“Rampant Ignorance” Rears Its Head



Printed in Public Forum,

Hawaii Island Journal,

P.O. Box 7179

Ocean View 96737



tel:    (808) 928-6449

fax:    (808) 939-8107

email:  publishers@hawaiijournal.com


February 16-29, 2000 A.D.

page 4



Dear Editor,


The rampant ignorance of the U.S. Constitution

reared its ugly head, once again, in two separate

articles in your January 16-31, 2000, issue.


In a nutshell, Bob Stauffer parrots the

ambiguous wording from section 1 of the

so-called 14th amendment ….


In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court recited

proved facts, with one unavoidable conclusion:

that amendment [sic] was never properly approved

and adopted.


See Dyett v. Turner on the Internet

or any good law library ….


Then Stauffer argues that certain, admittedly

unconstitutional rules prohibit the native community

from seeking official nation status.


He errs two more times.


The First Amendment guarantees the Right

to petition government, in the Petition Clause.


Moreover, an unconstitutional rule is not a rule

of any kind, and never was.


An Act’s unconstitutionality dates from

the moment of enactment, not from any

correct decision so branding it.


Bob, do your homework, please.



Leslie Lang’s interview with Robert

Keli’iho’omalu begins with a title that

mentions the “Law of the Land,” then

completely ignores the Supremacy Clause

in the U.S. Constitution (see Article VI).


Perhaps a return to basics is in order here:


Either Hawai’i was lawfully admitted to the Union,

or it was not.  If it was, then the Supremacy

Clause governs, and Hawai’i is on an equal

footing with all other Union States,

notwithstanding some discriminatory rules

that are demonstrably unconstitutional.


Equal protection of that Law is every American’s

fundamental Right, here and now.


If Hawai’i was not lawfully admitted to

the Union, then secession is not even a legal

possibility, or necessity, because these

Islands are not a Union State.  Period.


Sorry to be so blunt, but …

lex non cogit impossibilia

law does not contemplate impossibilities,




But, here’s the rub:


Don’t expect any judicial courts to proceed

this logically.


All federal judges are presently subject

to the undue influence of the IRS, contrary

to Article III’s prohibition against diminishing

their pay with income taxes.


See Evans v. Gore and Lord v. Kelley,

also on the Internet.


Read the cases!


In other words, don’t go to any federal courts

for justice, certainly not before the IRS

is dismantled forever.



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

Ocean View, Hawaii



[Editors of Hawaii Island Journal refused to

correct several typographical errors which

were printed with this Letter.  Those errors

have been corrected above.  Webmaster]