Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 West Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Appeal Docket No. 07-2017
) Civil No. 04-CV-0885 BB/WDS
Plaintiff/Appellee, )
v. )
)
John S. Williamson et al., )
)
Defendants/Appellants. )
---------------------------------)
)
United States ) INTERVENOR’S FIRST SUPPLEMENT
ex relatione ) TO NOTICE OF INTERVENTION:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, )
) FREv Rule 201(d).
Intervenor. )
_________________________________)
COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Intervenor”) ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen
of ONE OF the United
States of America, Private Attorney
General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness (hereinafter “Relator”), to supplement Intervenor’s
previously filed and served NOTICE OF INTERVENTION
by demanding mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable Court of Appeals of
documents and standing decisions which are pertinent to the instant appeal, and
to provide formal Notice to all interested Party(s) of same.
INCORPORATION
OF PERTINENT DOCUMENTS
In support of the instant DEMAND, Intervenor hereby attaches a true and correct copy of the following documents, and incorporates same by reference to Attachments “A” thru “C” infra, as if set forth fully here:
(1) NOT FOR PUBLICATION opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in McKee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ninth Circuit appeal number #04-74846, filed December 4, 2006; see Attachment “A” and Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/mckee/
(2) Published opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Anastasoff v. United States of America [sic], Eighth Circuit appeal number #99-3917EM, filed August 22, 2000; see Attachment “B” and Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/anastasoff/
(3) Open letter with heading “United States v. United States of America” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness (date-stamped 2/6/2007); see Attachment “C” and Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
In contrast to discretionary judicial notice, mandatory judicial notice leaves no room whatsoever for discretion on the part of this honorable Court. Cf. FREv Rule 201(c) for “discretion”.
In McKee, the Ninth
Circuit held:
The [United States] Tax Court’s finding that the IRS was
excused because its own regulations were
“complex” was an abuse of discretion.
[bold
emphasis added]
That holding is entirely consistent with deliberate and
extensive vagueness in the Internal Revenue Code which Relator
has previously documented and published in a controversial book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue.” The electronic Eleventh Edition of this book
is available at the following Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/
However, the Ninth Circuit qualified its opinion in McKee with the conspicuous heading “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”.
In stark comparison, the published opinion in Anastasoff held that UNPUBLISHED opinions, also qualified as “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, are unconstitutional:
We hold that the portion of Rule 28A(i) that declares that unpublished opinions are not precedent is unconstitutional under Article III, because it purports to confer on the federal courts a power that goes beyond the “judicial.”
The opinion in Anastasoff is also very valuable for its erudite treatment of the historical meaning of “judicial precedent” in general –- a concept which now appears to have escaped the vast majority of federal district judges presently seated anywhere inside the United States of America (read “50 States of the Union”).
The United States of America are judicial districts; they are not United States districts!
Lastly, the Open Letter by Relator goes into some detail to refute the common myth that the “United States” (federal government) was formally incorporated by some Act of Congress. One can only speculate why so many agents provocateur continue to ply numerous Internet discussions lists with this demonstrably false idea, even after they have been shown the error of their ways.
Notably, in United States
v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941), the U.S. Supreme
Court wrote:
We may say in passing that the argument
that the United States may be
treated as a corporation organized
under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law,
seems so strained as not to merit serious consideration.
[bold emphasis added]
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 12:22
All premises having been duly considered, Intervenor respectfully demands mandatory judicial notice of the documents incorporated supra.
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws 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 (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).
Dated: February 7, 2007 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):
FREv Rule 201(d)
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:
Clerk of Court (5x)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1823 Stout Street
Denver 80257
COLORADO, USA
Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson
1277 Historic Route 66 East
Tijeras 87059
NEW MEXICO, USA
Mr. John Gregory Williamson
c/o Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson supra
Mr. David Andrew Williamson
c/o Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson supra
Mr. Garrett James Williamson
824 Adams Street, N.E.
Albuquerque 87110
NEW MEXICO, USA
Ms. Deborah Kruhm
P.O. Box
23899
Santa Fe 87502
NEW MEXICO, USA
Ms. Gretchen M. Wolfinger
U.S. Department of Justice
Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington 20044
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Courtesy copies:
Office of the U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque 87103
NEW MEXICO, USA
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
717 North Harwood, Suite 400
Dallas 75201
TEXAS, USA
Dr. Harriet Smith Windsor
Secretary of State
State of Delaware
401 Federal Street
Dover 19901
DELAWARE, USA
[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]
Dated: February 7, 2007 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Attachment “A”:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION Opinion in:
McKee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Ninth Circuit Appeal Number #04-74846
(file-stamped DEC 04 2006)
Attachment “B”:
Published Opinion in:
Anastasoff v. United States of America [sic]
Eighth Circuit Appeal Number #99-3917EM
(filed August 22, 2000)
Attachment “C”:
Open Letter with Heading:
“United States v. United States of America”
by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
(date-stamped 2/6/2007)