c/o P. O. Box 6189
                                   San Rafael
                                   California Republic
                                   Postal Code 94903-0189/TDC

                                   February 15, 1993

Dagny Sharon
c/o 17332 Irvine Boulevard, #230
Tustin, California Republic
Postal Code 92680/tdc

Dear Dagny:

     I appreciated  the opportunity  to make your acquaintance at
the Libertarian  Party Convention in Sunnyvale this past weekend.
I also  regret that  we didn't  have a  chance to spend more time
together.  Your videotape is quite original and light-hearted;  I
hope it brings you much success.

     Had we  found a  way to  spend more  time talking  with each
other, there  is one  important matter  which I  would definitely
have  wanted   you  to  consider  more  carefully.    During  our
conversation in  the bar,  while I  was eating lunch, you implied
that one  of your  goals is  to work  towards a  "democracy"  for
America.   Whether you  intended it  this way or not, such a goal
directly contradicts Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution for
the United States of America, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this Union a Republican Form of Government ....

     What exactly  is a  "Republican Form"  of government?  It is
one in  which the  powers of sovereignty are vested in the people
and exercised  by the  people.   Black's  Law  Dictionary,  Sixth
Edition, makes this very clear:

     Republican government.   One  in   which   the   powers   of
     sovereignty are  vested in  the people  and are exercised by
     the people,  either  directly,  or  through  representatives
     chosen by  the people,  to whom  those powers  are specially
     delegated.   In re  Duncan, 139  U.S. 449,  11 S.Ct. 573, 35
     L.Ed. 219;   Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
     L.Ed. 627.

     Both  the   California  State   Constitution  and  the  U.S.
Constitution state  that the  latter shall  be the supreme Law of
the land.  In the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 states:

     This Constitution,  and the  Laws of the United States which
     shall be  made in Pursuance thereof;  and all Treaties made,
     or which  shall be  made, under  the Authority of the United
     States, shall  be the  supreme Law  of the  Land;   and  the
     Judges in  every State  shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
     the Constitution  or Laws  of  any  State  to  the  Contrary

     At the  turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
series of  controversial cases  now known  as The  Insular Cases.
These cases  were predicated,  in part, on the principle that the
Constitution for the United States as such does not extend beyond
the boundaries  of the  States which  are united by and under it.
Accordingly, this  principle  set  a  crucial  precedent  whereby
Congress was free to establish a legislative democracy within the
federal zone, instead of a constitutional republic.

     The federal  zone is  the area over which Congress exercises
exclusive legislative  jurisdiction;  it encompasses the District
of Columbia  and such areas as Guam and the Virgin Islands.  Even
more important  is  the  fact  that  this  exclusive  legislative
jurisdiction extends  to all  persons  who  are  subject  to  it,
regardless of  where they  may reside.   As  such, the  status of
"citizen of the United States"  (also  known  as  "U.S. citizen")
causes one to be subject to the letter of all municipal statutes,
rules and  regulations which Congress enacts under this exclusive
legislative authority.   The  constitutional definition  of  this
second class  of citizens  is alleged  to be  the so-called  14th
Amendment.   However, two  standing decisions of the Utah Supreme
Court have  struck  down  the  ratification  of  this  amendment.
Coupled with all the evidence which that Court utilized to arrive
at these  decisions, we  have therein good cause to conclude that
the so-called  14th Amendment  is null  and void  for  fraud  and
duress.   My book  The Federal Zone  discusses the so-called 14th
Amendment as follows:

     Not only  did this  so-called "amendment"  fail  to  specify
     which meaning  of the  term "United  States" was being used;
     like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this
     time by  15 of  the 37  States which  existed in  1868.  The
     House Congressional Record  for  June 13, 1967, contains all
     the documentation  you need to prove that the so-called 14th
     Amendment was  never ratified  into law  (see page  15641 et
     seq.).   For example,  it itemizes  all States  which  voted
     against the  proposed amendment,  and the precise dates when
     their Legislatures  did so.   "I  cannot  believe  that  any
     court, in  full possession  of its faculties, could honestly
     hold that  the amendment was properly approved and adopted."
     State vs  Phillips, 540  P.2d. 936,  941 (1975).   The  Utah
     Supreme Court  has detailed  the shocking and sordid history
     of the  14th Amendment's  "adoption" in the case of Dyett vs
     Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272 (1968).

     With this background knowledge firmly in hand, it is easy to
explain why  the federal  government would reiterate the theme of
"democracy" and  "democratic institutions"  over and  over in its
media propaganda.   It  is now  obvious that such programming has
been entirely  successful;    witness  the  large  percentage  of
"Libertarians" who  make repeated  reference to  their  political
goal of  "democracy" for  America.   Perhaps without  knowing it,
they are  participating in  the slow  but steady  demise  of  the
nation symbolized  by the  Stars and  Stripes, "the  Republic for
which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice  for all."   The  Insular Cases  made it possible for
America to  become divisible into a constitutional republic and a
legislative democracy.    It  is  the  strategy  of  "divide  and
conquer", being  applied once  again with much success, this time
to our very own homeland.

     I hope I have given you a few things to think about.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Account for Better Citizenship

enclosures:  People v. Boxer pleadings
             "Citizen is a Term of Municipal Law"

copy:  Jerry Collette