"No Legitimate Issue, Mr. Jablonski?"

by

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

January 27, 2012 A.D.

"No legitimate issue, Mr. Jablonski?

We the People are compelled to differ emphatically with you now.

The judicial Power of the United States shall extend to all matters
that arise under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States.
See Article III.

The correct legal meaning of "United States" in all 3 Qualifications Clauses
has been properly adjudicated: this is obviously a matter that arises
under the Constitution for the United States of America --
the proper name of that supreme Law.

Those Qualifications Clauses have never been amended --
not between 1788 and 1866, and not between 1866 and now.

As such, they still retain today the meaning which they had
when those Clauses were first ratified into supreme Law
on June 21, 1788.

What attorneys like you are desperately trying to conceal
is the rather obvious fact that the 1866 Civil Rights Act
did not and could not amend the U.S. Constitution
under any circumstances:

Congress cannot by legislation alter the Constitution
from which alone it derives its power to legislate,
and within whose limitations alone that power can be
lawfully exercised. Eisner v. Macomber

And, even if it were constitutional -- which is now in very serious doubt --
the 1866 Civil Rights Act did NOT confer State Citizenship upon
any black Americans who were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment
banning slavery and involuntary servitude.

It could not do so, because the Supreme Court had already decided that question

just 10 years earlier:

Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in the Dred Scott decision

solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body.

Instead, a second and clearly inferior class of federal citizens
were created de facto by that 1866 Civil Rights Act: prior to that Act,
there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States".
Ex parte Knowles

Moreover, and of even greater legal significance,
Congress committed fraud by attempting to make it appear
that this second, inferior class of federal citizens were
somehow equal in status to the primary class of State Citizens
who had existed at least since 1788.

That pretense was impossible to maintain forever, chiefly because
federal citizenship has been correctly described as a municipal franchise
domiciled in the District of Columbia, where the Guarantee Clause --
strictly construed -- does not require Congress to guarantee a
Republican Form of Government.

There, Congress was free to create a legislative democracy,
and so it has.

To make matters even worse, certain fanatical politicians have
promoted the false and rebuttable notion that the Constitution
does not apply inside D.C. -- even though Congress expressly
extended the entire Constitution there in 1871: what arrogance!

This resulted in ripping the Nation in two separate and unequal parts:
(1) the Constitutional Republic guaranteed to the several States, and
(2) the Legislative Democracy created specifically for "subjects"
of the District of Columbia and the other, very limited geographic areas
where Congress is the local Legislature.

Lastly, it is now well established and also proven beyond the shadow
of any doubt, that Congress has frequently enacted legislation that was
municipal in nature and thereby very limited in its geographic reach,
but it was deliberately written to make it appear AS IF that legislation
applied throughout the several (now 50) States of the Union.
Cf. "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue"
for a mountain of proof, including also the advice of "legal experts"
employed by the Federal government.

This was also fraud on the part of Congress; and,
there is no statute of limitations for fraud of this kind
particularly when it is massive, far-reaching and spans
multiple generations between 1866 and now.

Lastly, it is now established judicial precedent that
the term "United States" has 3 distinct legal meanings,
each different from the other two. Hooven & Allison v. Evatt

By failing to define which of those three was intended
for the term "citizen of the United States", Congress
engaged in vague and deceptive practices -- all of which
can and should be rendered null and void ab initio pursuant
to the Void for Vagueness Doctrine. See Sixth Amendment.

And, such unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment
-- ab initio -- not from any decision(s) so branding the Act(s) in question.

Sorry, Congress: but the Law as written required all of you
to honor and obey these fundamental Principles with permanent fidelity:
by violating them, blatantly and repeatedly, you have abandoned
your authority and left it to conscientious Americans to clean up
the gigantic mess you have left to Us for generations to come.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice