statutes which make
reference to non-existent provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
This train of evidence and logic leads us, then, to subsection
(f) of California Government Code Section 126:
(f) "Land held by the United States", as used in this
section means: (1) lands acquired in fee by purchase or
condemnation, (2) lands owned by the United States that are
included in the military reservation by presidential
proclamation or act of Congress, (3) leaseholds acquired by
the United States over private lands or state-owned lands,
and (4) any other lands owned by the United States
including, but not limited to, public domain lands which are
held for a public purpose.
[emphasis added]
We have taken specific note of subsection (f)(1), which omits any
mention of the "United States", whereas subsections (f)(2) thru
(f)(4) do make explicit mention of the "United States". Using
the rule of statutory construction known as inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius (see Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition), we
are entitled to infer that "United States" was omitted from
subsection (f)(1) because it was intended to be omitted.
Accordingly, Section 126(f) could be interpreted to mean that
"Land held by the United States" means any lands acquired in fee
by purchase or condemnation, whether or not said lands were
acquired in fee by the federal government. In other words, if
private real estate in California were acquired in a "fee simple"
transaction, as recorded by the appropriate County Recorder, does
the "United States" thereby hold any legal interest in such
private land by virtue of California Government Code Section 126?
Now for the crux of the problem. We now know that the Federal
Reserve System is a private banking cartel (see Lewis v. United
States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)). This cartel pays the federal
Bureau of Engraving and Printing a total of $260 to print 10,000
Federal Reserve Notes, regardless of denomination, and thereby
obtains from Congress a pledge of collateral equal to the face
value of those notes. Thus, if the Federal Reserve orders 10,000
notes in denominations of $100 each, it obtains from Congress a
lien on collateral equal to $1,000,000, for a total down payment
of $260. That's what I call leverage! What's the collateral?
Do the Federal Reserve banks thereby obtain any right, title or
interest in California lands "acquired in fee by purchase or
condemnation" pursuant to California Government Code Section 126?
Are these lands anywhere identified as collateral for the
Treasury bonds which the Federal Reserve purchased with money and
credit which it created out of thin air, via bookkeeping entries?
These are questions which should be important to all private
Citizens and to all government employees everywhere in America,
because the Federal Reserve has become one of the largest single
"United States" creditors by purchasing Treasury bonds without
lawful consideration. Moreover, the failed ratification of the
so-called 14th Amendment frees all of us, private Citizens and
government employees alike, to question the validity of this
public debt, because Section 4 of that failed amendment reads:
The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[emphasis added]
Quite obviously, if the so-called 14th Amendment was never
properly approved and adopted, then it follows that there is no
Constitutional prohibition which bars any of us from questioning
the validity of the public debt of the United States.
I will look forward to your timely and considerate response.
Please utilize the above mailing location exactly as shown in any
and all future correspondence. Believe it or not, we now have
credible proof that the unqualified use of zip codes and/or two-
letter federal abbreviations (e.g. "CA") also attaches California
State Citizens to the spiralling federal debt.
Mr. Frey, things are just not as they appear on the surface.
Thank you very much for your honesty and your consideration, at
this most difficult time in our brief history as a nation.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
copies: Charles Warren, Executive Officer
Leo T. McCarthy, Lieutenant Governor
Gray Davis, Controller
Thomas W. Hayes, Director of Finance
Pete Wilson, Governor
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Letters of Correspondence