Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

c/o general delivery

San Marcos [ZIP code exempt]
TEXAS STATE

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved,

without prejudice

At Law

DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS STATE

HAYS COUNTY

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Case No. CV-98-0547

)
Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
) FOR DECLARATORY AND
v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
)
City of San Marcos, ) Supremacy Clause;
San Marcos Utility, ) Privileges and Immunities
Community Action, Inc. ) Clause; Ninth and Tenth
of Hays, Caldwell, & ) Amendments; Universal
Blanco Counties, ) Declaration of Human Rights;
Century Telephone, Inc., ) International Covenant on
and Does 1 thru 25, ) Civil and Political Rights,
) enacted with Reservations;
Defendants. ) Texas state Constitution
)
_________________________) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of

Arizona state, Federal Witness, Counselor at Law,

Private Attorney General, and Candidate for the United

States ("U.S.") House of Representatives, currently

inhabiting Hays county in Texas state ("Plaintiff"),

to petition this honorable Court for relief in the

following sequence:

Phase I: immediate preliminary injunctions;

Phase II: declaratory relief from a competent

 and qualified jury;

Phase III: all other lawful relief which this

Court deems just and proper,

the latter to include but is not necessarily limited to,

permanent injunctions against certain named parties;

actual, consequential, exemplary damages and costs

resulting directly or indirectly from Defendants'

deprivations, and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff,

of His fundamental Rights to liberty, to privacy,

to freedom of religious belief, to freedom of

expression, to work for a living, and to avoid

voluntary federal programs ("Right of Avoidance").

Said Rights are guaranteed to Plaintiff:

by the Constitution for the United States of America,

as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution"); by treaties

enacted pursuant to the Supremacy Clause in the

U.S. Constitution, including specifically the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration"), and the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

the latter with specific Reservations by the U.S.

Congress ("Covenant"); and by the Bill of Rights in

the Constitution of the State of Texas ("Texas state

Constitution").

JURISDICTION

This Court has original jurisdiction over this case

by virtue of the Texas state Constitution, and also

the specific Reservations which Congress attached

to the Covenant in the Document of Ratification of

the International Covenant ("Ratification Document").

Article II, Section 5, of the Ratification Document

reads as follows:

(5) That the United States understands that this

Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal
Government to the extent that it exercises
legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the
matters covered therein, and otherwise by the
state and local governments; to the extent that
state and local governments exercise jurisdiction
over such matters, the Federal Government shall
take measures appropriate to the federal system
to the end that the competent authorities of the
state or local governments may take appropriate
measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.

INITIAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff complains that Defendants violated the

prohibitions found in 18 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 242,

and in Texas state criminal statutes, which specifically

prohibit extortion, false arrest, false imprisonment,

deprivation of Plaintiff's fundamental Rights, and

conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff's fundamental Rights

to liberty, to privacy, to freedom of expression,

to freedom of religious belief, to work for a living,

and to avoid voluntary federal programs. Said Rights

are also enumerated, in part or in full, in the two

Human Rights Treaties itemized supra.

Plaintiff's AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE is hereby

incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein

and filed concurrently herewith (see attached).

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS

Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an

immediate ORDER temporarily enjoining all named

Defendants from refusing telephone and electricity

service to Plaintiff's dwelling unit, because of

Plaintiff's inability to disclose, and refusal to

apply for, a valid Social Security Number ("SSN"),

as an absolute condition precedent to obtaining these

essential utility services. Lex non cogit impossibilia

("the Law does not recognize impossibilities" in Latin).

Plaintiff also requests that this Court issue

an immediate ORDER temporarily enjoining Defendant

Community Action, Inc., from refusing to Plaintiff

its standard energy voucher, to be used for the sole

purpose of paying the normal deposit required by

Defendant San Marcos Utility on residential electricity

service, in indigent cases.

DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff hereby notifies all interested Parties

of Plaintiff's specific intent to name additional

Defendants in a proper and timely amended complaint,

in place of one or more anonymous Does 1 thru 25,

and/or to enlarge the number and nature of criminal

torts itemized therein, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(1)(A),

1512, 1513, and other pertinent statutes not as yet

specified herein.

This action presently proceeds At Law, and sounds

in criminal torts, from which Plaintiff intends to

petition a Lawful and competent civil jury for relief

including verdicts as to the actual, consequential, and

exemplary damages suffered by Plaintiff, as to the true

costs of conducting this suit, and judgments as to the

proper construction and correct application of all

pertinent Laws.

NOTICE OF PERTINENT LAWS

Plaintiff specifically requests that this Court

take formal judicial notice of Public Law 93-579

("Privacy Act Amendment"), which Amendment was enacted

but never codified within the main body of the federal

Privacy Act, at Title 5, United States Code ("U.S.C."),

section 552a. See Historical and Statutory Notes

following 5 U.S.C.A. 552a.

By virtue of Plaintiff's natural birth on June 21,

1948, as a Citizen of Massachusetts state, via jus soli,

and subsequent lawful Election in 1996 to become and

remain a Citizen of Arizona state who is, by Right of

Election, not also a citizen of the United States [sic]

(aka "federal citizen"), Plaintiff's status is not,

by Law, an "individual" as that term is defined in the

federal Privacy Act. See definition at 5 U.S.C. 552a,

section 552a(a)(2). Plaintiff thus claims no standing

under said Act as such. Confer at "Federal citizenship"

in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff now invokes the Human

Rights Treaties enumerated supra, in order to claim,

to assert, and to enforce His fundamental Rights,

as guaranteed by the Supremacy Clause, to privacy and

to equal protection of the Law. See Declaration

Article 12, and Covenant Article 17, for "privacy";

see Declaration Article 7, and Covenant Article 26,

for "equal protection". Both Treaties are reproduced,

for the convenience of this honorable Court, in the

Exhibits attached hereto.

Thus, Plaintiff argues that the Rights which

Defendants violated correspond to remedies which

arise from fundamental Laws. Said remedies are at least

equal to, if not greater than, those other remedies

which Congress created, via the federal Privacy Act,

on behalf of the specific classes of persons mentioned

in the definition of "individual" in said Act, i.e.,

citizens of the United States [sic] and aliens lawfully

admitted for permanent residence [sic]. The exact

language of said definition now follows:

Section 552a. Records maintained on individuals

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section --

...
(2) the term "individual" means a citizen
of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence;

[5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2)]

See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945),

paraphrasing: "The guarantees of the U.S. Constitution

extend to the federal zone ONLY as Congress makes those

guarantees applicable -- by statutes." Inclusio unius

est exclusio alterius. The unique class -- of state

Citizens who are not also federal citizens -- is not

mentioned in the definition of "individual" in the

federal Privacy Act, quoted supra. Whatever was

omitted, was intended to be omitted.

There are two (2) classes of citizens under

American Law never repealed, NOT one (1). See, e.g.,

Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872);

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875);

Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738;

Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. App. 263, 30 Am. Rep. 131;

K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927).

One can be a state Citizen without also being a

federal citizen. See Gardina v. Board of Registrars,

160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909); State v. Fowler,

41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 601 (1889); Crosse v. Board

of Supervisors of Elections, 243 Md. 555, 221 A.2d 431,

(1966).

Strictly speaking, citizenship is a term of

municipal law. See Roa v. Collector, 23 Philippine 315,

332 (1912). It is not a term of public international

law, or of national federal law.

A citizen of the United States [sic], who is not a

Citizen of any state, is NOT within the language of the

organic U.S. Constitution! See Qualifications Clauses

at 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, and also 3:2:1 and 4:2:1;

Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252 F. 910, 914; Alla v.

Kornfeld et al., 84 F.Supp. 823 (1949); Ex parte

Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855).

The term "Citizen of the United States", as found

in the Qualifications Clauses, is properly constructed

to mean a Citizen of ONE OF the States which are united

by and under the U.S. Constitution. This construction

-- ONE OF -- is reiterated in the following passage

from Words and Phrases, to wit:

Citizens of a state, within the removal act

[18 Stat. 473, March 3, 1875] means citizens
of ONE OF the United States, and the suits
contemplated are suits between citizens of
ONE OF the states of the Union on one side,
and foreign states, or citizens or subjects
on the other. citing Roberts v. Pacific &
A. Ry. & Navigation Co., 121 F. 785, 789,
58 C.C.A. 61. (9th Cir. 1903)
[capitalization added]
[7 Words and Phrases 281]
["Citizen of State" (1952)]

See also Hervey v. The Illinois Midland Railway

Company, 7 Biss. 103, Fed. Cas. No. 6,434, as cited

in Roberts supra; People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311,

337 (1870).

See also Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed

concurrently herewith, and incorporated hereby, as if

set forth fully herein, and all Exhibits attached

hereto.

INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS

Plaintiff hereby also incorporates the following

exhibits, as if the same were set forth fully herein,

to wit:

Exhibit A: letter to Frank Cantu, 5/21/98;

Exhibit B: letter to Century Telephone, 5/21/98;

Exhibit C: letter to San Marcos Utility, 5/21/98;

Exhibit D: documents attached to each of the above

and served upon recipients named
therein (see PROOF OF SERVICE infra);

Exhibit E: letter to Dell Human Resources,

summarizing religious, legal, and
economic reasons for avoiding SSN's;

Exhibit F: International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights;

Exhibit G: Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

 Exhibit H: 18 U.S.C. 245 -- Federally protected
activities.

Exhibit I: OPENING BRIEF, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson,

Topic "A", 8th Cir., St. Louis (filed)

Exhibit J: Petition for Leave to File Enlarged

Brief, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Cir.,
St. Louis (lodged)

IMMEDIATE REMEDIES REQUESTED:

Phase I

All premises to date having been duly considered,

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this

honorable District Court of Texas state:

1. issue a preliminary injunction against

Defendant Century Telephone, Inc.,
enjoining same from refusing telephone
service to Plaintiff's dwelling unit;

2. issue a preliminary injunction against

Defendant San Marcos Utility, enjoining
same from refusing electricity service
to Plaintiff's dwelling unit;

3. issue a preliminary injunction against

Defendant Community Action, Inc., enjoining
same from withholding its standard voucher
for payment of the normal deposit required on
residential electricity service in indigent
cases;

4. impose an automatic fine of $500.00 in lawful

money upon Defendant Century Telephone, Inc.,
for violating Plaintiff's fundamental Right
to privacy, and for failing to produce any
authority(s) for same, said fine to be
credited to a residential telephone account
in Plaintiff's name;

5. impose an automatic fine of $500.00 in lawful

money upon Defendant San Marcos Utility,
for violating Plaintiff's fundamental Right
to privacy, and for failing to produce any
authority(s) for same, said fine to be
credited to a residential electricity account
in Plaintiff's name;

6. impose an automatic fine of $500.00 in lawful

money upon Defendant Community Action, Inc.,
 for violating Plaintiff's fundamental Right
to privacy, and for failing to produce any
authority(s) for same, said fine to be
paid directly to Plaintiff;

7. order Century Telephone, Inc. to activate

residential telephone service to Plaintiff
without further delay;

8. order San Marcos Utility to activate

residential electricity service to Plaintiff
without further delay;

9. grant Plaintiff leave of 45 days to prepare

and file an Amended Complaint, or, in the
alternative, set a calendar deadline for same;

10. order the instant case to proceed to trial

on the merits;

11. order all preliminary injunctions to remain

in force, until such time as final judgments,
or permanent injunctions, are issued in the
instant case.

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, a Citizen of

ONE OF the United States of America, hereby verify,

under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the

United States of America, that the above statement

of laws and facts is true and correct, according to the

best of My current information, knowledge, and belief,

so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See

Supremacy Clause.

Dated: May 26, 1998

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, and Candidate
for the U.S. House of Representatives
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[See USPS Pub. #221 for addressing instructions.]

# # #

Return to Table of Contents for

Mitchell v. City of San Marcos et al.