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