Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

1 Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris 2 c/o Forwarding Agent at: 3 350 – 30th Street, #444 4 Oakland 94609 5 CALIFORNIA, USA 6 7 All Rights Reserved 8 Without Prejudice 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 17 18 19 George W. Bush, ) Case No. 00-836 20 ) 21 Plaintiff, ) 22 ) 23 v. ) 24 ) 25 Palm Beach Canvassing Board, ) 26 ) 27 Defendant. ) 28 ______) 29 ) 30 People of the United States ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE 31 of America ex relatione ) TO INTERVENE BY RIGHT: 32 Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) 33 ) Supremacy Clause; 34 Petitioners. ) 28 U.S.C. 2403. 35 ______) 36

37 COME NOW the People of the United States of America (“Petitioners”),

38 ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, a Citizen of

39 California State, expressly not a citizen of the United States

40 (hereinafter “federal citizen” [sic]), Federal Witness and Victim (see

41 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513), Private Attorney General, and Damaged Party

42 (hereinafter “Relator”), formally to apply to this honorable Court

43 for: (1) leave to intervene by Right in the instant case, and (2) all

44 other relief which this Court deems just and proper, under the

45 circumstances.

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 1 of 8 1 OFFER OF PROOF

2 Petitioners hereby make Their formal offer to prove that:

3 (1) the voter registration practices in many, if not all,

4 of the 50 States united, exhibit prohibited discrimination against the

5 unique class of American People known as Citizens of ONE OF the United

6 States of America (aka State Citizens) who are not also federal

7 citizens, by “Right of Election”; see Internet URL:

8 http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/sanmarco/complain.htm#one-of

9 (2) those Americans who are qualified to make federal

10 Laws, are not now eligible to vote or to serve on

11 juries, State or federal; and,

12 (3) those Americans who are eligible to vote and serve on

13 State or federal juries, are not now qualified to make federal Laws.

14 This twisted situation violates the fundamental Principle of

15 Equal Protection of the Law.

16 See Qualifications Clauses, in chief, at Article I, Section 2,

17 Clause 2 (“1:2:2”), and Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 (“1:3:3”) in

18 the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended

19 (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”). These Clauses have never been

20 amended. See also Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (“2:1:5”) as

21 applied to Plaintiff in the instant case.

22 23 INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS

24 In the interests of economy and convenience to all, Petitioners

25 hereby formally incorporate the following Internet documents by

26 reference, as if set forth fully herein:

27 Gilbertson’s OPENING BRIEF and related supplements, to wit:

28 [Please continue next page.]

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 2 of 8 1 http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/opening.htm 2 http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/replysup.htm 3 http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/supple1.htm 4 http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm 5 http://www.supremelaw.com/fedzone10/docs/index.htm

6 Petitioners respectfully direct the undivided attention of this

7 honorable Court to the pertinent discussion of the Guarantee Clause in

8 Gilbertson’s OPENING BRIEF supra.

9 10 PRIMARY CAUSE OF ACTION

11 Petitioners argue that the Guarantee Clause, and the fundamental

12 Principle of Equal Protection, are both systematically violated when

13 State Citizens (like Relator) are prevented from electing Their

14 Representatives in Congress solely because those Citizens lawfully

15 decline to accept, or to exercise, a foreign municipal franchise

16 domiciled in the District of Columbia. See Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S.

17 15 (1885).

18 Strictly speaking, citizenship is a term of municipal law. See

19 Roa v. Collector [cite omitted], among others.

20 21 NOTICE OF INTENT

22 Assuming that the instant APPLICATION is granted timely,

23 Petitioners provide formal NOTICE to all interested Parties of Their

24 specific intent to apply also for leave to institute Quo Warranto

25 proceedings against the voter registration practices in all Union

26 States which continue to discriminate against those State Citizens

27 (like Relator) who are not also federal citizens, by “Right of

28 Election” [sic]. See Maine Supreme Court [cite omitted].

29 Relator is a notorious victim of such demonstrably unlawful

30 discrimination. See Equal Protection provisions in the Universal

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 3 of 8 1 Declaration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on

2 Civil and Political Rights, both rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy

3 Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

4 5 NOTICE OF FRAUD

6 There are two (2) classes of citizenship under American Laws

7 never repealed:

8 (1) Citizen of the United States (aka State Citizen)

9 (2) citizen of the United States (aka federal citizen)

10 Confer at “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth

11 Edition. See also Pannill v. Roanoke [cite omitted], a case which is

12 both definitive and dispositive: federal citizens were not even

13 contemplated when the U.S. Constitution was first adopted.

14 Prior to 1866, there was only one class of State Citizens.

15 After 1866, there were two classes of citizens -– State and

16 federal.

17 The customary legal nomenclature for both classes produces a

18 homonym, i.e. both terms sound exactly the same when uttered verbally,

19 causing ambiguity.

20 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “ambiguous” to mean

21 “capable of being understood in two or more possible senses.”

22 Congress could, and should, have utilized the unique term

23 “federal citizen” instead of the term “citizen of the United States”

24 in order to avoid the obvious (and deliberate) ambiguity.

25 That ambiguity resulted from changing the UPPER-CASE “C” in

26 “Citizen” as found in the Qualifications Clauses, to the lower-case

27 “c” in “citizen” as found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act -– a municipal

28 statute. See Roa v. Collector supra.

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 4 of 8 1 Adding to the ambiguity, the term “United States” has three (3)

2 separate legal meanings, all different from each other. Confer at

3 “United States” in Black’s supra.

4 The term “United States” in the Qualifications Clauses means

5 “States united”. See People v. De La Guerra [cite omitted], as cited

6 in Gilbertson’s OPENING BRIEF supra.

7 The term “United States” as found in the term “citizen of the

8 United States” means the federal zone in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and

9 in all subsequent legislation declaratory of that pre-existing Law.

10 “Congress … cannot by legislation alter the [U.S.] Constitution,

11 from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose

12 limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” Eisner v.

13 Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.

14 Therefore, the proper construction and common understanding of

15 the Qualifications Clauses have never, ever been altered by any

16 federal statutes. See Ex parte Knowles [cite omitted].

17 Did Plaintiff lawfully register to vote, if He is qualified by

18 Law to serve in the office of President?

19 20 REMEDY REQUESTED

21 All premises having been duly considered, Petitioners

22 respectfully request: (1) leave of this honorable Supreme Court to

23 intervene by Right in the instant case; and, (2) all other relief

24 which this Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances.

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 5 of 8 1 VERIFICATION

2 Relator hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of

3 the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal

4 government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and

5 correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge,

6 and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) (the

7 “outside” option).

9 Dated: November 28, 2000 A.D.

11 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 12 ______

13 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 6 of 8 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Relator, do declare that on this date,

3 November 28, 2000 A.D., I served the attached APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

4 INTERVENE BY RIGHT on each Party to the above proceeding, and on every

5 other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope

6 containing said APPLICATION in the United States mail properly

7 addressed to each of them, and with first-class postage prepaid, and

8 also by facsimile transmission to those Party(s) whose fax number(s)

9 are shown below:

10 11 George W. Bush, Plaintiff 12 c/o Office of the Governor 13 State Capitol 14 Austin, Texas 15 16 Fax: (512) 463-1849 17 Tel: (512) 463-2000 18 19 20 Palm Beach Canvassing Board 21 Attention: County Attorney 22 301 N. Olive Avenue 23 West Palm Beach 33401 24 FLORIDA, USA 25 26 Tel: (561) 355-2225 27 28 29 Office of the Vice President 30 c/o The White House 31 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 32 Washington, D.C. 33 34 35 Courtesy Copies: 36 37 Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising) 38 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 39 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 40 Pasadena, California 41 42 Solicitor General 43 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5614 44 Washington 20530-0001 45 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 7 of 8 1 Katherine Harris 2 Secretary of State 3 Florida Department of State 4 PL-02, State Capitol 5 Tallahassee 32399-0250 6 FLORIDA, USA 7 8 Tel: (850) 414-5500 9 10 11 Speaker 12 House of Representatives 13 State Capitol 14 Tallahassee, Florida 15 16

17 Dated: November 28, 2000 A.D.

19 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 20 ______

21 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris

1 Application for Leave to Intervene by Right: Page 8 of 8