CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TWO ACTS OF CONGRESS

[On left margin written vertically:

Incorporated by reference in #14-CR-27-F (USDC/DWY)]

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 37 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 1 of 5

Case Nos. MJ 14-00030 JPD

USDC/DWY: 14-CR-27-F

FORMAL NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TWO ACTS OF CONGRESS

TO: Office of Chief Judge

U.S. District Court

700 Stewart St.

Seattle 98101

Washington State, USA

FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Pro Per

FDC SeaTac Reg. No. 44202-086, Unit “EA”

SUBJECT: 1866 Civil Rights Act and the

Jury Selection and Service Act:

28 U.S.C. 2403(a), 1345; 3:2:1, U.S. Const.

Greetings Your Honor:

The United States now intervenes ex rel.:

Please accept his NOTICE as my formal challenge to the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1): jury selection and service.

I incorporate here my carefully worded and thoroughly researched essay entitled “Citizenship for Dummies” as if the same were set forth fully as an essential element of the instant challenge.

In a nutshell, that essay reached the following pivotal and dispositive conclusion, to wit:

Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in the Dred Scott decision solely by means of federal legislation enacted by that Body! Quod erat demonstrandum.

- 1 of 5 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 37 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 2 of 5

It is now painfully clear that there are presently two (2) classes of citizenship in America, properly identified as:

(1) State Citizens a/k/a Citizens of ONE OF the 50 States united; and,

(2) federal citizens a/k/a citizens of the United States (federal government).

Most unfortunately, Congress chose to identify the second class of federal citizens as “citizens of the United States” [sic], small “c”! That choice resulted in a truly enormous amount of confusion -- ever since 1866 A.D., and continuing right up to the present day -- that originated in the conflict that resulted with all three (3) Qualifications Clauses, the Arising Under Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1, 4:2:1.

In the latter 5 supreme Laws, the primary class of State Citizens is the ONLY class of Americans contemplated by the terms “Citizen of the United States” and “Citizens”. None of those Clauses has ever been amended; as such, they retain today the original meaning they had when they were first ratified as supreme Law of the Land on June 21, 1788 A.D.

The Undersigned was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, at high noon on June 21, 1948 A.D., at the exact moment when the light from God’s intense burning Son was directly overhead, on the day when it would shine

[Margin Note: “1:2:2” means Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 etc.]

- 2 of 5 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 37 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 3 of 5

the longest and remain that way forever.

Here, see Pannill v. Roanoke (i.e. federal citizens were not even contemplated when the organic Constitution was first being drafted!); and, the OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit in USA v. Gilbertson, as written for the latter Defendant by the Undersigned in the year 1997 A.D. (cf. Topic “A” in that BRIEF).

The “summary ruling” in the latter appeal was “UNPUBLISHED”; and yet, only three (3) years later, that same Eighth Circuit ruled that “UNPUBLISHED” Circuit Court opinions are unconstitutional!

Thus, the well pleaded Challenge to the Jury Selection and Service Act, as documented at Topic “A” in said OPENING BRIEF, still remains today without any rebuttal(s) or refutation(s) by any Branch of the federal government.

That Challenge is now back on the table, chiefly because the instant cases concern two (2) panels of federal citizens who attempted, but failed, to convene a lawful federal grand jury:

(a) when one tried to issue ten (~10) “subpoenas” to as many clients of one Co-Defendant; and,

(b) when the other tried to issue an “indictment” against the Undersigned.

Both attempts failed, due to class discrimination.

- 3 of 5 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 37 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 4 of 5

As far as the instant cases are concerned, the 2 panels of federal citizens, implicated in the docket numbers itemized above, were:

(a) not lawfully convened federal grand juries;

(b) not able to issue any valid “subpoena”;

(d) not able to conduct any “official proceeding”;

(e) not able to hear or record any testimony from sworn witnesses;

(f) not able to hear any arguments, or recommendations, from any personnel employed at such times by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, or the Office(s) of the U.S. Attorney;

(g) not able to accept delivery of any class of U.S. Mail expressly addressed to the “Foreperson” of a lawful federal grand jury;

(h) not able to charge anyone with violating 18 U.S.C. 1504, or 18 U.S.C. 1512, as long as the former Sec. 1504 does not prohibit a proper request to appear before a lawfully convened federal grand jury,

insofar as the well defined class of Americans -- qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House -- cannot serve on juries of any kind, be they grand or petit juries, be they civil or criminal juries, nor even vote in any State or federal elections, either.

What an abomination to the Lord! See Proverbs 12:22 here. All of the above are gross violations of Equal Protection of the Law.

- 4 of 5 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 37 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 5 of 5

REMEDY

All premises having been duly considered, the Office of Clerk of this honorable Court will kindly, and forthwith, notify the Office of the United States Attorney General of the instant Challenge to the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and subsection 1865(b)(1) of the Jury Selection and Service Act, and certify same for purposes of satisfying all notice requirements imposed by all relevant federal laws and implementing Regulations. Chiefly, see 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), 1345; 3:2:1, U.S. Const.

VERIFICATION: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without (outside) the United States (federal government) that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God.

Dated: 2/20/2014

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)

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

- 5 of 5 –