America and the International Covenant:
A Research Proposal to Amnesty International
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General
June 18, 2001 A.D.
All Rights Reserved
Dear Amnesty International,
I have been a human rights activist, specializing
in American constitutional law for the past 11 years.
During that period of time, we have been forced
to admit that American courts, particularly the
federal courts, are woefully ignorant of the
fundamental Rights embodied in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The same
can, and should, be said about Congress as a whole.
We are writing to inquire as to your interest
in funding a modest research project, to gather
and analyze any State and federal court cases which
have even considered the Covenant as a Law to
be honored and enforced everywhere in America.
It is interesting that this treaty is the supreme
Law of our Land. In the 19th century, a federal
court ruled that Congress can provide punishment
for its infraction, on the deprivation of, or
injury to, rights secured by a treaty.
See Re Grand Jury, 26 F. 749 (DCUS Or. 1886).
However the only statutes we can find which Citizens
can use to enforce the Covenant, are the penal
statutes at 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242:
The courts have consistently ruled, however, that
these penal statutes create no basis for civil
liability, and create no private right of action.
This means that private State Citizens cannot sue
anyone for violating these statutes and yet,
they penalize ANY deprivation of ANY rights
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, which also
embraces treaties under the Supremacy Clause.
Since the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights is the supreme Law of our Land,
just like the Bill of Rights, it is clear that
18 U.S.C. 241/242 are the proper statutes to cite,
whenever a Covenant violation must be charged.
There is an important exception in the statutes
at 42 U.S.C. 1983-1985; however, federal courts
have ruled that these statutes are strictly
municipal laws which create standing ONLY for
federal citizens (read "citizens of the
District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands,
Puerto Rico, and American Samoa"). Obviously,
only a very small percentage of Americans are
federal citizens, by birth or by choice.
At the very least, then, this is a blatant violation
of the principle of equal protection, a principle
which is expressly embodied in the Covenant,
as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This leads me to my next important point:
These court decisions mean that the U.S. government
reserves to itself the prerogative of prosecuting
violations of these 2 penal statutes.
If the violations are committed by U.S. government
personnel against American Citizens, then the U.S.
government usually declines to prosecute. A good
example is the damage a corrupt federal judge can
inflict, under color of "judicial immunity,"
particularly when that judge lacks jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
The British common law tradition is that a judge
does not enjoy judicial immunity unless s/he first
has jurisdiction over the subject matter at hand.
Our current system has now evolved into one in
which federal judges enjoy judicial immunity
NO MATTER WHAT! Is it any wonder that our
incarceration rate is now so high?
If you would like to review some of our litigation,
we have published almost all pleadings in our
Supreme Law Library, at Internet URL:
A good example of our best litigation to date
is Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF to the 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, Missouri:
Highlights of the latest updates to the Supreme
Law Library are listed at:
The People's recent application for intervention
in USA v. Konicov is illuminating, particularly at
point (7) in:
Another application by the People for intervention will
provide more meaning to the term "federal citizen":
Please give this informal proposal your earnest
and timely consideration.
We would like to commence this research project
without further delay, because we have members
of our email list who will benefit immediately
from this research, but who cannot fund it
We are confident that many Americans will be
quite interested in our findings, and it may
motivate them to become passionate Human Rights
advocates, as well.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author
and Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
# # #
Did you find this informative?
Then, show your appreciation at: