"The Essence of
the Conspiracy that Threatens America"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A.,
M.S.
Private Attorney General,
18 U.S.C. 1964
All Rights Reserved
This short essay
attempts to summarize briefly the essence
of a criminal
conspiracy that has gripped America at least
since the end of the
American Civil War in 1865 A.D.
Those of you who have
graciously followed and supported
our extensive work on
the subject of Citizenship,
already know many of
the most salient historical details.
To help those
Americans who may not enjoy the benefits
of that historical
knowledge, let's pick up a major thread
that happened
immediately after General Lee
surrendered at
Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865.
There were several
well documented reasons for that Civil War,
one of which was
obviously the painful question of slavery.
By the end of that
year, the southern States that had attempted
to secede from the
Union, voted to approve the Thirteenth
Amendment
banning slavery and
involuntary servitude.
Those YES votes by
southern Legislatures are often overlooked
as a result of what
happened the following year -- 1866.
A group of lawmakers called
Radical Republicans persuaded
Congress that an Act
of that Legislature was required
to give freed black
slaves the right to claim any kind of
citizenship. The Act that Congress enacted is now known
as the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
There were at least
two serious problems with that Act,
which legal experts
and competent historians have
neglected to notice.
First of all, a
careful reading of the U.S.
Constitution
reveals that the term
"United
States" has at least
two different legal
meanings in that supreme Law:
one of those refers to
the several States i.e. States
united,
and the other refers
to the Federal
government
domiciled in the
District of Columbia.
The second serious
problem was even more subtle:
just 10 years earlier,
in the Dred Scott
case the U.S. Supreme
Court had decided that
a proper constitutional amendment
was required to outlaw
apartheid, because that form of
racial discrimination
was permitted by the organic (original)
U.S. Constitution
ratified in 1788 A.D.
Neither the Congress
nor the Supreme Court have ever had
any authority to amend
the U.S. Constitution: all amendments
must be ratified by
honoring the provisions found at Article V.
Congress clearly
overlooked that holding
when it attempted
to extend a
different form of citizenship to freed blacks.
That different form of
citizenship has come to be known
as "federal
citizenship" which effectively rendered freed blacks
citizens of the
federal government.
But, note well here
that no Act of Congress, not even the
1866 Civil Rights Act, could have any effects whatsoever
on Clauses in the
organic U.S. Constitution which recognized
State Citizens as the
primary class of Americans who are
qualified to serve in
the House, Senate and White House.
State Citizens are
also recognized in the organic Diversity Clause,
in the organic Privileges and
Immunities Clause, and also
in the Eleventh
Amendment.
This story became much
more complicated when the
Radical Republicans
also persuaded Congress that a
proper constitutional
amendment was required to elevate
federal citizenship to
the status of supreme Law in America.
Thus was born the
so-called Fourteenth
amendment proposal.
It is crucial to
understand here that the southern States which
had ratified the Thirteenth
Amendment, almost immediately
rejected the Fourteenth amendment proposal. Their NO votes
made it mathematically
impossible to achieve YES votes
by three-fourths of the
States united, as required by Article V.
At this point,
Congress went mad and ordered
the President
to send the Union Army
back into those southern States
which had rejected the
Fourteenth amendment proposal.
The one southern State
that voted FOR that proposal
was spared a second
military invasion -- Tennessee!
In other words, those
southern States were being punished
with a military
re-invasion, and permanent martial law,
for having exercised
their voting rights as members of
the Union in good
standing.
To put it bluntly,
that was extortion, plain and simple!
Those southern States
were forced, at the point of bayonet,
to change their NO
votes to YES votes in favor of the
Fourteenth amendment
proposal.
That extortion was bad
enough, but there is another
factor in this sordid
history which is also overlooked
by many modern
historians and legal experts:
Section 4
of that failed amendment tried to prohibit
all Americans from
questioning the validity of Federal
government debts. On its face, this restriction
clearly and painfully
violated the First
Amendment,
which the Fourteenth
amendment proposal made
no attempt to modify
in any manner.
The principle here is
that repeals by implication
are never
favored. Therefore, questioning the
validity of the
Federal government's debts
is a protected freedom
of speech.
The essence of the
conspiracy revealed by these
key historical events
can be summarized like this:
After the Civil War
ended, all Americans were wrongly
roped into an inferior
class of people defined as
subjects of the
District of Columbia,
and prohibited
from questioning the
Federal government's debts --
no matter how large
those debts might become.
If you suspect that
corrupt bankers had something
to do with Section 4
of that failed "amendment",
you would be totally correct
in that suspicion.
It's not hard to prove
a banker conspiracy:
President Lincoln
needed to find a way
to pay Union soldiers
at the end of the Civil War.
Bankers offered to
loan the necessary funds,
but the interest rates
they offered were
usurious and
exorbitant.
Lincoln rejected their
offers, and instead
authorized printing
the famous "Greenback"
currency. He paid Union soldiers with
these Greenbacks
instead of increasing
the Federal debts to
private bankers.
There is a lot of evidence
that Lincoln's
assassin -- John
Wilkes Booth --
was in fact an agent
of the Rothschild
banking dynasty. And, Lincoln was
not the only President
to be attacked
or killed by corrupt
banking interests.
A lot has happened in
America after the
second military
invasion of the South
by the Union Army.
What we consider
rather revealing is our
studied finding that federal
citizenship
remains a key feature of numerous
Federal laws enacted
ever since then
by the Congress of the
United States.
A very obvious example
is the Federal
Privacy Act, which defined "individuals"
to include ONLY
federal citizens and
resident aliens. State Citizens are
conspicuous for their
absence from
that statutory
definition.
There is a rule of
statutory construction
which must be
recognized when reading
statutes like the Federal Privacy Act:
an irrefutable
inference must be made that
whatever was omitted
or excluded from a
Federal statute was
INTENDED to be omitted
or excluded by Act of
Congress:
In Latin, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius".
This rule can also be
applied to lawful Regulations
which Executive Branch
agencies promulgate
to implement
corresponding Acts of Congress.
We have now arrived
right over the target
(where the flak is
always the heaviest):
the Regulation
implementing Section 1
of the
Internal Revenue Code
is codified at
Strictly construed, as
it should be, that Regulation
attempted to create a
specific liability for
federal citizens and
resident alien individuals
to pay Federal income
taxes. State Citizens
are not mentioned and
cannot be made liable
by that implementing
Regulation, even if it were
constitutional.
But IT'S NOT
constitutional!
More importantly, the
U.S. Supreme Court has held,
correctly, that a tax
liability cannot be created
solely by means of
Regulations published in the
Federal Register, absent the required Act of Congress.
See Commissioner v. Acker here.
Those readers who are
familiar with our litigation
and court activism are
probably already aware that
we served the former
Secretary of the Treasury
with a proper SUBPOENA for all Acts
of Congress
that created a
specific liability for income taxes
imposed by subtitle A of
the Internal Revenue Code.
Not only did Paul H.
O'Neill fall totally silent,
even after receiving a
Courtesy Reminder
from us.
He was promptly fired
by President George W. Bush
for objecting to
Cabinet meetings where they were
planning to attack
Iraq BEFORE 9/11/2001.
(Read that last
sentence again, and again,
until it sinks in
thoroughly.)
That SUBPOENA went to
DEFAULT, and also
resulted in activating
legal estoppel
against
the U.S. Department of
the Treasury.
That Executive
Department is now barred
from changing their
minds on this point:
there is no liability statute
for Federal income taxes.
Moreover, Congress is
barred by the ex
post facto Clause
from enacting a
liability statute with retroactive effects.
Therefore, if Congress
did enact a liability statute
tomorrow, that would amount to a notorious admission
that there has not
been any such Act of Congress
at any time prior
to that new liability statute!
It remains to be seen if
any of these horrific historical
facts will be admitted
by any highly paid "officers"
employed by the
Federal Government at any time soon.
There may be a metric tonne of hoopla about
appointing plenty of
"conservative" judges
to the Federal
benches, during the current
Administration.
Nevertheless, the
essence of the conspiracy summarized
above is such that
newly commissioned Federal officers
appear to be so
compromised by the pay and benefits,
they cannot bring
themselves to admit the truth of
this ongoing
conspiracy against the American People.
Yes, the population of
federal citizens who inhabit the
several States are,
strictly speaking, a legislative democracy;
but State Citizens
have always been guaranteed a
Republican Form of
Government by the Guarantee Clause,
which was in the
organic Constitution and which has never
been amended.
As the New Testament explains, people
who have no
love for the truth
will end up suffering a strong
delusion
that will last a
lifetime.
If Americans are
seeking refuge from this ongoing conspiracy,
the answers you seek
can be found in the same New Testament.
Ask and you shall
receive: there is a Secret
Place where you
and your family
members can find safe harbor from thieves,
warmakers and
criminals.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney
General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United
States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims
Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
http://supremelaw.org/support.
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/