CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION RECLAIMED

Puck

ORIGINAL FILED JULY 29 1997 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Stephen Mitchell
c/o 12400 Ventura Blvd. #137
Studio City, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)
213-874-3534

Lisa Jan Precious
c/o 12358 Ventura Blvd. #245
Studio City, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)
818-985-6220

Kathleen Carey
c/o 5152 Sepulveda, Suite 205
Sherman Oaks, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)
818-789-0954

Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Jan Precious, Kathleen Carey
In propia persona [NOT PRO SE]

In the superior court[1] for Los Angeles county, California

___________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTE 1: Concurrent with and equivalent to the district court as created in the Constitution of the State of California of 1849, and the seventeenth judicial district, see Stats 1872, ch. CXIV, p. 116

Stephen Mitchell; Lisa Jan Precious; Kathleen Carey
Plaintiffs/Demandants,

vs.

DAVID MISCAVIGE, a person, in the capacity as Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center and Inspector General of the Church of Scientology
MIKE RINDER, a person, in the capacity as head of the Office of Special Affairs International
JOHN/JANE DOE #1, a person, in the capacity as head of the L. Ron Hubbard Library
JOHN/JANE DOE, #2-99
Defendants/Respondents,

Case No. BC175367
Affidavit of Truth in Support of
Verified Complaint for Libel

The 1879 quasi-constitution has no lawful effect due to the following:

1. It is a fact that the “citizens of California” were expressly authorized to vote for the adoption of the Constitution for the State of California of 1849, see exhibit A.

2. It is a fact that “citizens of California” were never authorized to vote for the “adoption” of the 1879 quasi/constitution. Only “citizens of the United States” were authorized to vote for the 1879 quasi/constitution see Exhibit B. Note that “exhibit B” acknowledged that is was a revision of “exhibit A”. The express statement of “citizen of California” was purposefully removed by “revision” in the creating of the quasi/constitution of 1879.

3. This revision hereinabove shown where “citizen of California” was removed, is especially notable when it is taken into consideration that another section from the 1849 Constitution, specifically Article XI, Section 2, see Exhibit C, remained unchanged when placed in the 1879 quasi/constitution at Article XX, Section 2, see Exhibit D, and specifically acknowledged the “citizen of this state”. It is clear that the “citizen of this state”, i.e. the “citizen of California”, is acknowledged in, but not authorized to vote for the adoption of, the quasi/constitution of 1879.

4. It is indisputable that in the time frame of the 1870’s, that it is defined in decisional law that a “citizen of the United States” as created under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution was specifically nothing more than one of the “freed slaves” (or their offspring) after the Civil War. See Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 349 [1874] see Exhibit E, and Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 [1872] see Exhibit F.

5. It is clearly documented that the effective date of the quasi/constitution was repealed November 8, 1960.

6. Virtually the entire quasi/constitution of 1879 was repealed and replaced from 1949 through 1976 without any lawful authority. The Plaintiff can find no source of any lawful authority to “repeal”, whether it be in the quasi/constitution of 1879 or the organic Constitution for the State of California of 1849.

7. There is a fundamental, indisputable difference between the act of “amending” and the act of “repealing”.

7a. Amend. To Improve. To change for the better by removing defects or faults. To
change, correct, revise. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

7b. Repeal. The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law … . To revoke, abolish, annul, to rescind, or abrogate by authority. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

8. The following is a listing of the great majority of repealing that took place which was beyond any authority to “amend” or “revise” if the quasi/constitution of 1879 was actually lawfully in effect.

9. In addition the fact presented hereinabove concerning the specific and limited authorization to vote for the adoption of the quasi/constitution of 1879, the fact of the “repealing” is hereby submitted as evidence that the quasi/constitution of 1879 was not, is not, and cannot have any lawful effect as the valid “Constitution for the State of California”.

Article I,
Section 1-2 repealed November 5, 1974
Section 3 repealed November 7, 1972
Section 4-7 repealed November 5, 1974
Section 8 – repealed November 8, 1966
Section 9-24 repealed November 5, 1974
Section 26a – repealed November 8, 1949
Article II, repealed November 7, 1972
Article III, repealed November 7, 1972
Article IV, Section 1 repealed November 8, 1966
Section lb-5 repealed November 8, 1966
Section 7-21 repealed November 8, 1966
Section 22a repealed November 8, 1966
Section 23a repealed November 8, 1966
Section 25a repealed November 8, 1966
Section 25 1/2 repealed November 8, 1966
Section 25.7 repealed November 8, 1966
Section 28 repealed June 8, 1976
Section 31d-38 repealed November 8, 1966
Article V repealed November 8, 1966
Article VI repealed November 8, 1966
Article VII repealed November 8, 1966
Article VIII repealed November 8, 1966
Article IX, Section 4 repealed November 4, 1963
Section 4 repealed November 4, 1963
Section 10-13 repealed November 5, 1974
Section 15 repealed November 5, 1974
Article X, repealed November 7, 1972
Article XI, repealed June 2, 1970
Article XII, repealed November 5, 1974
Article XIII, repealed November 5, 1974
Article XIV, repealed June 8, 1976
Article XV, repealed June 8, 1976
Article XV, Section 2-9, repealed November 6, 1962
Section 12, repealed November 6, 1962
Section 15-21, repealed November 6, 1962
Article XVII repealed June 8, 1976
Article XVIII repealed November 3, 1970
Article XIX repealed November 4, 1952
Article XX, Section 1 repealed November 7, 1972
Section 2 repealed November 3, 1970
Section 3.5 repealed November 3, 1970
Section 4 repealed November 3, 1970
Section 5 repealed June 8, 1976
Section 9 repealed November 3, 1970
Section 10, 11 repealed June 8, 1976
Section 12 – 14 repealed November 3, 1970
Section 15 repealed June 8, 1976
Section 16 repealed November 7, 1972
Section 17-17 1/2 repealed November 3, 1970
Section 19 – 21 repealed June 8, 1976
Article XXI, repealed November 7, 1972
(note that an “new Article III, section 2, acknowledged the existence of the 1849 Constitution as the authority for the statement of the boundaries of California.)
Article XXII,
Section 3, repealed November 8, 1960
Section 4, repealed November 8, 1949
Section 5, repealed November 8, 1949
Section 7, repealed November 8, 1949
Section 8, repealed November 8, 1949
Section 9, repealed November 8, 1949
Section 10-12, repealed November 8, 1960
Article XXII (totally) repealed June 6, 1972
Article XXIII, repealed June 8, 1976
Article XXIV, repealed June 8, 1976
Article XXV, repealed November 8, 1949
Article XXVII, repealed November 3, 1970
Article XXVIII, repealed November 5, 1974

10. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff demands and requires:

1Oa. This Court shall take judicial notice ‘of the fact that the Constitution for the State of California of 1849 is currently valid and in effect.

lOb. This Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that the quasi/constitution of 1879 amounts to nothing more than an “extension of the code” and any lawful effect that it may or may not have does not supersede the Constitution for the State of California of 1849.

We, Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Jan Precious, and Kathleen Carey, hereby swear under penalty of perjury, under the law of the Land in California, one of the United States of America, that paragraphs numbered 1 through 10 hereinabove are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of our knowledge and belief.

Subscribed and sworn this twenty-ninth day of the seventh month, in the year A.D. nineteen hundred ninety seven.

[L.S.] (SIGNATURE: STEPHEN MITCHELL) seal
Stephen Mitchell

[L.S.] (SIGNATURE: LISA PRECIOUS) seal
Lisa Jan Precious

[L.S.] (SIGNATURE: KATHLEEN CAREY) seal
Kathleen Carey

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s