Supreme Law Firm Launches Campaign

to Amend the U.S. Constitution




Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)



For Immediate Release                              March 17, 2010 A.D.



Seattle, Washington.  After 20 years of research and court activism, the Supreme Law Firm has launched a campaign to amend the Constitution for the United States of America.

Building on findings first published in “The Federal Zone” in January 1992, the Founder has isolated the root cause of a deliberate legal deception which has now spanned many generations of Americans.

Although several courts have credited the so-called Fourteenth amendment with creating two (2) classes of citizens in the USA in 1868, its failure to be properly ratified now points directly to an Act of Congress as the prime culprit.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act is now identified as the source of extensive duplicity that was introduced into numerous subsequent Federal laws, specifically by creating a second, inferior class of “federal citizens”, but using language deliberately calculated to confuse that second class with the primary class of State Citizens.

A few federal courts got it right the first time, but their decisions were very hard to find, according to the law firm’s Founder.  An excellent example is Pannill v. Roanoke, which correctly ruled that a second class of federal citizens was not even contemplated when the organic “organizing” version of the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted.

That Constitution first became the supreme Law of the Land in America on June 21, 1788 A.D. -- also the Founder’s birthday.  Thus, there was only one class of State Citizens for almost 80 years.

In 1855 A.D., the California Supreme Court had already ruled in Ex Parte Knowles that there was really no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” -- notice the lower-case “c”.  For purposes of the naturalization laws, the proper construction and common understanding of the term “Citizen of the United States” -- notice the UPPER-CASE “C” -- referred only to Citizens of the several States.

And, as Judge Pablo De La Guerra explained in 1870, the term “United States” in the Qualifications Clauses for President, Senator and Representative means “States united”.  One must be a Citizen of ONE OF the States united in order to be qualified to serve in those elected offices.

That key qualifier -- “one of” -- is very clarifying;  it also appeared in the Northwest Ordinance, enacted by Congress at the same time the organic U.S. Constitution was being drafted.

Those Qualifications Clauses have never been amended.  Because Amendments require approval by three-fourths of the several States, Congress flatly could not and did not effect any changes in any of those Clauses when it enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Although Congress tried to deceive the entire population of the USA by using the term “citizen of the United States” instead, recognized legal publications like Black’s Law Dictionary do contain a formal and very revealing definition of “federal citizenship”.

“This definition is very condemning of the Congress that enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act,” asserts Paul Andrew Mitchell.  “By using such a unique term to identify federal citizens in all subsequent State and federal legislation, like the Internal Revenue Code and its implementing Regulations, a massive amount of deliberate deceit could and should have been avoided.”

The historical consequences of confusing these 2 separate classes of people have grown into a particularly twisted situation at present:  those who are qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House are not eligible to vote or serve on any juries.  And, those who can vote and serve on juries are not eligible to serve in the House, Senate or White House.

This twisted situation is the necessary result of changing the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen” to the lower-case “c” in “citizen”.  And, there is no statute of limitations for fraud of this kind.

The Supreme Law Firm has found a way to extract the entire nation from the ongoing web of deceit that has grown up around this fraud.  As a qualified Private Attorney General, Paul Andrew Mitchell has now served a FORMAL PETITION TO AMEND THE U.S. CONSTITUION upon the U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives from Washington State.

Here is the language of the correct Constitutional Amendment he has proposed:


Section 1.  The status of Citizen of one of the United States of America shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State of the Union on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is hereby repealed with prejudice.


Section 3.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


In the text above, readers can now see a very clear distinction between the “United States of America” or 50 States of the Union, and the “United States” meaning the Federal government.

Even though it was never properly ratified, the so-called Fourteenth amendment is expressly repealed because several Courts have also ruled that repeals by implication are never favored.

Mitchell argues that Section 2 is necessary to remove that failed amendment from all the law books now archived in Federal depository libraries, and prevent it from ever being ratified in the future.

Lastly, Section 3 expressly empowers Congress to enforce this correct Amendment with appropriate legislation.  In this context, any statutes which attempt to sustain such deceit in the future must be ruled unconstitutional ab initio” for being obviously inappropriate.

Unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment, and not from any court decisions so branding the Acts in question.

The Supreme Law Firm is now calling upon Citizens in all other 49 States of the Union to submit a similar FORMAL PETITION TO AMEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, modified as needed for associates of the Firm, with the goal of persuading Congress to propose the correct Amendment for ratification according to Article V in the Constitution.

At this writing, Citizens in California and Kansas have already joined this historic campaign.



Further Reading:


“Citizenship for Dummies,” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (3/4/2010), Internet URL:

(see also all links at end)


“Author’s Comments Clarifying ‘Citizenship for Dummies’,” URL:




#  #  #