"What Democracy?"

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

March 1, 2022 A.D.

My Fellow Americans,

It's time to CRY FOUL whenever any politician

or other government employee repeats their misplaced

worship for "our democracy" and all similar misguided

nomenclature.

After 32 years of decoding the selfish rhetoric which

insulates that term from accurate and objective scrutiny,

permit us now to summarize the essential results of that

"decoding" exercise:

As explained in much greater detail elsewhere

in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet,

there are 3 key findings that form the foundation

for the proof that follows below:

(1) federal citizenship is a municipal franchise legally domiciled

in the District of Columbia, where the Guarantee Clause

does not apply when strictly construed;

(2) the population of federal citizens who now inhabit

the 50 States of the Union are, by corrupt legal definitions,

an absolute legislative democracy that is "subject to"

all Federal MUNICIPAL laws; and,

(3) being another instance of Federal MUNICIPAL law,

the 1866 Civil Rights Act did not and could not amend

any of the six Clauses in the U.S. Constitution

that expressly recognize the primary class of

State Citizens i.e. Citizens of the States united.

If readers here already suspect that something is

terribly amiss in such a corruption of plain English,

they would be entirely correct with that suspicion.

We remain immensely grateful to Judge Pablo de la Guerra

who explained clearly that "United States" in all three

Qualifications Clauses means "States united":

a "Citizen of the United States" is a Citizen of ONE OF

the States united by and under the Constitution.

In our studied opinion, the quickest and the best way

to demonstrate that corruption, is to recognize the far-reaching

legal and historical ramifications that were spawned when the

U.S. Congress extended the entire Constitution into D.C.

in the year 1871.

To put it bluntly, that Extension Statute had the unavoidable

consequence of reinforcing the blueprint established by the Framers:

that blueprint can and should be understood to prevent the

Federal Government from exercising any sort of MUNICIPAL

authority inside any of the now 50 States of the Union.

Therefore, it is not too great a leap for federal citizens

to realize that their decision to live and work in one of the

50 States necessarily means that they are NOT "subject to"

any of the many MUNICIPAL laws which Congress

has already enacted for places like D.C., Guam,

Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.

If Congress decides to change the fine for parking meter

violations in D.C., that "fine" statute flatly can NOT be

enforced anywhere inside the 50 States.

In point of historical fact, the crucial phrase -- "subject to" --

has its distant origins in the British Monarchy, where all inhabitants

of that United Kingdom remain "subjects" of their King or Queen.

That key phrase was introduced into American legal history

by the demonstrably vague and deliberately misleading

language that was chosen for Section 1 of the so-called

Fourteenth "amendment" proposal.

In that failed proposal, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

is correctly understood to mean "subject to the MUNICIPAL

jurisdiction" of the Federal government: it can't mean

anything else, obviously because the jurisdiction of each State

is also mentioned expressly in the latter half of that same Section 1.

To demonstrate the latter point with a very relevant example,

the Constitution does not confer upon Congress the

power to make nationwide decisions about education.

Congress can do so for the "federal zone" as we coined

that term in our book by the same title.

Congress is NOT obligated to guarantee a Republican Form

of Government to that federal zone: it was free to create

a different form of government there, and so it has.

However, matters like education were always intended

to be decided by the Legislatures of each Union State:

Alabama's Legislature can enact MUNICIPAL laws

that govern education in Alabama; ... [add 48 more here] ...

Wyoming's Legislature can enact MUNICIPAL laws

that govern education in Wyoming.

But, by intent of the Framers as formalized in the

organic U.S. Constitution, enacting nationwide laws

governing education is NOT one of the enumerated

national powers that are conferred upon the Congress

by Article I, Section 8 in the U.S. Constitution.

Every reader here should pause, re-read and STUDY

that Section 8, to drive home the enormous

significance of that Fundamental Law in America!

If America as a nation sincerely wishes to halt

the steady slide down the slippery slope

correctly diagnosed as a "legislative democracy",

the inhabitants of all 50 States will need to rise up

and assert their Fundamental Right to be

immune from all Federal MUNICIPAL laws.

Those 50 States are not "states within a state"

and they are not "special definitions of 'State'" either!

Such MUNICIPAL laws cannot lawfully be enforced

anywhere inside the 50 States of the Union

without violating the blueprint published by the

Framers when they put their plans into writing

and chose a Republic -- "if you can keep it".

If you don't fight for it and assert your Right

to live and work in a Constitutional Republic,

you will NOT keep it; you will lose it.

That was Benjamin Franklin's serious warning for America;

and, although I hesitate to claim any special knowledge

of the future, I do happen to agree with his prediction

mainly because it is already happening, right before our eyes!

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.