Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
Citizen of the United States of America
c/o 1415 N. McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, California Republic
Postal Code 95954/tdc
Ex Relatione
The People of the United States of America
[D R A F T]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1995
In re: DIXIANNE HAWKS, No. _________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Appeal Case No. 95-16714
v. Civil Case No. 93-82-WBS
(Eastern District of Calif.)
COUNTY OF BUTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE
GARCIA, CIRCUIT JUDGES SCHROEDER,
CANBY AND WIGGINS, Notice and Application for
Intervention of Right
Defendants-Appellees
_______________________________/ FRCP 24(a)
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent
_______________________________/
COME NOW the People of the United States of America, ex
relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, natural born Citizen of the
United States of America (hereinafter "Applicants"), to apply to
this Court for an Intervention of Right and to provide notice of
same.
Applicants hereby set forth the causes for this
intervention, to wit:
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 1 of 8
1. Applicants are not the Persons identified as the
Petitioner, the Respondent, or the Appellees in the record before
this Court.
2. Applicants claim interests relating to the rights and
properties which are the subject of the action.
3. Applicants are so situated that the disposition of the
action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede their ability
to protect their interests.
4. The interests of the Applicants are not adequately
represented by the existing parties to the action.
Wherefore, Applicants pray that this Application for
Intervention of Right be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
January 15, 1996 Anno Domini
___________________________________
Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
All Rights Reserved
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 2 of 8
Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
Citizen of the United States of America
c/o 1415 N. McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, California Republic
Postal Code 95954/tdc
Ex Relatione
The People of the United States of America
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1995
In re: DIXIANNE HAWKS, No. _________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Appeal Case No. 95-16714
v. Civil Case No. 93-82-WBS
(Eastern District of Calif.)
COUNTY OF BUTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE
GARCIA, CIRCUIT JUDGES SCHROEDER, Brief in Support of
CANBY AND WIGGINS, Application for
Intervention of Right
Defendants-Appellees
_______________________________/ with Points and Authorities
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FRCP 24(A)
Respondent
_______________________________/
COME NOW the People of the United States of America, ex
relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, natural born Citizen of the
United States of America (hereinafter Applicants) to plead the
grounds for which their Intervention of Right is sought, to wit:
1. Petitioner Dixianne Hawks (hereinafter "Petitioner")
has claimed a substantive Right to effective judicial remedies
for violations of fundamental rights, notwithstanding that the
violations were committed by persons acting in their official
capacities.
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 3 of 8
2. Petitioner has also claimed a substantive Right to the
development by judicial officers of the United States of the
possibility of judicial remedies for violations of fundamental
rights by such persons.
3. Petitioner's claim(s) to these Rights arise(s), in
part, from Her allegation that the United States is now a party
to two (2) international treaties which obligate the United
States to provide effective judicial remedies, and to develop the
possibilities of judicial remedies, for violations of fundamental
rights, notwithstanding that violations were committed by persons
acting in their official capacities.
4. The treaties in question (see Petitioner's Petition for
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals) are alleged to have been duly ratified by the United
States Senate, under authority of the Supremacy Clause in the
Constitution for the United States of America (Article VI, Clause
2).
5. The United States Senate, as presently constituted, now
deprives several Union States, without their consent, of their
equal Suffrage (Article 5, Clause 1), because it is not composed
of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature
thereof (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1).
6. The so-called 17th Amendment to the Constitution for
the United States of America purportedly modified Article I,
Section 3, Clause 1, by requiring that the Senate of the United
States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected
by the people thereof, for six years.
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 4 of 8
7. A 17th "amendment" which was "ratified" by anything
less than the full number of 48 States of the Union which existed
in the year 1913 did have the effect of denying to the States
which voted NO their equal representation in the Senate, in
violation of Article V.
8. The so-called 17th "amendment" was rejected by the
State of Utah on February 26, 1913, and they have not
subsequently ratified it (see Historical Notes, United States
Code Annotated, Amendment 17). Ten other States of the Union
fell completely silent on the matter by not voting, and have
remained so ever since.
9. The organic Constitution for the United States of
America states, "The Senate of the United States shall be
composed of two Senators, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for
six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The term
"shall" is imperative in its intent and in its effect.
Accordingly, no State of the Union is empowered by the
Constitution for the United States of America to delegate the
election of United States Senators to the People at large.
10. The term "shall" is found in the Organic Constitution
for the United States of America at Article I, Section 3, Clause
1, and at Article V. In both instances, the term "shall" is
imperative; it is a word of command, and one which has always or
which must be given a compulsory meaning, as denoting obligation.
The very constructions of these clauses in the Constitution
cannot be interpreted in any way other than the imperative
meaning.
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 5 of 8
11. If a Union State chooses to waive its right to
representation in the U.S. Senate, this waiver does not mean that
said right devolves somewhere else. Article I, Section 3, Clause
1 is imperative. This being the case, a duly constituted United
States Senate did not exist at the moment when House Resolution
39 passed out of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the U.
S. Senate did not participate in the proposal as mandated in
Article V, to wit, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both
Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose ...."
Specifically, a proposal to amend the Constitution must emanate
from both Houses to be valid; a proposal cannot go forward to
the exclusion of one House.
12. "[A]t least 29 States by 1912, one year before
ratification, were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and,
as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the
legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained
by presidential electors." Constitution of the United States of
America -- Analysis and Interpretation, published as Senate
Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress, Public Law 91-589,
84 Stat. 1585, 2 U.S.C. 168, page 1852; citing G. Haynes, The
Senate of the United States (New York: 1938), 79-117.
13. "A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be
saved by historical acceptance and present convenience." U.S. v
Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983) [emphasis added]
14. "It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested
or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use,
even when that span of time covers our entire national existence
and indeed predates it." Walz v Tax Commission of New York City,
397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970), [emphasis added]
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 6 of 8
15. Applicants, therefore, challenge the presumed authority
of the two international treaties cited by the Petitioner, on
grounds that there has not been a duly constituted United States
Senate ever since the seating of the very first popularly elected
U.S. Senator. (See Senate Document Numbered 39 supra.)
16. Although it appears that the Petitioner's claims have
merit under the rights guaranteed to Her by the Constitution for
the United States of America, Applicants deny the existence of
any Rights arising out of the two international treaties cited in
Her Petition to this Court and in Her Opening Brief to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, because the treaties in question were
never ratified by a duly constituted United States Senate.
17. Her claims to these presumed Rights are frivolous.
18. It is impossible, under the organic Constitution for
the United States of America, for the so-called 17th Amendment to
become the Supreme Law of the Land without repealing, in whole or
in part, Article V of said Constitution.
Verification under Penalty of Perjury
I, Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris, do hereby certify,
under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on:
January 15, 1996 Anno Domini
___________________________________
Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
All Rights Reserved
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 7 of 8
Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
Citizen of the United States of America
c/o 1415 N. McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, California Republic
Postal Code 95954/tdc
Ex Relatione
The People of the United States of America
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1995
In re: DIXIANNE HAWKS, No. _________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Appeal Case No. 95-16714
v. Civil Case No. 93-82-WBS
(Eastern District of Calif.)
COUNTY OF BUTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE
GARCIA, CIRCUIT JUDGES SCHROEDER,
CANBY AND WIGGINS, Order to Allow
Intervention of Right
Defendants-Appellees
_______________________________/ FRCP 24(a)
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent
_______________________________/
Good cause having been shown by the People of the United
States of America, ex relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui
Juris, in the above-entitled proceeding, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the People of the United States of America, ex
relatione Willem H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris, be allowed to
intervene in the above-entitled case.
ORDERED this _____ day of _______________, 19____, at
Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
______________________________
Justice of the Supreme Court
Application for Intervention of Right:
Page 8 of 8
# # #
Popular Election of U.S. Senators
excerpt from
The Constitution of the United States of America
-- Analysis and Interpretation
authorized by
Public Law 91-589, 84 Stat. 1585, 2 U.S.C. 168
Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-Eighth Congress
(aka "Constitution Annotated")
The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of
increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the
originally established method of electing Senators. As the
franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the
belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly
elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of
this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence
of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon
legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures
resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial
intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt
political organizations and special interest groups through
purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by
legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.
Prior to ratification, however, many States had perfected
arrangements calculated to afford the voters more effective
control over the selection of Senators. State laws were amended
so as to enable voters participating in primary elections to
designate their preference for one of several party candidates
for a senatorial seat, and nominations unofficially effected
thereby were transmitted to the legislature. Although their
action rested upon no stronger foundation that [sic] common
understanding, the legislatures generally elected the winning
candidate of the majority, and, indeed, in two States, candidates
for legislative seats were required to promise to support,
without regard to party ties, the senatorial candidate polling
the most votes. As a result of such developments, at least 29
States by 1912, one year before ratification, were nominating
Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the
constitutional discretion of the legislatures had been reduced
to little more than that retained by presidential electors./1
Very shortly after ratification it was established that if a
person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a
Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived
merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they
are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the
United States./2 Consistent with this view, federal courts
declared that when local party authorities, acting pursuant to
regulations prescribed by a party's state executive committee,
refused to permit a Negro, on account of his race, to vote in a
primary to select candidates for the office of U.S. Senator, they
deprived him of a right secured to him by the Constitution and
laws, in violation of this Amendment./3 An Illinois statute, on
the other hand, which required that a petition to form, and to
nominate candidates or, a new political party be signed by at
least 25,000 voters from at least 50 counties was held not to
impair any right under the Seventeenth Amendment, notwithstanding
that 52 percent of the State's voters were residents of one
county, 87 percent were residents of 49 counties, and only 13
percent resided in the 53 least populous counties./4
____________________
1 G. Haynes, The Senate of the United States (New York: 1938),
79-117.
2 United States v. Aczel, 219 F. 197 (D.C.D. Ind. 1915), citing
Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)
3 Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (C.A. 5, 1946), cert. den. 327
U.S. 800 (1946),
4 MacDougall v. Green, 355 U.S. 281 (1948), overruled on equal
protection grounds in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969). See
Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F. Supp. 66 (D.C.E.D.Va. 1964) aff'd on
other grounds, 380 U.S. 529 (1965) where a three-judge District
Court held that the certificate of residence requirement
established by the Virginia legislature as an alternative to
payment of a poll tax in federal election was an additional
qualification to voting in violation of the Seventeenth Amendment
and Art. I, Section 2.
# # #
"The Nineteenth Amendment was attacked on the narrower ground
that a State which had not ratified the amendment would be
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate because its
representatives in that body would be persons not of its
choosing, i.e., persons chosen by voters whom the State itself
had not authorized to vote for Senators. (citing Leser v.
Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)) Brushing aside these arguments as
unworthy of serious attention, the Supreme Court held both
amendments valid." Constitution Annotated, page 900 (1970)
Nineteenth Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Comments:
Did a State not authorize "citizens of the United States" to
vote for Senators? If so, what State was that? Does this imply
that the State in question only authorized State Citizens to vote
for Senators? The case of Leser v. Garnett should be read with
this distinction in mind.
# # #
Constitutional Defender Association
4826 South Studebaker Road
Placerville, California 95667
January 15, 1996
Mr. Jim Russell
J.O.I.N.
10206 Tieton Drive
Yakima, Washington 98908/tdc
fax: (509) 966-0991
Re: 17th Amendment Fraud
Dear Jim:
In your J.O.I.N. paper #052, you write: "[50 other papers on it.
#020 is 9-page detail & 021 is condensed.]"
Would you be so kind to inform us how we might obtain all 50
papers on this subject? We are considering ways in which we
might utilize this information in some litigation we are
planning.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Associate
# # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
Hawks v. County of Butte et al.