Time: Wed Oct 22 11:10:33 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12935; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:09:13 -0700 (MST) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA18869; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:05:05 -0700 (MST) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd018842; Wed Oct 22 11:04:52 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:05:45 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Federal Reserve has a lien on all property in the USA? Answer: "Yes, but it is not a valid lien." See infra: /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com p.s. Correspondence with California State Lands Commission, circa 1993, now follows: [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o General Delivery San Rafael, California Republic zip code exempt (DMM 122.32) July 20, 1993 James R. Frey Staff Counsel State Lands Commission 1807 - 13th Street Sacramento, California Republic Dear Mr. Frey: We do very much appreciate the consideration you showed in answering our inquiry concerning California Government Code Sections 126 and 127. We are happy to learn that the files in question are available for public inspection and copying, by appointment. We understand that the index is actually a file cabinet, with files on individual facilities. As you may already know, many California State Citizens are actively involved in private research and political action to help solve the horrendous federal debt. Our research led us to Government Code Section 126, in particular, because it makes explicit reference to Section 4 of the so-called 14th Amendment: (c) The United States must in writing have requested the state to cede concurrent criminal jurisdiction within such land and subject to each and all of the conditions and reservations in this section and in Section 4 of Article XIV of the Constitution prescribed. [California Government Code, Sec. 126] [emphasis added] I use the language "so-called" because the evidence now available to us proves that the 14th Amendment was never properly approved and adopted. In the year 1968, the Utah Supreme Court detailed the shocking and sordid history of the failed ratification in the case of Dyett vs Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272. In the year 1975, the Utah Supreme Court again struck down the ratification of the 14th Amendment with the following language: 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] To our knowledge, these two cases are still standing because the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule specifically on the validity of the steps taken to "ratify" the so-called 14th Amendment. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains some of the essential documentation on which the Utah Supreme Court relied 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. Additional historical evidence can be found in the following law review articles: 28 Tulane Law Review 22 and 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484. Even though one of these articles was written by a man who advocated racial discrimination, a policy with which I strongly disagree, his facts are very consistent with the historical record as recited by these other authorities. Faced with this clear preponderance of historical evidence and standing court authorities, we are not only justified in taking the position that the 14th Amendment was never ratified, we are also justified in challenging all State statutes which make reference to non-existent provisions in the U.S. Constitution. This train of evidence and logic leads us, then, to subsection (f) of California Government Code Section 126: (f) "Land held by the United States", as used in this section means: (1) lands acquired in fee by purchase or condemnation, (2) lands owned by the United States that are included in the military reservation by presidential proclamation or act of Congress, (3) leaseholds acquired by the United States over private lands or state-owned lands, and (4) any other lands owned by the United States including, but not limited to, public domain lands which are held for a public purpose. [emphasis added] We have taken specific note of subsection (f)(1), which omits any mention of the "United States", whereas subsections (f)(2) thru (f)(4) do make explicit mention of the "United States". Using the rule of statutory construction known as inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (see Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition), we are entitled to infer that "United States" was omitted from subsection (f)(1) because it was intended to be omitted. Accordingly, Section 126(f) could be interpreted to mean that "Land held by the United States" means any lands acquired in fee by purchase or condemnation, whether or not said lands were acquired in fee by the federal government. In other words, if private real estate in California were acquired in a "fee simple" transaction, as recorded by the appropriate County Recorder, does the "United States" thereby hold any legal interest in such private land by virtue of California Government Code Section 126? Now for the crux of the problem. We now know that the Federal Reserve System is a private banking cartel (see Lewis vs United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)). This cartel pays the federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing a total of $260 to print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes, regardless of denomination, and thereby obtains from Congress a pledge of collateral equal to the face value of those notes. Thus, if the Federal Reserve orders 10,000 notes in denominations of $100 each, it obtains from Congress a lien on collateral equal to $1,000,000, for a total down payment of $260. That's what I call leverage! What's the collateral? Do the Federal Reserve banks thereby obtain any right, title or interest in California lands "acquired in fee by purchase or condemnation" pursuant to California Government Code Section 126? Are these lands anywhere identified as collateral for the Treasury bonds which the Federal Reserve purchased with money and credit which it created out of thin air, via bookkeeping entries? These are questions which should be important to all private Citizens and to all government employees everywhere in America, because the Federal Reserve has become one of the largest single "United States" creditors by purchasing Treasury bonds without lawful consideration. Moreover, the failed ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment frees all of us, private Citizens and government employees alike, to question the validity of this public debt, because Section 4 of that failed amendment reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [emphasis added] Quite obviously, if the so-called 14th Amendment was never properly approved and adopted, then it follows that there is no Constitutional prohibition which bars any of us from questioning the validity of the public debt of the United States. I will look forward to your timely and considerate response. Please utilize the above mailing location exactly as shown in any and all future correspondence. Believe it or not, we now have credible proof that the unqualified use of zip codes and/or two- letter federal abbreviations (e.g. "CA") also attaches California State Citizens to the spiralling federal debt. Mr. Frey, things are just not as they appear on the surface. Thank you very much for your honesty and your consideration, at this most difficult time in our brief history as a nation. Sincerely yours, /s/ John E. Trumane John E. Trumane, Founder Account for Better Citizenship copies: Charles Warren, Executive Officer Leo T. McCarthy, Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis, Controller Thomas W. Hayes, Director of Finance Pete Wilson, Governor # # # At 09:59 AM 10/22/97 -0700, you wrote: > >I was browsing the USC and ran into this nugget. Apparently when one of >the district federal reserve banks is issued >notes from the central federal reserve bank, a lien is implied by the >issuance of the notes. I suppose the lien extends >to any and all property 'exchanged' for FRN's. Notice that the amount of >lien is less the amount of gold certificates >held, i.e. gold discharges debt, even the FRB operates on this principal. >Here we have gold currency only available to >the federal reserve bank. > >Any clarification would be appreciated. > <snip> > >12 USC ? 414. Authority of Board of Governors respecting issuance of notes; > interest; lien > >The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall have the right, >acting through the Federal Reserve agent, to >grant in whole or in part, or to reject entirely the application of any >Federal Reserve bank for Federal Reserve notes; but to >the extent that such application may be granted the Board of Governors of >the Federal Reserve System shall, through its local >Federal Reserve agent, supply Federal Reserve notes to the banks so >applying, and such bank shall be charged with the >amount of the notes issued to it and shall pay such rate of interest as may > be established by the Board of Governors of the >Federal Reserve system on only that amount of such notes which equals the >total amount of its outstanding Federal Reserve >notes less the amount of gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve >agent as collateral security. Federal Reserve notes >issued to any such bank shall, upon delivery, together with such notes of >such Federal Reserve bank as may be issued under >subchapter XIII (FOOTNOTE 1) of this chapter upon security of United States > 2 per centum Government bonds, become a >first and paramount lien on all the assets of such bank.
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail