"The Republic We Did Not Keep"

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

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

June 10, 2020 A.D.

There was a rather intense debate, mostly philosophical,

when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of decisions

which came to be known as The Insular Cases circa 1901.

The most infamous of those cases was Downes v. Bidwell,

decided 5-to-4.

My late mentor, John Knox, privately shared with me his suspicion

that the swing vote had been bribed. There was a certain amount

of circumstantial evidence to support John's suspicion.

A careful but tedious reading of all the opinions reveals that

the majority of 5 all got it wrong, and the 4 dissenters got it right.

One instance of that evidence was the brilliant dissent by

Associate Justice Harlan:

http://supremelaw.org/decs/downes/

http://supremelaw.org/decs/downes/Justice.Harlan.dissent.htm

Our political science professor at UCLA impressed me one day

when he encouraged the entire class to pay close attention to

dissenters on the U.S. Supreme Court. The obvious implication,

of course, was that dissenters do get it right, on numerous occasions.

Professor Richard Longaker was twice voted undergraduate

teacher of the year at UCLA. One had to arrive at his first class

very early to secure a seat. The Fire Marshal would always show up

just before class started, to order students -- sitting in the aisles

and standing in the back -- out of the room because room capacity

was exceeded. Longaker beamed.

The main problem with the majority in Downes v. Bidwell was their

failed attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, with specious

and circular logic. The primary reason for that failed attempt

was their unfounded assertion that the Constitution did not

apply in Federal Territories or Possessions acquired

by conquest or treaty.

This was a very strange assertion, occurring as it did circa 1901.

It was rendered strange, and ultra vires, because Congress

had expressly extended the entire U.S. Constitution into all

Federal Territories, even future Federal Territories, in the

year 1873:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1873

That one Act of Congress had effectively rendered the

resulting "Downes Doctrine" ultra vires 30 years before the fact!

For several Federal Judges, we paraphrased that Doctrine

like this:

"The Constitution of the United States does not extend

beyond the limits of the States united by and under that Constitution."

Several years later, in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt,

the Supremes elaborated that Doctrine with very similar language

which we paraphrased like this:

"The guarantees of the Constitution extend into the federal zone

only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable there."

In other words, in Hooven the Supremes erred again by

fabricating the fallacy that constitutional guarantees do

NOT automatically exist in any Federal enclaves, Territories

or Possessions. Those guarantees exist there only if

and only when Congress decides to extend them there.

Once again, in its Act of 1871, Congress expressly extended

the entire U.S. Constitution into the District of Columbia,

rendering that Hooven holding ultra vires some 74 years

before the fact:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871

Another way of proving a fallacious majority in Downes v. Bidwell

was an anonymous critique of The Insular Cases which just happened

to get published in the Harvard Law Review. We quoted that critique

at length in Chapter 12 of "The Federal Zone":

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr12.htm

Begin reading at "The Absence of Judicial Precision".

In the voluminous annals of American constitutional jurisprudence,

that critique is so devastating, it should be no surprise why the

author chose to remain anonymous. Subsequent American history

is replete with instances of such whistleblowers suddenly departing

this planet.

This writer has spent more than 30 years drawing the attention

of the entire American legal profession to the Guarantee Clause

in the U.S. Constitution. That Clause was ratified before

the Bill of Rights, and it has never been amended e.g.:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a

How did it happen, therefore, that the American legal profession

has ganged up to violate, ignore and even emasculate that

Guarantee Clause?

You need to look no further than the past and present

occupants of U.S. Supreme Court seats.

They refer to themselves as "Justices".

As of today, The Credential Investigation has assembled

verifiable evidence fully justifying the painful conclusion that

there is presently no legal quorum at the U.S. Supreme Court:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1

("any six of whom shall constitute a quorum")

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

A dissenter with all 4 valid credentials is clearly out-numbered

by High Court "robes" like Brett Kavanaugh, who was recently

served with a NOTICE OF DEFAULT via first class U.S. Mail:

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/kavanaugh.brett/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#DCCIR

Further reading:

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

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

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/hoax.on.hoax.htm

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/systemic.failure.htm

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/congress.conned.htm

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

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.