This pleading was recently augmented and filed
with the Clerk of the 8th Circuit in St. Louis.
The new version is at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm
The original now follows, for archival purposes:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State and
Private Attorney General
c/o Forwarding Agent
345 Estudillo Avenue
San Leandro [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona
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. )
________________________________)
[Please see next page et seq.]
First Supplement to Notice of Intent:
Page 1 of 6
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, Private Attorney General, and Candidate for the United
States House of Representatives (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.")
First Supplement to Notice of Intent:
Page 2 of 6
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
[R.S., Sec. 1891, 18 Stat. 325]
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. 333]
[bold emphasis added]
First Supplement to Notice of Intent:
Page 3 of 6
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]
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.
Drafted on: August 25, 1999
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator,
Citizen of California State, Federal Witness,
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General, and
Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
All Petitioners' Rights Reserved without Prejudice
First Supplement to Notice of Intent:
Page 4 of 6
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 345 Estudillo Avenue, #104 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200
San Leandro [ZIP code exempt] Pasadena [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA 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.]
First Supplement to Notice of Intent:
Page 5 of 6
Drafted: August 25, 1999
_______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator,
Citizen of California State, Federal Witness,
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General, and
Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
All Petitioners' Rights Reserved without Prejudice
First Supplement to Notice of Intent:
Page 6 of 6
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Circuit