Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State and
c/o General Delivery
Na’alehu [ZIP code exempt]
HAWAII,
USA
Under
Protest and
by Special Visitation
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH
CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 97-2099-MNST
)
Plaintiff [sic]/ ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65
Appellees, )
v. )
)
EVERETT C.
GILBERTSON [sic], )
)
Defendant [sic]/ )
Appellant. )
________________________________)
)
Everett C.
Gilbertson, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO
) NOTICE OF INTENT TO
v. ) PETITION SUPREME COURT FOR
) PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
United
States, ) In Re
APPLICATION FOR
James M.
Rosenbaum, ) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT
and Does 2-99, )
)
Respondents. )
________________________________)
)
People of the
United States )
of America ex relatione )
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, )
)
Petitioners. )
________________________________)
COME NOW the People of the United
States of America (hereinafter "Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen
of California State, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"), Federal Witness,
Counselor at Law, and Private
Attorney General (hereinafter "Relator"),
to submit this, Petitioners' FIRST SUPPLEMENT to Their NOTICE of specific
intent to apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for a Peremptory Writ
of Mandamus to compel this honorable Court to rule on Petitioners' previously
filed APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY RIGHT in
the instant case.
CONGRESS
HAS EXTENDED THE CONSTITUTION
TO
D.C. AND TO THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES
In Petitioners' previously filed NOTICE OF INTENT, mandatory judicial notice was thereby respectfully requested by this Court of 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871), to wit:
"... [A]nd
the Constitution and all the laws of the United States, which are not
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the
District of Columbia as elsewhere within the United States." [bold
emphasis added]
"To put to rest all doubts concerning the applicability
of the constitution to the District, congress in 1871 specifically extended it
thereto [citing Downes v. Bidwell;
16 Stat. 419, 426; Curry v. D.C., 14 App. (D.C.)
423]."
[18
C.J. 1358, Sec. 11;
notes 93, 93[a]]
WAS
THIS STATUTE EVER REPEALED?
After discovering said statute (hereinafter "extension statute"), Petitioners were confronted by allegations that it was subsequently repealed, as part of a comprehensive revision of numerous federal laws which occurred in The Revised Statutes of the United States, dated December 1, 1873 (hereinafter "R.S.")
Petitioners have investigated these allegations and have confirmed that they are false. What follows is an exposition of the evidence proving that 16 Stat. 419 at 426 was never repealed.
In Title LXXIV of the R.S., Section 5596 reads as follows:
... and all acts of Congress passed prior to said last-named day [Dec. 1, 1873] no part of which are embraced in said revision, shall not be affected or changed by its enactment.
[R.S., Section 5596, 18 Stat. 1085,
Part 1]
[Dec. 1, 1873, brackets added for
clarity]
No part of
the extension statute is embraced by the R.S. and, therefore, the extension
statute is not affected or changed whatsoever by enactment of the R.S.
This
conclusion is supported by careful examination of the R.S. sections which
correspond to the seat of government, including the public buildings. In Title XXI of the R.S., Sections 1795 thru
1835 inclusive, there is no mention whatsoever of any statute(s) repealing, or
modifying, the extension statute. See
R.S. at 18 Stat. 319 thru 323, Part 1, Dec. 1, 1873.
Further
evidence that Congress never intended to repeal the extension statute is found
in a similar statute which expressly extended the U.S. Constitution to all
federal Territories, present and future.
The heading and body of the following R.S. section are found on separate
pages of the Statutes at Large.
First, the
heading reads:
1891. Constitution
and laws of United States
made applicable to all the Territories
Second, the body reads:
1891. The Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within all the organized Territories, and in every Territory hereafter organized as elsewhere within the United States.
[R.S., Sec. 1891, 18 Stat. 325, 333]
[bold emphasis added]
The margin notes for Section 1891 expressly reiterate the purpose of this second extension statute, to wit:
Constitution and laws of United States made applicable to all the Territories
[R.S., Sec. 1891, 18 Stat. 333, Dec. 1, 1873]
This Court of Appeals has
recently issued a ruling in Anastasoff v.
United States of America, No.
99-3917-EM, filed August 22, 2000, which held that Rule 28A(i) is unconstitutional, insofar as it limits the precedential effect of this Court’s prior decisions.
Although Relator was never notified or properly served with this Court’s
decision in the instant appeal, Relator did happen to
discover recently that said decision was UNPUBLISHED [sic].
Petitioners now have even
more reasons to intervene, because this Court’s decision in the instant appeal wrongly
concluded that the Internal
Revenue Code is not vague.
Such a decision is bad precedent, and should be reversed.
CONCLUSIONS
Congress
expressly extended the U.S. Constitution to the District of Columbia in 1871, and to all federal Territories in 1873. Despite a comprehensive revision of many
federal laws on December 1, 1873, the 1871 extension statute was never
repealed. The conclusion, therefore, is
that the U.S. Constitution binds all Acts of Congress within the District
of Columbia, within all the federal Territories, and within all of their
respective political subdivisions.
Moreover, even though a federal statute is municipal in scope, it
is still unconstitutional if it is demonstrably vague for violating the “void for
vagueness” test established by published precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dated: October 14, 2000 A.D.
Respectfully
submitted,
/s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
_______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator,
Citizen of California State, Federal
Witness,
Counselor at
Law, and Private
Attorney General
All
Petitioners' Rights Reserved without Prejudice
PROOF
OF SERVICE
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under
the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States,"
that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s):
FIRST
SUPPLEMENT TO
NOTICE
OF INTENT TO PETITION SUPREME COURT
FOR
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
In
Re APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT
by placing one true and correct copy of
said document(s) in first class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to:
Attorney
General James M.
Rosenbaum
Department of
Justice United States
District Court
10th
& Constitution, N.W. 300 South Fourth Street
Washington
[ZIP code exempt] Minneapolis [ZIP
code exempt]
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
Solicitor
General Henry Shea
Department of
Justice United States
Attorneys
10th
& Constitution, N.W. 300 South Fourth Street
Washington
[ZIP code exempt] Minneapolis [ZIP
code exempt]
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
Courtesy
copies to:
William H.
Rehnquist, C.J. Clarence Thomas, J.
U.S. Supreme
Court U.S. Supreme Court
One First
Street N.E. One First Street
N.E.
Washington
[ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP
code exempt]
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Alex Kozinski
(supervising)
Private
Attorney General on record Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o General Delivery 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200
Na’alehu [ZIP code exempt] Pasadena [ZIP code exempt]
HAWAII
STATE CALIFORNIA
STATE
Speaker of the House President of the
Senate
House of
Representatives United States
Senate
Washington
[ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP
code exempt]
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
[See USPS
Publication 221 for addressing instructions.]
Dated: October 14, 2000 A.D.
/s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
_______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator,
Citizen of California State, Federal
Witness,
Counselor at
Law, and Private
Attorney General
All
Petitioners' Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Webmaster’s
comment:
See “Taking Judicial
Notice,” by Robert V. Pambianco,
Chief Policy
Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
