Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF MOVES #29 THRU #42 Case No.: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) | Main | FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: 28 U.S.C. 544, 1746(1) / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) »

NOTICE OF STIPULATION AND OF TRESPASS #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

NOTICE OF STIPULATION AND OF TRESPASS

#2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

 

TO: Office of Chief Judge (duly credentialed)

U.S. District Court

2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001-3658

Wyoming, USA

DATE: June 26, 2014 A.D.

 

Comes now the United States ex rel. Paul A. Mitchell,

Citizen of Washington State, expressly NOT a

citizen of the United States aka “federal citizen”,

and Private Attorney General pursuant to

18 U.S.C. 1964 and Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549

(2000) re: objectives of Civil RICO, to stipulate

certain matters to which the Office of the U.S.

Attorney in Seattle, Washington, and Cheyenne,

Wyoming, have fallen totally silent thereby

activating estoppel; and, to complain formally

of apparent trespass upon the instant cases by

certain persons whose missing and/or defective

credentials have rendered them unqualified,

unauthorized, and without powers of attorney

legally to represent either the “UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA”, the “United States of America” as such,

nor the “United States”, the latter of which

is and has been legally represented by Relator.

 

- 1 of 4 -

 

- STIPULATION -

 

The United States now stipulates as follows:

(a) the 1866 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional

ab initio for all of the several reasons carefully

elucidated in Relator’s essay entitled “Citizenship

for Dummies” and in all further reading

linked at the end of that essay;

(b) chiefly, Congress could not remove the obstacles

identified in the Dred Scott decision solely by

means of Federal legislation enacted by Congress;

(c) being an attempt at such legislation by Congress,

the 1866 Civil Rights Act violated a main

holding in Dred Scott, namely, that a proper

Constitutional Amendment was required to

remedy Scott’s lack of standing to petition

for Habeas Corpus relief;

(d) the so-called “Fourteenth amendment” was

never properly or lawfully ratified, as proven

by verifiable historical facts recited by the

Utah Supreme Court in Dyett v. Turner and

State v. Phillips (27 is NOT 28!);

(e) even if it had been lawfully ratified, the

so-called Fourteenth amendment was merely

an attempt to elevate the essence of the 1866 Civil

Rights Act to the status of supreme Law

i.e. as being “declaratory of existing law”;

(f) the existence of two (2) classes of citizenship

can be readily inferred from Section 1 of that

 

- 2 of 4 -

 

failed amendment i.e. citizens of the United

States and of the State in which they reside;

(g) the qualifier “subject to the jurisdiction

thereof" is also vague for failing to clarify

which meaning of “United States” was

intended in the phrase “jurisdiction thereof”:

see Hoover and Allison v. Evatt which defined

“United States” at least three (3) different ways;

(h) further proof of two (2) classes of citizenship

can be confirmed in a second due process clause

and a second privileges and immunities clause:

if that failed amendment had always intended only

one (1) class, the organic Due Process Clause

and the organic Privileges and Immunities Clause

were already available to State Citizens upon

ratification of the Bill of Rights; and,

(i) it necessarily follows that there are now

two (2) classes of citizenship properly identified

as (1) State Citizens and (2) federal citizens:

the latter were not even contemplated when

the organic Constitution was first being drafted,

see Pannill v. Roanoke, while the former

were always recognized in the organic Qualifica-

tions Clauses, Arising Under Clause, and

Privileges and Immunities Clause; here,

see 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1, and 4:2:1 in the

U.S. Constitution as lawfully amended.

 

- 3 of 4 -

 

The United States formally intervened in

the instant cases with its FORMAL NOTICE OF

CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TWO ACTS

OF CONGRESS, dated 2/20/2014 A.D., and now

incorporates same by reference as if set forth

fully here. Accordingly, the conclusion is

and should be obvious, and the United States

hereby formally stipulates, that the Federal

Jury Selection and Service Act at Sec. 1865(b)(1)

is unconstitutional for expressly discrimina-

ting against State Citizens aka Citizens of

ONE OF the States united. This discrimination

is all the more egregious because State

Citizens are the only class of Americans who

are qualified to serve in the U.S. House of

Representatives, U.S. Senate, and White House.

Quod erat demonstrandum!

 

- TRESPASS -

The United States now formally complains

of trespass upon the instant cases by Messrs.

Christopher A. Crofts, L. Robert Murray and

Ms. Sarah Y. Vogel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242.

Respectfully submitted on June 26, 2014 A.D.,

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)

Relator In Propria Persona, 28 U.S.C. 1654;

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964,

     Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

NOTICE OF STIPULATION AND OF TRESPASS #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

___

Related:

A submission to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform re: IRS targeting scandal:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/house-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-informed-about-new-information-re-irs-us-gov-targ.html

 

July 4, 2014 | Permalink