Motion for Intervention of Right: FRCP 24(A)

1 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. 2 Private Attorney General 3 c/o General Delivery 4 Sunset Beach 90742 5 CALIFORNIA, USA 6 7 In Propria Persona 8 9 All Rights Reserved 10 without Prejudice 11 12 13 14 15 16 District Court of the United States 17 18 Central Judicial District of California 19 20 21 The People of California ) No. SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANX) 22 ex relatione ) 23 Gayle Bybee, ) 24 Carla Figaro, ) 25 Nora Moore, ) 26 Teresa Giordano, ) 27 Denise Ricca-White, and ) 28 DOES 2-10, ) 29 ) 30 Plaintiffs, ) 31 ) 32 v. ) 33 ) 34 Andrew Erath, ) 35 Erik Newberry, ) 36 Matthew Finney, ) 37 John Gordon, ) 38 Alicia Villarreal, ) 39 Brian Hershman, and ) 40 DOES 1-10, ) 41 ) 42 Defendants. ) 43 ------) 44 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND 45 United States ) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION 46 ex relatione ) OF RIGHT: 47 Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) 3:2:1 (in judicial mode); 48 ) 18 U.S.C. 1964(a); 49 Movant. ) 28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403(a); 50 ) 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62); 51 ) FRCP 24(a), (c) in pari materia 52 ______) (United States not a party).

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 1 of 15 1 COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Movant”) ex relatione Paul

2 Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America and

3 Private Attorney General (hereinafter “Relator”) to move this

4 honorable Court for intervention of right, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5 2403(a), and to provide timely Notice to all interested parties of

6 same, in pari materia with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”)

7 Rule 24(c) (United States not yet a party); and Article III, Section

8 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) in the Constitution for the United States of

9 America (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”). See 28 U.S.C. 2072(b).

11 NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869

13 Pursuant to the duties imposed upon it by virtue of 28 U.S.C.

14 2403(a), this Court will please certify to the Office of the Attorney

15 General that the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the

16 public interest is herein drawn in question.

17 Likewise, this Court will please certify Movant’s intervention

18 for presentation of all evidence admissible in the above entitled

19 cases, and for argument(s) on the question of the constitutionality of

20 the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869, presently codified as Title

21 28, U.S.C.

23 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

24 Subject to all applicable provisions of Law, Movant hereby

25 expressly reserves all rights of a party and shall be subject to all

26 liabilities of a party as to court costs, to the extent necessary for

27 a proper presentation of the facts and laws relating to the question

28 of the constitutionality of said Act.

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 2 of 15 1 See Article II, Articles of Confederation (“United States, in

2 Congress Assembled”); 28 U.S.C. 530B (willful misrepresentation);

3 Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) (United States as

4 plaintiff); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11

5 (1955); 18 U.S.C. 3231 (Article III constitutional court has original

6 jurisdiction); 3:2:1 (“Controversies to which the United States shall

7 be a Party;”).

8 The “United States” and the “United States of America” are not

9 one and the same. Congress is expressly prohibited from re-defining

10 any terms found in the U.S. Constitution. See Preamble (“Constitution

11 for the United States of America”); Article II, Section 1, Clause 1

12 (“2:1:1”) (“President of the United States of America”); Article VII

13 (“Independence of the United States of America”); Eisner v. Macomber,

14 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

15 Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from 16 which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose 17 limitations that power can be lawfully exercised. 18 19 The U.S. Department of Justice does not enjoy general power(s) of

20 attorney to represent the United States of America. Compare 28 U.S.C.

21 547(1), (2) (Duties). Willful misrepresentation by officers employed

22 by that Department is actionable under the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B

23 (Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government).

24 Whenever the United States proceeds as party plaintiff, an

25 Article III constitutional court, exercising the judicial power of the

26 United States, is a prerequisite under 3:2:1 (“The judicial Power

27 shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be

28 a Party”). See 28 U.S.C. 1345 (United States as plaintiff).

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 3 of 15 1 Whenever the United States proceeds as a party defendant, the

2 sovereign must grant permission to be sued. See 28 U.S.C. 1346

3 (United States as defendant). In this mode, a legislative court is

4 permitted. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 577 (1933):

5 ... [C]ontroversies to which the United States may by statute be 6 made a party defendant, at least as a general rule, lie wholly 7 outside the scope of the judicial power vested by article 3 in 8 the constitutional courts. See United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 9 621, 645, 646 S., 12 S.Ct. 488. 10

11 A private Citizen may move a federal court on behalf of the

12 United States ex relatione. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles,

13 350 U.S. 11 (1955).

14 The Sherman Act (1890) and the federal statutes at 18 U.S.C.

15 1964(a) and 3231 confer original jurisdiction on the several district

16 courts of the United States (“DCUS”). These courts are Article III

17 constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Sherman Act, 26

18 Stat. 209 (1890), 36 Stat. 1167 (1911), 62 Stat. 909 (1948).

19 See also Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (term DCUS in

20 its historic and proper sense); Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff &

21 Associates, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987) (RICO statutes

22 bring to bear the pressure of private attorneys general on a serious

23 national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed

24 inadequate); General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern

25 Railway Co., 260 U.S. 261 (1922) (antitrust injunctions brought by the

26 United States in the public interest).

27 The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are legislative courts

28 typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v.

29 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s

30 seminal ruling); and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922)

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 4 of 15 1 (The USDC is not a true United States court established under Article

2 III.) See 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

3 Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III

4 guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac

5 Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v.

6 Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift v. United States, 276 U.S. 311

7 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal

8 Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930);

9 Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);

10 O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v.

11 Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe

12 Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982); 49 Stat. 1921.

13 All guarantees of the U.S. Constitution were expressly extended

14 into the District of Columbia in 1871, and into all federal

15 Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325,

16 333, Sec. 1891, respectively. Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652

17 (1945) (only as Congress has made those guaranties [sic] applicable).

19 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION

20 Unnamed Co-Plaintiff DOE #1 is now the United States ex relatione

21 Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of California State and Private Attorney

22 General. See modified caption page supra.

23 Movant hereby notoriously exercises its statutory right to

24 intervene, pursuant to the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 2403(a).

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 5 of 15 1 REMEDY REQUESTED

2 All premises having been duly considered, Relator now moves this

3 honorable Court, on behalf of the United States:

4 (1) to certify to the Office of the Attorney General that the

5 constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat.

6 869, has been drawn into question; and,

7 (2) to certify Movant’s intervention for presentation of all

8 evidence admissible in the above entitled cases, and for

9 argument(s) on the question of the constitutionality of

10 said Act.

11 Thank you for your professional consideration.

13 VERIFICATION

14 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty

15 of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without

16 the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of

17 facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My

18 current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant

19 to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and

20 Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).

21 22 Dated: April 19, 2002 A.D.

24 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 25 ______26 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 6 of 15 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of

3 perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the

4 “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of

5 age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I

6 personally served the following document(s):

7 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND 9 MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT: 10 3:2:1 (in judicial mode); 11 18 U.S.C. 1964(a); 12 28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403(a); 13 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62); 14 FRCP 24(a), (c) in pari materia 15 (United States not a party). 16 17 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

18 class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed

19 to the following:

20 21 Gayle Bybee 22 c/o Marcia J. Brewer 23 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 330 24 Culver City 90230 25 CALIFORNIA, USA 26 27 Carla Figaro 28 21213-B Hawthorne Blvd., #5361 29 Torrance 90503 30 CALIFORNIA, USA 31 32 Nora Moore 33 8400 Edinger Avenue, Apt. #Z-106 34 Huntington Beach 92647 35 CALIFORNIA, USA 36 37 Teresa Giordano 38 c/o 40960 California Oaks Road 39 Murrieta 92562 40 CALIFORNIA, USA 41 42 Denise Ricca-White 43 4805 Glenhaven Drive 44 Oceanside 92056 45 CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 7 of 15 1 Andrew Erath 2 c/o Office of Regional Inspector 3 Internal Revenue Service 4 P.O. Box 6238 5 Laguna Niguel 92607 6 CALIFORNIA, USA 7 8 Erik Newberry 9 c/o Office of Regional Inspector 10 Internal Revenue Service 11 P.O. Box 6238 12 Laguna Niguel 92607 13 CALIFORNIA, USA 14 15 Matthew Finney 16 c/o Office of Regional Inspector 17 Internal Revenue Service 18 P.O. Box 6238 19 Laguna Niguel 92607 20 CALIFORNIA, USA 21 22 John S. Gordon 23 U.S. Department of Justice 24 1300 United States Courthouse 25 312 North Spring Street 26 Los Angeles 90012 27 CALIFORNIA, USA 28 29 Alicia Villarreal 30 U.S. Department of Justice 31 1300 United States Courthouse 32 312 North Spring Street 33 Los Angeles 90012 34 CALIFORNIA, USA 35 36 Brian Hershman 37 U.S. Department of Justice 38 1300 United States Courthouse 39 312 North Spring Street 40 Los Angeles 90012 41 CALIFORNIA, USA 42 43 Courtesy Copies to: 44 45 Office of the Solicitor General 46 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5614 47 Washington 20530-0001 48 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA 49 50 Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising) 51 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 52 P.O. Box 91510 53 Pasadena 91109-1510 54 CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 8 of 15 1 [See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.] 2 3 4 Dated: April 19, 2002 A.D.

6 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 7 ______8 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 9 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “A”: 12 13 PRESS RELEASE 14 15 “Private Attorney General Cracks 16 Title 28 of the United States Code” 17 18 November 26, 2001 A.D. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 10 of 15 1 Private Attorney General Cracks 2 Title 28 of the United States Code 3 4 by 5 6 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. 7 Counselor at Law, Federal Witness 8 and Private Attorney General 9 10 11 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 26, 2001 A.D. 12 13 14 Sacramento. Paul Andrew Mitchell, the Private Attorney General at the 15 Supreme Law Firm and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library on the 16 Internet, today announced major developments in his ongoing project to 17 decode Title 28 –- the set of American laws that govern the federal 18 court system. 19 20 In a brief but direct application of this knowledge, written for 21 a trainee in federal litigation, Mitchell demonstrated how the federal 22 courts lacked original jurisdiction in the anti-trust case against the 23 Microsoft Corporation. 24 25 That case was allegedly brought by the “United States of America” 26 (or “USA”), but attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) 27 have no powers of attorney to represent the “USA”, as such. Willful 28 misrepresentation is a violation of the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B, 29 which requires DOJ attorneys to obey State Bar disciplinary 30 guidelines: 31 32 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html 33 34 The federal government recently reversed its policy in the case 35 against the Microsoft Corporation, and is now pushing equitable 36 settlements across the board. 37 38 The term “USA” is mentioned only once in Title 28 –- at section 39 1746 –- and there it is clearly distinguished from the “United States” 40 –- the proper legal term that is used for the federal government 41 throughout Title 28: 42 43 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html 44 45 Mitchell’s findings have consequences that reach far beyond the 46 anti-trust case against Microsoft. It is now painfully apparent that 47 DOJ are pretending to represent the “USA” in all civil and criminal 48 cases, intentionally to avoid exercising the judicial power of the 49 United States. 50 51 Under Article III in the U.S. Constitution, this power must be 52 exercised in constitutional courts that guarantee cherished 53 fundamental Rights, like the Right to due process of law as guaranteed

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 11 of 15 1 by the Fifth Amendment. Article III courts must be convened to hear 2 Controversies to which the United States is a Party (singular). 3 4 To make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has also erred by 5 ruling that the term “Party” as used in Article III means “Plaintiff” 6 but not “Defendant”. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 7 (1933). In Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the term “Party” embraces both 8 plaintiffs and defendants. 9 10 By substituting the “USA” as Plaintiffs (plural), DOJ have 11 perpetrated a fraud by switching to legislative courts where 12 fundamental Rights are not guarantees, but merely privileges granted 13 (or denied) at the discretion of arbitrary judges, sitting on 14 legislative tribunals. Mitchell describes these courts as operating 15 in legislative mode as opposed to constitutional mode. 16 17 Glaring proof of this fraud can be seen at section 132 of Title 18 28. In this section, Congress attempted to broadcast into all 50 19 States a territorial tribunal –- the United States District Court 20 (“USDC”). Congress did this under another pretense, namely, that 21 those States could be treated as if they were all federal Territories: 22 23 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/132.html 24 25 More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invented a false 26 doctrine by which the U.S. Constitution did not extend into U.S. 27 Territories and Possessions. Mitchell later refuted this doctrine, 28 after discovering two Acts of Congress that expressly extended the 29 U.S. Constitution into the District of Columbia in 1871 A.D., and then 30 into all federal Territories in 1873 A.D. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 31 34; and 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively. 32 33 In the year 1992 A.D., Paul Mitchell authored a popular classic 34 book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue. 35 The Federal Zone is now in its eleventh edition. 36 37 In that book, he proved that federal municipal law governs U.S. 38 Territories like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, but federal 39 municipal law does not extend into any of the 50 States of the Union. 40 The income tax statutes in the Internal Revenue Code are federal 41 municipal law. 42 43 Because they are not yet States of the Union, Congress is the 44 state legislature for all Territories, Possessions, and Enclaves like 45 military bases –- an area now collectively called the federal zone. 46 In the year 1995 A.D., Justice Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as 47 a household word in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 48 1624 (1995). 49 50 Section 132 of Title 28 is even more deceptive for creating the 51 false notion that the Article III District Court of the United States 52 (“DCUS”) was abolished, but nothing could be further from the truth. 53 A careful reading of section 132 reveals that the DCUS is not even 54 mentioned in that statute.

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 12 of 15 1 2 The DCUS was never expressly abolished by any Act of Congress, 3 and it is still mentioned in numerous other places throughout Title 4 28. Congress knows how to abolish a court when it wants to do so. 5 The Ninth Circuit has also ruled that repeals by implication are not 6 favored. Thus, for the DCUS to be abolished, a clear Act of Congress 7 would be required to effect that result. Whatever Congress creates, 8 Congress must destroy. 9 10 Another stunning application of this knowledge came recently, 11 when a federal criminal defendant appealed to the Ninth Circuit to 12 review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. An interlocutory 13 order is one that occurs before final judgment is reached at 14 sentencing after a jury verdict. 15 16 In response to Mitchell’s pleadings, the Ninth Circuit cited a 17 case which ruled that final judgment in a criminal case means the 18 sentence. That citation was U.S. v. Powell, 24 F.3d. 28, 31 (9th Cir. 19 1994). Then, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the defendant’s appeal for 20 lack of appellate jurisdiction. 21 22 Under Mitchell’s expert guidance, the defendant proved that the 23 Ninth Circuit has no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory 24 orders issued by the legislative USDC. However, the Ninth Circuit 25 does have appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued 26 by the constitutional DCUS. The proof is found at 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) 27 (1): 28 29 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1292.html 30 31 Mitchell then persuaded the defendant to request a published 32 opinion holding that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be 33 strictly construed also. It is already well decided that statutes 34 granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Such a 35 holding is a logical extension of existing federal case law. 36 37 Clearly, these findings expose the USDC in all 50 States as a 38 summary tribunal that compels criminal defendants to endure lengthy 39 trials, conviction and sentencing before any U.S. Court of Appeals can 40 take jurisdiction under the Final Judgments Act at 28 U.S.C. 1291: 41 42 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1291.html 43 44 In closely related developments, the main culprit has now been 45 identified as the Act of June 25, 1948, in which Congress radically 46 re-organized the entire federal court system. This is the Act of 47 Congress that broadcasted the USDC from the federal Territories into 48 all 50 States of the Union. This Act has now been formally challenged 49 for being deliberately vague, and therefore unconstitutional. 50 51 By attempting to re-define the DCUS retroactively, this Act also 52 violates the ex post facto prohibition at Article I, Section 9, Clause 53 3, in the U.S. Constitution. This prohibition strictly bars Congress 54 from enacting laws that have any retroactive effect. Without a clear

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 13 of 15 1 amending statute, Congress cannot later re-define the term “District 2 Court of the United States” in statutes that predate June 25, 1948 3 A.D. 4 5 For example, the Sherman Antitrust Act was first enacted in the 6 year 1890 A.D., and that Act granted original jurisdiction to the 7 DCUS. Subsequently, the Act of June 25, 1948, did not change or 8 otherwise amend that grant of original jurisdiction to the DCUS. 9 Therefore, cases enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act must be brought 10 by the “United States” (not the “USA”) in an Article III federal court 11 proceeding in constitutional mode. Identical results obtain from many 12 other federal laws, like the Securities and Exchange Acts. 13 14 Other sections of Title 28 have already been challenged properly 15 in court for violating the U.S. Constitution. In 1996 A.D., in the 16 case of a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury, Mitchell was 17 allowed to prove that the federal Jury Selection and Service Act is 18 also unconstitutional. That Act expressly discriminates against 19 Citizens of the 50 States –- the only class of Citizens contemplated 20 when Article III was being drafted, circa 1787 A.D. For definitive 21 authority on this crucial point, see Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 22 914. 23 24 There are now two (2) classes of citizens under American laws 25 that have never been repealed -- State Citizens and federal citizens 26 -- but only State Citizens are qualified to be federal lawmakers. See 27 the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution; the “United 28 States” in those provisions means “States united”. 29 30 Moreover, those Citizens who are qualified to make federal laws 31 cannot vote or serve on any juries, State or federal. And, those who 32 can vote and serve on juries are not qualified to make federal laws. 33 34 This seriously twisted situation is due, in part, to the Act of 35 June 25, 1948, and related Congressional efforts to foist a 36 legislative democracy upon all 50 States. These efforts violate the 37 Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government is 38 required by that Clause to guarantee a Republican Form of Government 39 to the 50 States of the Union. 40 41 Paul Andrew Mitchell can be reached at email address: 42 43 [email protected] 44 45 He is currently available for speaking engagements on this, and 46 related topics in American constitutional law, the focus of his 47 extensive judicial activism. 48 49 50 51 # # #

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 14 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “B”: 12 13 Relator’s VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 14 15 Executed on February 27, 2002 A.D. 16 17 against Alicia Villarreal and Andrew Erath 18 19 Served upon Judge Alex Kozinski 20 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 21 22 February 28, 2002 A.D. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

1 Motion for Intervention of Right: Page 15 of 15