Paul Andrew
Mitchell
US Apartheid
and Sovereignty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdVVe-5_T8s
Published
on Dec 15, 2012 [1:40:15]
OffPlanet Radio Live -- Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Randy Maugans
with Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
Supreme Law Firm
Supreme Law Firm
Paul Andrew Mitchell provides
the legal and historical groundwork to understand the meanings of two key
terms: "United States" and
"citizen".
The events surrounding the
American Civil War, beginning with the Dred Scott decision, began a
series of moves by the U.S. Congress, which ultimately resulted in the creation
of two United States, and two classes of citizens!
Today, we live by laws that
continue to re-define and divide unwary Americans, who do not know who they are
... or which laws apply to them.
The federal zone, a municipal
legislative district, is quite distinct from the legitimate constitutional
government of "We, the People".
In this nearly 3-hour live
show, we get a massive education on the issues surrounding this complex set of
issues, and discuss the continued usurpation of power, corruption, and
racketeering by the illegal bosses who stole our American legacy of freedom.
Listen closely, and take notes.
Paul Andrew Mitchell is the
founder of the Supreme Law Firm.
An advanced systems development
consultant for 35 years, Mitchell has spent the past sixteen years since 1990 A.D. doing a detailed investigation of
the United States Constitution, federal statute laws, and the important court
cases.
Writing under several pen
names, Mitchell's work has reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court,
which adopted "the federal zone" as a household word in their
sweeping 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez.
His massive book entitled
"The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" was first published in 1992, and became an
instant underground success for its lucid language and indisputable legal
authority.
The Appendices are available,
for free, right here.
Mitchell has litigated
important cases in State and federal courts, including the case of People v.
Boxer, which established that the so-called Sixteenth Amendment was a
massive fraud upon the American People.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of Mitchell's
pleadings in that case.
He has also worked as Vice
President for Legal Affairs and Counsel to an Arizona Trust, in a major
confrontation with the federal government over tax administration policy, and
as Counsel to a trespass and piracy victim whose legal strategy has attracted
nationwide attention on the Internet.
Interview:
[1:05]
Welcome, once again, to Off Planet Radio Live. I’m Randy Maugans,
it’s Wednesday night, the usual live show, December 5, 2012. …
My guest tonight is Paul Andrew Mitchell. He is here on the telephone line with me. …
He is the founder of the Supreme Law Firm
website: www.supremelaw.org is a landmark website
for Constitutional law research.
His 1992 book "The
Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue" is a massively important work that established the fraud
behind the Internal Revenue Service and the taxation system that continues to
support the Federal Reserve.
Paul Andrew Mitchell is the founder of the Supreme Law Firm. An advanced systems development consultant
for 35 years, Mitchell has spent the past sixteen years since 1990 A.D. doing a detailed investigation of
the United States Constitution, federal statute laws, and the important court
cases.
He has spent his time since 1990 doing detailed
investigation of the United States
Constitution.
Please hold your questions.
Welcome, Paul.
[4:49]
Paul: Thank you.
[5:50]
Paul: I was doing FORTRAN programming and database
development, mostly systems level stuff for a major investment bank in San
Francisco. …
Supreme Court decisions have
stated that there are two classes of
citizens in America, not one, and there have been two classes since 1866.
Prior to 1866, there was only
one class of citizens.
In 1866, a second class of
federal citizens was introduced into the law.
Congress chose language to
confuse it with the primary class of State Citizens which had already been
recognized in the Constitution as of June 21, 1788.
There are two basic concepts,
two fundamental terms in federal law, which take you very far.
One is the term “citizen” and
it comes in two flavors: one has an
upper-case “C” and the other has a lower-case “c”. That is one-half of the equation.
The other half of the equation
is the term “United States”. The
clarification will be clearer if we first explain the term “United States”, and
then explain the term “citizen”.
To explain the term “United
States”, imagine the diagram of a triangle with the apex annotated “nation” or
“country”, the vertex at the lower-right annotated “50 States” or “50 states of
the Union”, and the vertex at the lower-left annotated “federal government”.
In federal law, the term
“United States” has at least three (3) meanings, probably more, but it took
until 1945 before the U.S. Supreme Court finally admitted that the term
“United States” has multiple meanings.
That term appeared throughout
the Constitution on the day it was ratified, so why it took so long to make
this official is unknown, but they were very negligent in waiting that long.
[18:47]
The Supreme Court says the term
“United States” may be used in any one of several senses.
One: A sovereign nation (apex of the triangle
diagram).
Two: The territory over which the sovereignty
extends.
Three: The collective name of the States united by
and under the Constitution, the 50 stars on our flag.
Going back to the second
definition: “The
term ‘United States’ may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of
the United States extends.”
In that second sense, the term
“United States” is used twice. It is a
tautology. The term “United States” is
defined by using the term “United States” in the definition.
That is a grammatical
violation.
Also, the territory over which
the sovereignty of the federal government extends is a concept that we have
explored in great detail in the book entitled “The Federal Zone”, and it’s not the whole
nation.
The federal government does not
have unlimited jurisdiction inside the 50 States.
The federal Constitution limits
what the federal government can do when Congress enacts laws that apply within
the States of the Union. It is very
limited.
It is a grant of enumerated and
limited powers.
The term “United States” has a
fourth meaning, and it is the name that you will find in lots of federal laws
that describe the federal government.
For example, when the federal
government sues somebody, the Party is called the “United States”, and it is a
singular noun for a singular entity, not a plural noun.
There are many more meanings of
the term “United States” in the specific contexts of laws enacted by Congress,
such as the term “State” when it includes only the District of Columbia.
Congress has been told by the
U.S. Supreme Court that Congress cannot re-define these terms when they appear
in the Constitution, but Congress has been doing that anyway for a long time.
Unfortunately, the term “United
States” has different meanings in the Constitution.
The original “organic” or
organizing version of the Constitution already had this problem when it was
ratified on June 21, 1788, when only 9 States of the then extant 13 States were
required to make it supreme Law.
We have a “federal” government
as opposed to a “national” government, because it started as a federation of States
or Colonies, with their charter called the Articles of Confederation.
It wasn’t a national government from the
beginning. Our government in Washington,
D.C. was not a national government,
and it is still not one today, in spite of malicious efforts to morph us out of
a Republic into a democracy.
The Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, that requires
a Republican Form of Government for the States of the Union, is still in force.
(This is not the time to get
into all the theories about the occult and Freemasonry.)
The triangle diagram is a way
of distinguishing the three (3) definitions of the “United States” that are
recognized by a standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and such decisions
are good case law.
Next is the question of
citizenship, the term “citizen”.
The problem with citizenship is
that the organic Constitution used the term “Citizen of the United States” in three key places, and it did that right from
day one.
One and two: A Representative in Congress or
a Senator needs to be a
Citizen (upper-case “C”) of the United States.
Three: a President has to be a natural
born Citizen (upper-case “C”) of the United States.
These three Offices are the
only Offices in the federal government that are elected. All the others are appointed.
So, a fundamental question is
this: What does it mean legally, what
does the term “Citizen of the United States” mean?
It has three meanings at least,
probably more.
The term “Citizen of the United
States” is vague. It does not pin down
what is intended by that phrase.
A California Judge who signed
the original State of California Constitution of 1849 wrote that the words
“United States” in these Qualifications Clauses means the “States united”.
The meaning of the term varies
with, and depends upon, its particular context.
In the context of the Qualifications Clauses, it means Citizen of one
of the States united.
That was true from the original
on June 21, 1778, right up until the present, but there was a big bump in the
road right after the Civil War ended.
[13.13]
Just before the Civil War
actually, a problem arose when a black slave named Dred Scott sued for his
freedom.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford in a 7-to-2
decision, the Chief Justice made two very fundamental points in an opinion more
than 450 pages in length.
He said that apartheid was the
law of the land and that black slaves were not citizens. Slaves were property.
And that apartheid was written
into the original “organic” Constitution;
they were considered three-fifths
of people.
So, there is no question that
the Constitution was a racist document when it was first ratified in 1788 A.D.
But, he made another key
holding.
His second point was that the U.S.
Supreme Court does not have the authority to amend the Constitution, e.g. to outlaw slavery, and he pointed
to Article V.
He said, if you find this
result offensive, the Constitution has a mechanism for amending itself.
The U.S. Supreme Court came to
the conclusion that apartheid was the law of the land, but if the nation wanted
to change that, they had to utilize Article
V.
Abraham Lincoln was one of the
people who chose to attack the U.S. Supreme Court rather than to follow their
advice.
Emotions of the pro-slavery and
anti-slavery factions were running high, and emotion clouds our better
judgment.
It took a Civil War to decide
whether or not States could secede, and the South surrendered unconditionally
at Appomattox.
After the Civil War, the
Congress proposed [was “enacted” in error] the Thirteenth Amendment to
outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude, which required some votes by the
defeated southern slave States to reach the three-fourths threshold.
But, instead of enacting a uniform,
group naturalization Act, Congress passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act that created a
second class of federal
citizens.
However, instead of calling them
federal citizens, to clearly distinguish them from the State Citizen class in
the Qualifications Clauses, they just
changed the “C” from an upper-case “C” to a lower-case “c”, and that was fraud.
They were trying to create the
false impression that these free blacks could now become State Citizens.
But, the U.S. Supreme Court had
said you can’t do that without an Amendment to the Constitution.
For great clarity and detail,
see the 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v.
Turner.
That Fourteenth Amendment was
passed by force and by fraud, and yet it appears in every copy of the
Constitution in every federal depository library.
[54:14]
The intent of the radical
Republicans was not just a naturalization Act to force this second inferior
class initially upon the free blacks, but then they tried to say that any
person who is born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the
United States and of the State in which they reside.
That was the language they
adapted from the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Let me read it verbatim now
from the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment. “Section 1. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If you don’t know that the term
“United States” has three
meanings, you might be easily duped by this key section of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
If you know where to look, that
one sentence there has generated more litigation than any other Clause in the
Constitution, and the Constitution has generated a lot of litigation.
But, the Fourteenth Amendment
is such bad law that the judges and courts do not agree and cannot be
reconciled with each other.
They did not say in Section 1
of the Fourteenth Amendment which of the three meanings of the term “United
States” they were using.
And then they say “subject to
the jurisdiction thereof”, but what does “thereof” mean in that context?
The language “citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside” reveals a recognition of two separate classes -- one of the federal
government and one of the State.
They tried to enslave everyone
including white people by this ruse, but the Courts ruled otherwise.
When you get to the end of the Dyett v.
Turner case, you realize that the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally
ratified. It’s not law.
It’s just put in there to look
like the feds have a national jurisdiction over all people who are born
anywhere inside the 50 States of the Union.
That is the interpretation that
the federal government has been forcing down our throats, and it’s just not
true.
It’s not correct.
It’s not supported by the
facts.
It’s not supported by the law,
and it’s not supported by the Court cases that have ruled on the real meaning
of this proposed Fourteenth Amendment.
[1:00:30]
These Qualifications Clauses have never been
amended.
What did it for me was when I
found in a legal dictionary that “federal citizenship” has a
well defined legal meaning.
That definition is very
condemning of the Congress.
Imagine if Congress had used
the phrase “federal citizens” in all the laws they have passed that apply only
to lower-case “c” citizens of the United States.
We would look at it and say:
Well, I’m not a federal citizen, so that law does not apply to me.
You see how they colluded the two classes simply by changing the
capitalization to a lower-case “c”.
That was fraud.
And it was fraud in the 1866 Civil Rights Act too, because they
should have used the term “federal citizen” in that law too, because that was
the law that created the second class.
There’s no question about that
now.
That is the origin of this
second class, this inferior class of
“federal citizens”.
Prior to the 1866 Civil Rights
Act, there was only one class of “State Citizens”, and I can show you the court
cases that have held that.
Pannill v.
Roanoke is one really pivotal case because it said that this second class wasn’t
even contemplated when the “organic” Constitution was being drafted.
That’s a federal court being
honest for a change.
So, we had that period between
1788 and 1866 when there was only one class of “State Citizens”. Only one, not zero, not two, not three.
And they are the class of
People who are still today able to make law in the U.S. House of
Representative, make law in the U.S. Senate, and sign laws in the Office of the
President.
Now for the bad news.
Because all these States have
gone along with this fraud, what you find is that to vote or serve on any jury,
State or federal, civil or criminal, or grand jury, you have to declare that
you are a citizen of the United States -- lower-case “c” citizen.
Those who are qualified to
serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and Office of the
President cannot serve on juries and cannot vote in elections for political
offices.
And those who are eligible to
vote and serve on grand juries are not qualified to serve in the U.S. House of
Representatives, in the U.S. Senate or the White House.
[1:03:23]
Randy Maugans,
Moderator: Here’s the happy side of
this. It is a way to decline jury duty
simply by refusing to state that you are a U.S. citizen.
[1:03:38]
Mitchell: Yes,
I have had clients who ask me about this.
And, I advise them to write to the jury commissioner, cite the case law,
and tell them you are not in that federal class; you are in the original class of the
organic Constitution.
It turns out that the phrase “citizen of the United States”
when the “c” is a lower-case “c” doesn’t mean “States united” as it does in the
Qualifications Clauses.
What it means is the federal government, that other
leg of the triangle diagram.
So, lower-case “c” in citizen of the United States
basically means citizen of the federal government.
And, in this context, it means the federal government
and its limited areas like the District of Columbia, the areas where it’s the
state legislature, if you will, they’re on a par with the 50 State
Legislatures.
And the laws that Congress enacts for places like
D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico, are called Municipal Law.
And this category of law is very different from the
laws that Congress can enact for the whole nation, like raising taxes,
organizing the military, patents and copyrights, and naturalization.
When Congress enacts laws for places like Puerto Rico,
it is doing what your State Legislature does when it enacts laws for your
State.
Those laws are called Municipal Laws.
When you combine all of these little areas where the
federal government has exclusive
legislative jurisdiction and there’s no State, like Puerto Rico, when you
combine them all together and you combine it with the District of Columbia and
all these other federal enclaves, like military bases, you get an area -- a
federal zone -- where Congress is the state government.
There is no State Governor, no State courts, and no
State legislature. Congress is the City
Hall for those areas.
When I wrote my book, it just seemed obvious that was
an area we ought to call the federal zone. Because the States are inside the State Zone.
And, that was the title of my book that we published
first in 1992.
It came up in the context of federal income taxes,
because Subtitle
A of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed only on “federal citizens” and
“resident aliens”.
We knew that because we looked at the Regulations, and they attempted to
create a liability for only those two classes of Americans, not for State
Citizens.
So, right away we knew there was a very important
distinction in the Regulations between State Citizens on the one hand, and
federal citizens on the other.
It got even more interesting, because all of Subtitle
A basically falls into this category of federal Municipal Law. It only applies to D.C., Guam, Virgin
Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.
And, it re-defines the term “State” in a very
subversive kind of way, but none of the 50 States are even mentioned in that
particular definition.
And, it was only after I published the book that I got
some really dramatic confirmation of this.
At first I would never have believed it, but there was
this letter from Representative
Kennelly in Connecticut, and not someone in her district but someone from
California wrote to her and said, Can you please tell me what the meaning of
the term “State” is in this bill that you authored, and how does it compare to
the meaning of the term “State” in the Internal Revenue Code?
And, she didn’t know the answer.
So, she sent the letter to the Congressional Research
Service and another group called Legislative Counsel, and these legal experts
came back to her and said, In your anti-terrorist bill
you are writing, “State” embraces all 50 States. It’s intended to include all 50 States.
But in the Internal Revenue Code, the term “State”
embraces only the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa
and Puerto Rico.
And, she simply took what they told her, wrote it up
in a summary letter, and mailed it back to this guy in San Diego, and it
couldn’t be clearer.
It says “State” includes only – there’s no
if’s, and’s or but’s.
These legal experts made it very clear that in the
Internal Revenue Code, the word “State” in Section 3121(e),
Social Security, it embraces only these areas that we call the federal zone and
none of the 50 States was even mentioned.
I came to that very same conclusion all on my own,
before I even saw this letter from Representative Kennelly.
So, I printed it a subsequent edition, up in the Preface, and reproduced it verbatim so people could see that I was
not making this up.
This is something that Congress has been doing for a
long time.
They’re re-defining the word “State” to limit it to
areas that don’t have anything to do with the 50 States of the Union.
It’s everything except the 50 States of the
Union, like Puerto Rico, which is a federal Territory and not a State of the
Union, and Congress is its local Legislature.
It was the conclusion we had to come to, because we
went down the right road.
We concluded that the Internal Revenue Code is federal
Municipal Law, and that conclusion has withstood all kinds of assaults from all
kinds of various quarters.
The courts we present this to basically freak out.
They don’t want to admit that I am right.
And, they usually find some way to get around this.
We followed up with a lot of litigation, and we
entered the book in a lot of court
cases.
The federal judges that we have been up against don’t
want to even talk about the Dyett v. Turner case in Utah case law.
They get really angry.
It is like we are exposing their whole scam, and they
don’t have the intellectual wherewithal, nor do they have the intestinal
fortitude, to admit that they have been wrong about this for all this time.
State Citizens are not even mentioned in Subtitle A of
the Internal Revenue Code.
You find it in some really out of the way places, like
the removal
laws if a case starts in a State court and for some reason it needs to get
moved over to a federal court, there are laws that govern that process.
The federal laws are trying to morph the entire
country from a Constitutional Republic to a legislative democracy, and they are
taking on the ideology of the Roman Senate when Caesar was the dictator of the
Roman Empire.
If the Roman Senate enacted a law for Rome, the Roman
army would enforce those laws out in Palestine, Africa, and anywhere in the
Roman Empire, they would enforce those laws.
And, that is why the late Howard Freeman described it as Roman Civil Law.
That is what Congress is trying to do.
They’re trying to say, We can
legislate anything we want, and it applies to all you Americans, even if you
are out in the 50 States.
And the way they get around that is they say: If you’re a federal citizen because you filed
a tax return or you voted, you are subject to federal Municipal Law; no matter where
you are on planet Earth, we have that reach.
Our Municipal Law will reach you provided that you
have declared somehow, and we have a record of your saying, you’re a federal
citizen.
That makes you our subject.
So we are going to treat you like we are a monarchy and
you are our subject, and that word “subject” is right in the Fourteenth Amendment -- “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
What that means is subject to the Municipal
jurisdiction of the Congress.
That’s what it really means.
That explains a lot of the original intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
You’re basically subjecting yourself to the Municipal
law no matter where you are on planet Earth, even if you were onboard the Space
Shuttle or International Space Station.
The feds are going to say, That
makes you one of us and you’ve got to pay us these taxes.
State Citizens are not subject to federal Municipal
Law any more than they are to the laws enacted by adjacent States.
Here I am in Seattle, Washington, and I am not subject
to any laws of Oregon, Nevada or California.
Those are foreign
laws as far as I am concerned. And the
same thing is true of these Municipal Laws.
They’re foreign with respect to the States of the Union.
One really easy way to understand this is to look at
the definitions of the words “foreign” and “domestic” corporation and they will
lay it out in very simple terms.
Because the Tenth Amendment preserves
to the States certain Rights, States have the power and authority to create and
domicile corporations, and those corporation laws vary from State to State.
So, if a corporation is established in California,
it’s a domestic corporation only
within the confines of California, and with respect to all the other 49 States
that corporation becomes a foreign
corporation.
This is how Municipal Law works.
And, if a corporation domiciled in California is
trying to do business, say, inside Utah, it needs to register with the
Secretary of State of Utah, because the California corporation is foreign with
respect to Utah, although not foreign with respect to its home State of
California.
So, it’s all a relative kind of concept.
But, this business about foreign and domestic
corporations really highlights the distinction between laws that your own State
would enact for people who live and work inside your home State, versus the
laws of an adjacent State that are all foreign with respect to your home State.
The same thing is true of the District of Columbia.
Congress in Washington, D.C., enacts local laws for
D.C.
They are just like the state legislature for D.C. and
those laws only apply in that area.
A good example is the Uniform
Commercial Code, which is federal Municipal Law, and it says right on Page 1:
This law was enacted for the District of Columbia.
When the feds make a change in their UCC, the 50
States each have agreed to also change likewise, to maintain uniformity.
Some States are slow, so we recommend that you use the
citation to the UCC recommended by your State legislature, to invoke the State
law that applies to the State where you work.
Don’t invoke the federal UCC, because you’re basically
telling the federal judge that you are subject to the version for the District
of Columbia.
You don’t want to do that.
I wish Congress would clearly label the laws more
often, by declaring that a law was enacted for the District of Columbia.
They very often use the word “State” in a very limited
sense, but they don’t clearly define it.
They want people out in the 50 States to assume that
the federal laws apply to those out there in the 50 States too, because it
applies to the “States”.
It gets worse.
There is evidence that there are two further kinds of
“states”, and the Supreme Court has actually recognized the “state within a
state”.
When President Clinton learned that we were talking about
this on the Internet, he ordered the Code of federal Regulations containing
this information to be removed from federal Depository Libraries.
They were all parallel.
One
set of Regulations applied to the upper-case “S” kind of “States” and another set of Regulations
applied to the lower-case “s” kind of “states”.
It was exactly parallel, A and B, all the way across.
A parallel government was being created.
I put that in some litigation, because the IRS sued me
a couple of times, so it was actually in a court record.
The IRS sued me in retaliation for my having authored
the book “The Federal Zone”.
They wanted me to pay taxes on a lot of money I made
while working for an investment bank, and I said, No, I don’t owe you any
money.
I got a very quiet dismissal about six months later.
There was no appeal or contrary motions or anything.
I was prepared to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, I took the IRS summons, pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and then
they left me alone after that.
I got this ORDER from Judge Vaughn Walker, the Chief
Judge of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, and he dismissed the case.
I didn’t move him to dismiss it.
A judge is not supposed to do that, but he said, This case is dismissed with prejudice.
That Brief
is in the Supreme Law Library if you want to see
it.
Just write to my email address -- supremelawfirm@gmail.com -- and I’ll
show you where to find that winning
Brief.
It’s nice to have winning Briefs, and I have two wins.
By that time, we had exposed the Internal Revenue
Code.
I moved to Arizona where a client of mine was subpoenaed by a Grand Jury.
This type of dual classification of the term “States
and states” may invalidate an entire Grand Jury panel.
We found cases that were decided on the basis of laws
that would not allow blacks on juries in Southern States, and the Supreme Court
said, No, these are not lawful juries because this type of class discrimination
invalidates the entire panel.
So, I put that up before Judge John M. Roll, the
Federal Judge who was assassinated in Tucson, Arizona.
He was presiding on this case, and I said, We should
put a STAY on this whole proceeding
because the Jury
Selection and Service Act is manifesting class discrimination against State
Citizens.
And, he changed his whole demeanor towards me when he
saw that pleading.
Before that, he was totally in control of the
courtroom, but when I started putting arguments like that in front of him, he
just changed his whole demeanor.
We nailed him for obstructing the U.S. mail that we
were sending to the Grand Jury, so he actually became very, very defensive.
He actually admitted it in open court one day.
He admitted that he was obstructing justice.
His assistant had the green cards for Registered U.S.
mail, and he said, I have all of your mail, but I did not open it.
So, I charged him
with 28 counts of obstructing correspondence.
And then he openly admitted in court also that he
handed our U.S. mail to the U.S. Attorney, instead of delivering it to the
Grand Jury.
He handed all our pleadings to the U.S. Attorney, so
that admitted conspiracy.
And then it was also jury tampering.
I ended up having to charge him with over 100 felonies.
But, he did not rule on the motion challenging the Jury
Selection and Service Act.
I think that was just too hot to handle.
I found very early that this knowledge about two classes of citizens is a tightly held
secret among federal employees and federal officers.
They don’t want State Citizens knowing that this
status is still available to them, and has never really changed.
They don’t want Americans knowing this.
They do know it.
And, when you put the arguments in front of them, you
just see they freak out.
They say, I don’t want to be the one to rule on this.
You are a federal judge with a lifetime appointment
making lots of money.
So, you as a federal judge rule against the Jury
Selection and Service Act;
it’s not going to rebound back to you.
I thought that maybe somebody was threatening them.
When I filed that motion, the U.S. Attorney on that
case got flown back to Washington, D.C. pronto.
I think somebody wanted to talk to him.
You know, you’re not just dealing with your average
litigant here.
And then we went up before the Eighth Circuit in the Gilbertson
case, and we really formalized it there;
that Opening Brief really
formalized it.
Topic
“A” said: Jury selection is
unconstitutional in this country.
The Grand Jury that indicted him, and the trial jury
that convicted him, were not lawful juries.
We get targeted because we make Constitutional
arguments, and that is so outside the authority claims they might assert
against us.
We’re entitled to have questions of law dealt with
objectively, without bias, by qualified judicial officers, and that is just not
happening.
I probably have more authority on these questions than
Eric Holder, because his credentials are invalid,
too.
I tell people I am acting on behalf of the United
States, and this is what the United States is telling you.
And so far, the U.S. Marshals are tolerating it here
in Seattle.
They have had four meetings with me, but
they do not challenge me on these points.
They realize that, when I make a stand on some point
of law, that I’ve already researched it and I’ve got the court cases and the Regulations
and the Acts of Congress to back me up, so they leave me alone here in Seattle,
Washington.
[1:27:04]
Moderator: You used an important word there, the
“imposters”.
You’ve stated, for instance,
that in California The State Bar of
California is completely in contempt, in terms of not being licensed; and, the
judges from federal judges, down probably to the local district judges
themselves, probably are deficient in oath.
What are the deficiencies that
occur with the judges?
[1:27:39]
Paul: You probably know that my book was stolen and
modified and then posted on the Internet by about 129 players, 20 of whom were
major colleges and universities.
One of them was
my alma mater, the University of
California.
So, I sued 129 named defendants, beginning in 2001,
just before 9/11.
I challenged all
the attorneys, who showed up for certain defendants, to produce licenses,
because the California law is pretty
clear, and not one of them would do it.
And, I got subpoenas served on these
same attorneys as well, and they were in contempt of those subpoenas.
They never did
produce the license that’s required by the California
Business and Professions Code.
So, as we went
up the ladder, I got up to …. oh, the magistrate had been a member of the State
Bar and he should have known that he had a conflict of interest, because I put
that paperwork right into the record.
I said: These people do not have licenses.
I’m entitled to
default judgment.
There’s a court case from
the Ninth Circuit that says, if a corporation doesn’t show up in court under
the auspices of a licensed attorney, it’s default judgment time.
Well, he had a
conflict of interest, and so did the federal judge, I should say federal robe, William B. Shubb.
Then, we go up
to the Ninth
Circuit and the same thing started happening up there.
About one-fourth
of those had been members of The State
Bar of California, and they refused to produce licenses, too.
And then, we got
to the U.S.
Supreme Court, and three of those had been members of The State Bar of California.
And, to make
matters worse, by that time the U.S. Department of Justice was helping me and
they realized I wasn’t a terrorist, and they were helping me produce
credentials for these various federal judges, all the way up the ladder.
If they had
them, they would write to me and say, Here’s the Presidential Commission for
so-and-so and such-and-such.
And they would
also say, Well, we don’t have one for this, that and the other federal robe.
By the time it
got to the U.S. Supreme Court, three of those
“Justices” turned up without with Presidential Commissions, which means
they cannot sit on the U.S. Supreme Court at all.
You have to have
a Presidential Commission to be a federal judge or justice. …
It’s not just
technically null and void;
it’s black and white.
They have no authority to preside on any cases,
issue any rulings, and all their acts are void.
I showed the
U.S. Marshals various cases that said that, and they can’t get paid either.
The Marshals
said to me: We wonder if our credentials
are valid or not.
And I said: I was going to let you guys decide that.
They did advise
me to go back to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Office of
Personnel Management, and get the very latest situation, but both of those
federal departments said to me: We have
not followed the Paperwork Reduction Act, so we don’t have any authority to
remove the old control number from all of the defective credentials.
They are now
using an electronic Form on the Internet – but, that Form doesn’t have an OMB
control number -- and if you don’t have valid Appointment Affidavits, you’re
not a judge.
If you don’t
have a valid Presidential Commission, you’re not a judge.
It goes way, way
back.
By the time I
made this discovery, I went back to California and started investigating all
federal district judges throughout the State of California and all members of The State Bar of California; and,
all federal district judges in California had been, at one time, members of The State Bar of California.
It was 100
percent correspondence. The overlap was perfect.
So, I re-filed
my lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, and I ended up charging all 200,000 members
of The State Bar of California with multiple
State and federal felonies.
They had been
committing mail fraud, obstruction of justice, misrepresentation, conspiracy; it’s a
long rap sheet.
I had to,
because the law
requires that you report a federal felony when you encounter proof of it.
And, here I am
now litigating a civil RICO action against all these same defendants, and of course,
the same imposter [robe] stepped in and obstructed that case as well.
But, by this
time I had more ammunition, namely, a subpoena
had been served on The State Bar of
California.
The State Bar
refused to produce any licenses for any of the 200,000 past or present members,
many of whom have been federal judges.
Now get this --
nine years later, an attorney in California finally showed me the front side only, but
he refused to show me the back side where his signature should have endorsed a Certificate of the Oath.
That’s what I
was really interested in, the signature that’s required by California State
law.
Well, I went back to that
attorney; he didn’t show me the back
side, and I don’t know if his is valid or not.
It says here, Member in Good Standing, but you didn’t
show me your signature.
He never
answered that.
So, after all
that time, I ended up with one-half of one license to practice law for all
200,000 members of The State Bar of
California.
So, the whole
legal system in California is going down the toilet.
When I moved to
Seattle, I wondered if it was just as bad in that State as it was in
California.
So, I went to
the Washington State Supreme Court straightaway, and I asked them that question
through Washington State law now.
In a matter of
weeks, I had licenses for all of them.
There was no
problem.
They just
produced it right away.
No argument, no
challenge.
I think I had to
pay some nominal fee for the clerical photocopying.
But, they were
completely cooperative.
So, it wasn’t a question
of the problem being true everywhere.
I think it’s
more of a problem that is unique to California because of the State Bar in that
State.
[1:34:20]
Moderator: Is there not also a lot of illegal activity
that is being conducted through the courts in California.
[1:34:30]
Paul: Oh, boy.
Is there ever!
[1:34:33]
Moderator: I’ve understood it to be that I think the
District Courts in California are basically fronts for drug running. I’ll say that. You don’t have to, if you don’t want to.
[1:34:48]
Paul: Well, we have a document in the Supreme Law Library that
was certified by an LAPD Detective Gary Wean, who had since passed away, but he
nailed two federal judges for being kingpins in the cocaine trafficking ring
that is being run out of the U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles by Dean Pregerson and his
father, Harry, on the Ninth Circuit.
Dean turned up without
any credentials.
And, my motion
that was filed in a case in Santa Ana was handed over to him, and he issued one
of the most ridiculous rulings
I’ve ever seen, coming from a modern federal court.
He said, I don’t
understand these remedies.
What do we
want? To abolish the IRS.
I want to
litigate it.
He said, I don’t
understand these remedies.
But that guy
turned up without any credentials at
all, and he’s running a whole narcotics racket right out of the U.S. District
Court in downtown Los Angeles.
That’s how bad
it is.
[1:35:50]
Moderator: Is there any possible way to gain remedy in
situations where -- I mean who judges the judges?
Who enforces the
law on those who enforce the law when you no longer have people who are
accountable?
Is there a
process that you go through that you are pursuing that will bring these people
into line?
You’ve filed all
of these lawsuits.
You have subpoenas
out there are in dishonor, and nobody seems to move on this.
[1:36:22]
Paul: Yes, we’re up against it in that sense.
You understand
this pretty well.
Let me just deal
with Eric Holder for a second.
He is the top
law enforcement officer in the country or claims to be.
When Obamacare
hit the courts, Washington State joined that group of states that are suing
Obamacare.
I jumped in and
noticed all the parties that I was interested in knowing if Eric Holder had
credentials.
Kathleen
Sebelius [Secretary of Health and Human Services] was in there and a couple of
other Cabinet members, the Secretary of Labor, et cetera.
And then also
Timothy Geithner [Treasury Secretary], I wanted his Appointment Affidavit.
And you know,
all of those Appointment Affidavits are being pulled off the Internet copy, and
none of those have any OMB control numbers.
So, all of these
people turned up without valid credentials, including Eric
Holder.
So, I’ve had to
tell him, I’m sorry, Eric, but you’re not Attorney General.
This is the law
of the land.
If you don’t
have a valid Appointment Affidavit that has been duly witnessed by somebody who
had authority to administer that form -- it can’t be a county dog catcher,
nothing against county dog catchers, but they are not authorized to administer
this form -- well, a lot of the people who administer those forms don’t have
credentials, so the form is rendered invalid by virtue of the fact that it
doesn’t comply with Section
2903 in Title 5.
And, I got into
this with the U.S. Marshals, and they wanted to know how deeply I went into
this, and I answered every one of their questions immediately.
I said, this
violates this law, and that violates that law, and this all goes back to the
U.S. Constitution where it says, they will all have Oaths of Office.
So, we don’t
have an Attorney General at the moment.
And I’m thinking
that in a couple of key cases that I’m investigating at the moment, I may
actually commandeer that office for purposes of the paperwork.
I’m not going to
show up and try to oust Eric from his office.
He has a lot of
people working for him.
[1:38:34]
Moderator: We are going to take a break here somewhere
in the middle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbbAr7RMirI
Published
on December 15, 2012 [1:13:10]
Paul Mitchell distinguishes
between federal National Law and federal Municipal Law in the federal Statutes at Large as published in the
Congressional Record in contrast to the U.S. Code.
Vagueness and ambiguity can
render a written law null from the date of enactment, if the ordinary man
cannot understand the law.
The meaning of “individual” and
“U.S. person” or “United States person” are critical starting points to
understand laws, rules and regulations.
The federal zone, enclaves and
territories and federal Municipal Law.
All 50 States are foreign with
respect to the District of Colombia, and D.C. is foreign with respect to the 50
States.
In federal Municipal Law, the
definition of “State” is D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto
Rico, which are not the several “states” in lower case, thereby changing the
“State” in the U.S. Constitution.
COMMENT:
See:
US v. USA by Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
One Constitution, Not Two.
