"The Essence of the Conspiracy that Threatens America"
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
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
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
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.
/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.
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/