Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris Citizen of the United States of America c/o 1415 N. McDowell Boulevard Petaluma, California Republic Postal Code 95954/tdc Ex Relatione The People of the United States of America [D R A F T] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 1995 In re: DIXIANNE HAWKS, No. _________________________ Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Appeal Case No. 95-16714 v. Civil Case No. 93-82-WBS (Eastern District of Calif.) COUNTY OF BUTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE GARCIA, CIRCUIT JUDGES SCHROEDER, CANBY AND WIGGINS, Notice and Application for Intervention of Right Defendants-Appellees _______________________________/ FRCP 24(a) NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent _______________________________/ COME NOW the People of the United States of America, ex relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, natural born Citizen of the United States of America (hereinafter "Applicants"), to apply to this Court for an Intervention of Right and to provide notice of same. Applicants hereby set forth the causes for this intervention, to wit: Application for Intervention of Right: Page 1 of 8 1. Applicants are not the Persons identified as the Petitioner, the Respondent, or the Appellees in the record before this Court. 2. Applicants claim interests relating to the rights and properties which are the subject of the action. 3. Applicants are so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 4. The interests of the Applicants are not adequately represented by the existing parties to the action. Wherefore, Applicants pray that this Application for Intervention of Right be granted. Respectfully submitted, January 15, 1996 Anno Domini ___________________________________ Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris All Rights Reserved Application for Intervention of Right: Page 2 of 8 Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris Citizen of the United States of America c/o 1415 N. McDowell Boulevard Petaluma, California Republic Postal Code 95954/tdc Ex Relatione The People of the United States of America IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 1995 In re: DIXIANNE HAWKS, No. _________________________ Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Appeal Case No. 95-16714 v. Civil Case No. 93-82-WBS (Eastern District of Calif.) COUNTY OF BUTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE GARCIA, CIRCUIT JUDGES SCHROEDER, Brief in Support of CANBY AND WIGGINS, Application for Intervention of Right Defendants-Appellees _______________________________/ with Points and Authorities NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FRCP 24(A) Respondent _______________________________/ COME NOW the People of the United States of America, ex relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, natural born Citizen of the United States of America (hereinafter Applicants) to plead the grounds for which their Intervention of Right is sought, to wit: 1. Petitioner Dixianne Hawks (hereinafter "Petitioner") has claimed a substantive Right to effective judicial remedies for violations of fundamental rights, notwithstanding that the violations were committed by persons acting in their official capacities. Application for Intervention of Right: Page 3 of 8 2. Petitioner has also claimed a substantive Right to the development by judicial officers of the United States of the possibility of judicial remedies for violations of fundamental rights by such persons. 3. Petitioner's claim(s) to these Rights arise(s), in part, from Her allegation that the United States is now a party to two (2) international treaties which obligate the United States to provide effective judicial remedies, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedies, for violations of fundamental rights, notwithstanding that violations were committed by persons acting in their official capacities. 4. The treaties in question (see Petitioner's Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) are alleged to have been duly ratified by the United States Senate, under authority of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America (Article VI, Clause 2). 5. The United States Senate, as presently constituted, now deprives several Union States, without their consent, of their equal Suffrage (Article 5, Clause 1), because it is not composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1). 6. The so-called 17th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America purportedly modified Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, by requiring that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years. Application for Intervention of Right: Page 4 of 8 7. A 17th "amendment" which was "ratified" by anything less than the full number of 48 States of the Union which existed in the year 1913 did have the effect of denying to the States which voted NO their equal representation in the Senate, in violation of Article V. 8. The so-called 17th "amendment" was rejected by the State of Utah on February 26, 1913, and they have not subsequently ratified it (see Historical Notes, United States Code Annotated, Amendment 17). Ten other States of the Union fell completely silent on the matter by not voting, and have remained so ever since. 9. The organic Constitution for the United States of America states, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The term "shall" is imperative in its intent and in its effect. Accordingly, no State of the Union is empowered by the Constitution for the United States of America to delegate the election of United States Senators to the People at large. 10. The term "shall" is found in the Organic Constitution for the United States of America at Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, and at Article V. In both instances, the term "shall" is imperative; it is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning, as denoting obligation. The very constructions of these clauses in the Constitution cannot be interpreted in any way other than the imperative meaning. Application for Intervention of Right: Page 5 of 8 11. If a Union State chooses to waive its right to representation in the U.S. Senate, this waiver does not mean that said right devolves somewhere else. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 is imperative. This being the case, a duly constituted United States Senate did not exist at the moment when House Resolution 39 passed out of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the U. S. Senate did not participate in the proposal as mandated in Article V, to wit, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose ...." Specifically, a proposal to amend the Constitution must emanate from both Houses to be valid; a proposal cannot go forward to the exclusion of one House. 12. "[A]t least 29 States by 1912, one year before ratification, were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors." Constitution of the United States of America -- Analysis and Interpretation, published as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress, Public Law 91-589, 84 Stat. 1585, 2 U.S.C. 168, page 1852; citing G. Haynes, The Senate of the United States (New York: 1938), 79-117. 13. "A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience." U.S. v Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983) [emphasis added] 14. "It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it." Walz v Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970), [emphasis added] Application for Intervention of Right: Page 6 of 8 15. Applicants, therefore, challenge the presumed authority of the two international treaties cited by the Petitioner, on grounds that there has not been a duly constituted United States Senate ever since the seating of the very first popularly elected U.S. Senator. (See Senate Document Numbered 39 supra.) 16. Although it appears that the Petitioner's claims have merit under the rights guaranteed to Her by the Constitution for the United States of America, Applicants deny the existence of any Rights arising out of the two international treaties cited in Her Petition to this Court and in Her Opening Brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, because the treaties in question were never ratified by a duly constituted United States Senate. 17. Her claims to these presumed Rights are frivolous. 18. It is impossible, under the organic Constitution for the United States of America, for the so-called 17th Amendment to become the Supreme Law of the Land without repealing, in whole or in part, Article V of said Constitution. Verification under Penalty of Perjury I, Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: January 15, 1996 Anno Domini ___________________________________ Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris All Rights Reserved Application for Intervention of Right: Page 7 of 8 Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris Citizen of the United States of America c/o 1415 N. McDowell Boulevard Petaluma, California Republic Postal Code 95954/tdc Ex Relatione The People of the United States of America IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 1995 In re: DIXIANNE HAWKS, No. _________________________ Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Appeal Case No. 95-16714 v. Civil Case No. 93-82-WBS (Eastern District of Calif.) COUNTY OF BUTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE GARCIA, CIRCUIT JUDGES SCHROEDER, CANBY AND WIGGINS, Order to Allow Intervention of Right Defendants-Appellees _______________________________/ FRCP 24(a) NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent _______________________________/ Good cause having been shown by the People of the United States of America, ex relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris, in the above-entitled proceeding, it is hereby: ORDERED that the People of the United States of America, ex relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris, be allowed to intervene in the above-entitled case. ORDERED this _____ day of _______________, 19____, at Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America. ______________________________ Justice of the Supreme Court Application for Intervention of Right: Page 8 of 8 # # # Popular Election of U.S. Senators excerpt from The Constitution of the United States of America -- Analysis and Interpretation authorized by Public Law 91-589, 84 Stat. 1585, 2 U.S.C. 168 Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-Eighth Congress (aka "Constitution Annotated") The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators. As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests. Prior to ratification, however, many States had perfected arrangements calculated to afford the voters more effective control over the selection of Senators. State laws were amended so as to enable voters participating in primary elections to designate their preference for one of several party candidates for a senatorial seat, and nominations unofficially effected thereby were transmitted to the legislature. Although their action rested upon no stronger foundation that [sic] common understanding, the legislatures generally elected the winning candidate of the majority, and, indeed, in two States, candidates for legislative seats were required to promise to support, without regard to party ties, the senatorial candidate polling the most votes. As a result of such developments, at least 29 States by 1912, one year before ratification, were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors./1 Very shortly after ratification it was established that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the United States./2 Consistent with this view, federal courts declared that when local party authorities, acting pursuant to regulations prescribed by a party's state executive committee, refused to permit a Negro, on account of his race, to vote in a primary to select candidates for the office of U.S. Senator, they deprived him of a right secured to him by the Constitution and laws, in violation of this Amendment./3 An Illinois statute, on the other hand, which required that a petition to form, and to nominate candidates or, a new political party be signed by at least 25,000 voters from at least 50 counties was held not to impair any right under the Seventeenth Amendment, notwithstanding that 52 percent of the State's voters were residents of one county, 87 percent were residents of 49 counties, and only 13 percent resided in the 53 least populous counties./4 ____________________ 1 G. Haynes, The Senate of the United States (New York: 1938), 79-117. 2 United States v. Aczel, 219 F. 197 (D.C.D. Ind. 1915), citing Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884) 3 Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (C.A. 5, 1946), cert. den. 327 U.S. 800 (1946), 4 MacDougall v. Green, 355 U.S. 281 (1948), overruled on equal protection grounds in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969). See Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F. Supp. 66 (D.C.E.D.Va. 1964) aff'd on other grounds, 380 U.S. 529 (1965) where a three-judge District Court held that the certificate of residence requirement established by the Virginia legislature as an alternative to payment of a poll tax in federal election was an additional qualification to voting in violation of the Seventeenth Amendment and Art. I, Section 2. # # # "The Nineteenth Amendment was attacked on the narrower ground that a State which had not ratified the amendment would be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate because its representatives in that body would be persons not of its choosing, i.e., persons chosen by voters whom the State itself had not authorized to vote for Senators. (citing Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)) Brushing aside these arguments as unworthy of serious attention, the Supreme Court held both amendments valid." Constitution Annotated, page 900 (1970) Nineteenth Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Comments: Did a State not authorize "citizens of the United States" to vote for Senators? If so, what State was that? Does this imply that the State in question only authorized State Citizens to vote for Senators? The case of Leser v. Garnett should be read with this distinction in mind. # # # Constitutional Defender Association 4826 South Studebaker Road Placerville, California 95667 January 15, 1996 Mr. Jim Russell J.O.I.N. 10206 Tieton Drive Yakima, Washington 98908/tdc fax: (509) 966-0991 Re: 17th Amendment Fraud Dear Jim: In your J.O.I.N. paper #052, you write: "[50 other papers on it. #020 is 9-page detail & 021 is condensed.]" Would you be so kind to inform us how we might obtain all 50 papers on this subject? We are considering ways in which we might utilize this information in some litigation we are planning. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew Mitchell, Associate # # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
Hawks v. County of Butte et al.