"Fee Generation: How the Lawyer Cartel Perpetuates Itself Ad Infinitum"

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

Private Attorney General and

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator

⁵Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge.

You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.

-- Luke 11:52

In several related essays, we have explored the origins and meaning

of federal citizenship, with an emphasis on its relationship to Federal

municipal laws.

Some of those laws make it very clear that they are intended

only for areas which we have termed the "federal zone" --

enclaves, territories and possessions of the United States

which are not (yet) States of the Union. The Federal UCC

is one such law: it was enacted and expressly codified in the

District of Columbia Code, NOT in the U.S. Code.

Other laws, like the Federal Privacy Act, must be analyzed

to determine whether or not State Citizens are even mentioned.

The definition of "individual' in that Act only mentions

federal citizens and resident alien individuals;

State Citizens have no legal "standing" to enforce that

federal municipal law.

Some laws make it more difficult to determine if they

are national in scope, or municipal in scope:

42 U.S.C. 1983 is one such law. One must be

aware of relevant court decisions like Wadleigh v. Newhall,

which held that only federal citizens have standing

to enforce that law and obtain remedies for violations

of that law.

That court decision stands in stark contrast to

Gillespie v. Civiletti, in which the Ninth Circuit ruled

that 42 U.S.C. 1985 implements the Thirteenth Amendment

banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Being a

lawful constitutional amendment, that ban applies

throughout the USA and is therefore national in scope

not municipal in scope.

In case any readers are still wondering, in the year 1871

Congress did expressly extend the entire U.S. Constitution

into the District of Columbia. But, that Act is a topic for

another day.

Still other Federal laws can be proven to use

deceptive re-definitions of keywords like the

"special definitions of 'State'" that occur throughout

the Omnibus Acts. Those Acts made numerous

changes to Federal laws when Alaska and then

Hawaii joined the Union in the same year -- 1959.

Section 3121(e) in the Internal Revenue Code

is notorious for re-defining "State" to include

ONLY D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa

and Puerto Rico.

We hope by now readers here will begin to appreciate

the obvious pattern that is formed by all such Federal

MUNICIPAL laws: they are being enforced against

a large population of federal citizens who presently

inhabit the 50 States of the Union EVEN THOUGH

the geographic jurisdiction of those laws is limited

to the federal zone.

What do these insights have to do with a Lawyer Cartel,

you might be asking?

Let's use subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code as an

example to which almost all adult Americans can

readily relate, particularly if they are still filing

Federal income tax returns.

Even though IRC subtitle A also uses another

"special definition of 'State'" in its stated definitions,

numerous Americans continue to be prosecuted in civil

and criminal cases for violating provisions of subtitle A

even though all such Americans presently inhabit

-- are "domiciled" in -- one of the 50 States.

Federal courts in particular use a legal magic trick

called "silent judicial notice" to abuse federal citizens:

those courts secretly enforce deceptive language found in a

failed constitutional amendment which defines them as

"subject to" all such Federal municipal laws, even though and

despite the fact they do inhabit one of the 50 States.

This nomenclature -- "subject to" -- has its historical

origins in the laws of England, where all UK people

are still subject to the King or Queen a/k/a the Crown.

If an American has ever signed IRS Form 1040,

that American has effectively admitted that s/he

is either a federal citizen or resident alien individual:

those are the two classes of Americans who are

embraced by the phrase "U.S. Individual" as it

appears in the title of Form 1040!

This same meaning can also be confirmed in the

Privacy Act's definition of "individual"

which also includes ONLY federal citizens

and resident alien individuals -- the exact

same two classes of people.

We hope by now you are beginning to see

the pattern that should be obvious from

the unlawful dominion that results from

enforcing federal municipal laws

inside any of the 50 States of the Union:

The American legal system in general is

able to foment an enormous multitude

of civil and criminal lawsuits against

federal citizens. The entire population

of federal citizens who now inhabit the

50 States are, strictly speaking, an

absolute legislative democracy that is

SUBJECT TO all federal municipal laws.

Heck, if Congress in all its grotesque wisdom

decides to prohibit federal citizens from

using a particular brand of toothpaste,

Federal courts will think they are authorized

to enforce that municipal law inside

all 50 States of the Union.

Less ridiculous but more current is the U.S.

Department of Education: even though

the Congress has no authority to legislate

education policies that apply inside the 50 States,

Congress is still free to enact municipal laws that

apply to federal citizens who inhabit those States.

The Framers intended many matters like education

to be the subjects of competitive legislation

enacted by the State Legislatures. With 50 different

Legislatures testing different education policies,

the Framers expected such competition to help

identify the most effective policies and to help

eliminate the least effective policies.

When the Congress attempts to enact

a single education policy for the entire nation,

we are all thereby stuck with that policy

even if it is clearly ineffective for any reason(s)

e.g. low standards for math and science students.

In point of law, federal citizens remain

SUBJECT TO all such municipal laws,

even if they were to reside on the

International Space Station, or migrate

to other planets in our Solar System

and beyond.

Yes, federal citizen John Doe can expect

to be prosecuted for violating subtitle A

after setting foot on planet Mars, and

may face the prospect of appearing

in a Federal court on planet Earth

if no such court has yet been established

on Mars.

That is how this Lawyer Cartel perpetuates itself

ad infinitum (out to infinity), with endlessly false

and deliberately deceptive re-definitions of key words

like "State" and "citizen of the United States"

(small "c").

Many people initially thought we were totally crazy

to claim that "Citizen of the United States" and

"citizen of the United States" really do refer

to two (2) entirely different classes of Americans.

But, with the passage of time, some blood, lots of

sweat and a few tears, the relevant State and Federal

court cases have proven we were totally correct all along.

If you have ever wondered why progress with

correcting these intentional frauds is so slow,

now you know one of the fundamental explanations.

As our initial citation to the New Testament at

Luke 11:52 summarizes so skillfully,

the lawyer cartel has removed one key of knowledge

and obstructed the American People from acquiring

that key and obtaining access to that knowledge.

And, by throwing away that key, the lawyer cartel

has also obstructed its own access to that same

essential knowledge which is now locked up, hidden

and thereby rendered inaccessible to them.

We were warned, long ago:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

-- Hosea 4:6

Further reading:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/special.definition.htm

http://supremelaw.org/decs/downes/ (i.e. the notorious "Downes Doctrine")

http://supremelaw.org/decs/downes/Justice.Harlan.dissent.htm (cf. "evil day")

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/conspiracy.hypothesis.htm

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/republic.we.did.not.keep.htm

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/republic.failed.htm

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/conspiracy.essence.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.