FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 22, 1998 Paul Mitchell Blasts Clinton & Rubin for Racketeering with Foreign Banks Austin, Texas. The President and Treasury Secretary drew sharp criticism today for their recent opposition to the House vote to repeal the Internal Revenue Code. Paul Andrew Mitchell, a Counselor at Law, qualified Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General, took both men to task for using scare tactics to further the unlawful enrichment of foreign banks. "It is perhaps the ultimate irony that Clinton should now whip up fear and uncertainty as outcomes of repealing the tax code," replied Mitchell. "It is precisely the vagueness which renders that Code null and void from its inception. Nobody can be certain about obviously, deliberately ambiguous laws." Mitchell here refers to the deliberate vagueness and ambiguities which his many years of research have documented in the Internal Revenue Code. Most notably, that Code confuses Americans into equating the term "State" with one of the 50 states of the Union. But, key definitions of "State" limit its meaning to the federal territories, federal possessions, and federal enclaves. The 50 states are intentionally omitted from the Internal Revenue Code, in several key places. After defending former California state judge Norman L. Vroman in a criminal tax case in 1991, Mitchell heard Vroman predict that the tax code would be broken by careful application of principles embodied in the Sixth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights. This Amendment guarantees to defendants the fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any criminal accusation. Laws are null and void, if they are vague. "Judge Norman L. Vroman told me he just did not have enough time to do a proper analysis, but he was sure the Sixth Amendment was powerful enough to break the Code," Mitchell remembers. "Those have been my marching orders, ever since that pivotal moment." A host of Americans, over the years, have voiced similar complaints about the complexities and overly convoluted provisions in the IRC, including President Reagan on down. Most recently, Attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, has published a thorough expose which further develops the void-for-vagueness theme first documented in "The Federal Zone," Mitchell's classic book on decoding the IRC. Norman L. Vroman was the first to review initial drafts of this book. "Becraft has done an excellent job of showing how federal and state judges are all at odds with each other, when it comes to the controlling principles of federal income taxation," adds Mitchell. Becraft's essay, now published on the Internet, cites numerous cases in which judges have disagreed on the meaning of "income," the legal effects of a ratified 16th amendment, and the correct classification of income taxes as direct or indirect. The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to put all federal taxes in one, or the other, class. Other serious disagreements among judges are documented, with full case citations. "When you stop to think about it, the controlling principle here completely nullifies the Internal Revenue Code, from its inception. This principle says that a law is vague, if men of common intelligence must disagree as to its meaning and practical application," Mitchell explained. "Here, the very experts who are specifically trained in law and its correct interpretation, are the ones who disagree with each other. This is very much like 3 judges ruling we go for green, 3 judges ruling we go for red, and 4 judges saying they go for yellow." Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin also came under Mitchell's sharp criticism, for siding with Clinton's fears about uncertain tax futures. Mitchell is now convinced that foreign banks, primarily in Europe, are the real beneficiaries of the federal income tax, and this explains their consistent support for a fraudulent, deceptive Code during the past 85 years. The 16th amendment was adopted in 1913. "Fraud explains Rubin's consistent support for an Internal Revenue Service which really operates as an extortion racket," charged Mitchell. "The Grace Commission leaked the awful truth, when they admitted that federal income taxes are not paying for ANY government services. Those taxes are being collected to service the mounting federal debt, by laundering huge sums straight into foreign banks. Such is the service the IRS provides." The Grace Commission was convened by President Reagan, in order to identify ways of reducing federal government waste, and of increasing the efficiency of the federal government bureaucracy. Buried deep in that Commission's final report was a key admission, which continues to stun Americans who understand its full ramifications. That report is now hard to find. "The implications are now quite clear that the federal income tax is a bank racket, most likely centered in Europe, where the major banking families have plied their trade for centuries," Mitchell explained. "Clinton and Rubin are shills of these foreign banks, if they persist in sustaining the Internal Revenue Code long after that Code has been exposed as a massive fraud," Mitchell challenged. Mitchell continues to work at educating Americans, primarily through the Internet, as to the fundamental importance of repealing the income tax on judicial compensation, for example. "The only rational reason for the Public Salary Tax Act is to pack the pockets of wealthy foreign bankers. This is most obvious in taxes on the pay of federal judges, who have enjoyed a constitutional immunity from such taxes ever since the organic U.S. Constitution was first ratified, in the year 1788," Mitchell argues. Mitchell's federal court litigation has often raised this immunity, by charging federal judges with conflicts of interest. Mitchell even confronted Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, before a large class at the Law School of the University of Arizona. That incident is reported in Mitchell's essay entitled "The Lawless Rehnquist," published in the Supreme Law Library at http://supremelaw.org/library under another pen name. "It is politically impossible for federal judges to rule against the IRS, as long as those judges are subject to its undue influence. Every W-4 ever signed by a federal judge is proof of that conflict," concludes Mitchell. He supports such statements by citing cases like Evans v. Gore and Lord v. Kelley, and by demonstrating the skewed results in almost all recent federal tax cases. Mitchell is quick to add that the IRS was never created by any known Act of Congress, and it is conspicuously absent from the laws which created the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in Title 31 of the United States Codes. "The only reference to the IRS in all of Title 31 is an authority for the President to appoint their general counsel." Mitchell elaborates this fact by proving that the Department of Justice does not have any powers of attorney to represent the IRS in court. DOJ receives no lawful appropriations for this purpose. Conversely, IRS cannot lawfully retain DOJ attorneys at public expense, but they do anyway. "This finding arose in the civil case which Karl Kleinpaste brought against the United States, the IRS, and an individual IRS agent," Mitchell stated. "Even though DOJ can and does represent Treasury officers, the IRS is not part of the U.S. Treasury Dept. and has never had authority from Congress to use DOJ attorneys to litigate their cases. IRS is a trust, domiciled in Puerto Rico, and their records are private." Paul Mitchell's court pleadings can be viewed at Internet URL http://supremelaw.org/library. His permanent email address is supremelawfirm@yahoo.com. # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Published Press Releases