Author's Comments Clarifying "Citizenship for Dummies"

Author’s Comments Clarifying

“Citizenship for Dummies”

March 7, 2010 A.D.

I think we have succeeded in focusing attention where it needs to be, as far as Citizenship in America is concerned:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

The distinction between "citizens of the United States" and "white citizens" in the Federal statute at 42 U.S.C. 1982, in retrospect appears to be an artifact of legal decisions made immediately after the Civil War ended in 1865 A.D. See Dyett v. Turner here.

In this context it is definitely a very revealing artifact, because it makes all the more obvious the facts that federal citizenship was originally intended for black Americans recently freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, and ONLY for those black Americans.

That Federal statute also mandates the unavoidable inference that "white citizens" are NOT "citizens of the United States", as least as far as that statute is concerned!

The defensible points that have emerged from our latter essay are these:

(1) none of the 3 branches of the Federal government has any authority to amend the Constitution for the United States of America; this means, simply, that Congress may NOT do so with any Acts of Congress whether those Acts be municipal in scope (1:8:17 + 4:3:2) or national in scope (see the remaining Clauses at Article I, Section 8); cf. Article V for the proper procedure for amending the U.S. Constitution;

(2) the Qualifications Clauses, the Diversity Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the U.S. Constitution have never been amended, in point of fact; and, the 1866 Civil Rights Act certainly did not do so;

(3) rather than to amend that Constitution properly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision in Dred Scott, Congress attempted to bypass Article V by unilaterally enacting the 1866 Civil Rights Act instead; in other words, Congress did NOT formally consult the several State Legislatures, nor did Congress attempt to obtain the formal approval of three-fourths of those State Legislatures, when it enacted that Federal statute;

(1) although some Courts have correctly assigned credit to that Act for creating a second class of "federal citizens" as expressly defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, our careful analysis confirms the following grounds for challenging its constitutionality now, as follows:

(a) as we now know, the term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings; but, which of those 3 meanings Congress intended for the phrase "citizen of the United States" was not defined in that Act; this is crucial;

(b) attempting to confuse "Citizens" with "citizens" was fraud in the first instance, specifically because it was fraud in the inducement, as defined in legal dictionaries e.g.: "the heart of this type of fraud is misleading parties as to the facts upon which they will base their decision to act";

(c) "United States" could never have meant the several (now 50) States of the Union, because the U.S. Supreme Court only 10 years earlier had explained in enormous detail that admitting black Americans into State Citizenship -- i.e. being "Citizens of ONE OF the States united" -- required a Constitutional Amendment; see People v. De La Guerra here;

(d) "United States" could never have meant the nation either, using a different legal meaning of that term, because Citizenship strictly speaking is a term of municipal law: on this point, see Roa v. Collector;

(e) there is only one possibility remaining: using a simple and straightforward process of elimination, "United States" in the term "citizen of the United States" must mean, and can ONLY refer to, the District of Columbia as the seat of municipal government for the entire federal zone;

(f) subsequently deceiving the vast majority of succeeding generations of Americans falsely to identify themselves as "citizens of the United States" was also fraud in the inducement, using devious propaganda such as claims that America is a "democracy" -- when the Guarantee Clause clearly requires a Republican Form of Government for the several (now 50) States; democracies enjoy majority rule, whereas Republics enjoy the Rule of Law;

(g) strictly construed as it should be, the Guarantee Clause does NOT require a Republican Form of Government for the federal zone e.g. D.C., so Congress was legally free to create a different form of government there, and so it has; the federal zone is an absolute legislative democracy, as confirmed by Justice Harlan's dissent in Downes v. Bidwell;

(h) further along these same lines, the current population of federal citizens who now inhabit the 50 States of the Union are an absolute legislative democracy, by law, because they owe primary allegiance to a jurisdiction which is not protected by that Guarantee Clause, namely, D.C.;

(i) nevertheless, when Congress expressly extended the entire Constitution into D.C. in 1871 -- specifically when it incorporated D.C. but NOT the "United States" as such -- it necessarily forced us to compare "United States" as that term occurs in the legal terms for each of 2 classes of citizens;

(j) it also forced us to compare all occurrences of "Citizen" as they occur in the organic Constitution, with the widespread occurrences of the other word "citizen" as originally authorized by the 1866 Civil Rights Act and by all subsequent Federal legislation e.g. Privacy Act, Internal Revenue Code, Federal UCC, etc. ad nauseam;

(2) accordingly, I am convinced we now have sufficient grounds for formally challenging the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, as being demonstrably void for vagueness ab initio: unconstitutionality dates from the moment of its enactment, not from any decision so branding that Act;

(3) furthermore, we also have sufficient grounds for proposing the correct Constitutional Amendment now, which will need to add an enforcement clause like the one found in the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude, and ideally also a separate clause which expressly repeals the so-called Fourteenth amendment with prejudice (it cannot ever amend the Constitution ever again);

(4) in conclusion, time and resources permitting, my office now intends to submit formal PETITIONs to the U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives from Washington State, to sponsor the appropriate RESOLUTION for a vote in the House and Senate, to initiate the correct process for amending the Constitution as described above.

Thank you for your continuing interest in this ongoing saga.

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/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm