Time: Tue Oct 29 23:31:33 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Research point
Cc:
Bcc:
At 11:26 PM 10/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 05:28 PM 10/29/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 05:49 PM 10/29/96 -0600, you wrote:
>>>Tuesday, 29Oct96 @ 17:48 Hours CST
>>>
>>>TO: Paul Mitchell
>>>From: Dale Robertson
>>>Subject: Research Point
>>>
>>>Re-post to your at your request, as follows:
>><snip>
>>>Monday, 28Oct96 @ 14:37 Hours CST
>>>
>>>TO: Counselors - all
>>>From: Joseph Dale Robertson
>>>Subject: What is "United States" & Who is required to file a return?
>>>
>>>
>>>At this time, there is an active pending case in the USDC and Bankruptcy
>>>in which there is an opportunity (as well as necessity) to adjudicate
>>>the the following issues:
>>>
>>>1. As it pertains to "income" as defined under Title 26 of the United
>>>States Code, are individuals within the various 50 states within the
>>>definition of "United States"?
>
>Dear Paul,
> I may have already told you this, but
>I saw that "State" definition somewhere too.
>I believe its an old FDA statute, or maybe
>something to do with importation. Will look
>for it when this brief is finished.
> How do I get on Alta Vista? I'm having
>a lot of trouble using the Webb and I'd really
>like to read your book.
>
>Nancy
Hi Nancy,
Using your web browser, use the
search function, and scroll
until you reach a list of choices.
Alta Vista should be among them.
If you can't find it, call your
service provider, and ask for
help navigating. When you find
it, make a bookmark (or a favorite).
Then, have some fun, because
Alta Vista is fast Fast FAST.
I can email you a copy of my book.
What encodings can you handle?
I can send in MIME, BinHex, and
Uuencode. You have been able
to read the ones I have sent you
so far, correct? Chapter 11 is
a good one, but you have probably
already seen that chapter in the
jury challenge I prepared.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>You are already stepping with
>>the wrong foot forward. Title
>>26, as such, has never been
>>enacted into law, so it is, at best,
>>rebuttable evidence of the law(s)
>>in question.
>>
>>As for the IRC, the Kennelly letter
>>is important evidence that the
>>definition of "State" at IRC
>>3121(e) embraces ONLY the named
>>territories and possessions, and
>>the District of Columbia.
>>Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
>>
>>Rep. Kennelly should be subpoened
>>to testify about the evidence she
>>received from the Legislative Counsel
>>and the Congressional Research Service.
>>She is from Connecticut. Go get her.
>>
>>Finally, "income" is not defined as
>>such in the IRC. See U.S. v. Ballard,
>>which rendered this question res
>>judicata.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>2. Who is required to file a return?
>>
>>Anybody made liable.
>>
>>As for the income tax,
>>as opposed to the other
>>taxes discussed in the IRC,
>>the only persons made liable
>>are "withholding agents".
>>Cf. in the definitions,
>>IRC 7701(a) et seq.
>>
>>You can confirm this by
>>submitting a FOIA request
>>for all IRC statutes,
>>other than those listed
>>in the defintion of
>>withholding agents, which
>>impose a liability. The
>>government will then be
>>required to admit, on record,
>>that there are no other
>>liability statutes.
>>
>>Be aware that a FOIA request
>>will thrust you into the
>>District Court of the United States,
>>where you belong anyway. Have
>>you considered a removal action?
>>
>>>
>>>I am presently compiling a compendium respecting especially the first
>>>and tangentially the second issue stated above.
>>
>>You need Kennelly's letter,
>>and her testimony, under oath.
>>Ask her why she never answered
>>Paul Mitchell's letters. Or,
>>get leave of the court to depose
>>her. Her letter is earth-shaking
>>(see Press Release infra).
>>
>>>
>>>Should any counselor have comment, experience, interest, expertise, or
>>>briefs respecting the above issues your response will be most sincerely
>>>appreciated. Significant work has been done, and I have done some
>>>interesting research on this point, but there is no compendium to which
>>>I am aware which amalgamates the sum of argument(s) in one compendium.
>>
>>See "The Federal Zone" available
>>on the Internet via the Alta Vista
>>search engine.
>>
>>
>>>Any counselor who makes make a submission will receive the end product
>>>compendium and will be advised of developments as this issue proceeds
>>>through the bowels of the USDC and the Bankruptcy forums.
>>
>>You know you are in the wrong
>>court for any criminal prosecutions,
>>don't you?
>>
>>
>> (Hey, I have
>>>to provide an incentive of some type - don't I?) Thanks and
>>>
>>>Constitutionally,
>>>
>>>Jospeh Dale Robertson
>>>joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.tx.us
>>>
>>>
>>
>>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 28, 1996
>>
>>
>> Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion
>>
>>
>>Payson, Arizona. Paul Mitchell, a Counselor at Law and Citizen
>>of Arizona state, today challenged U.S. Representative Barbara
>>Kennelly to stop evading the big question about federal income
>>taxes: Does the term "State" at Internal Revenue Code 3121(e)
>>include only the named federal territories and possessions of the
>>District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and
>>American Samoa? Can this be income tax evasion? Read on.
>>
>> In a letter to Mr. John Randall of San Diego last January
>>24, Kennelly responded to a written request from Randall asking
>>her if the word "State" in 26 U.S. Code 3121(e) and in other
>>pending legislation were the same. Rep. Kennelly, a Democrat
>>from Connecticut, first checked with the Legislative Counsel and
>>with the Congressional Research Service about the definition.
>>"According to these legal experts," answered Kennelly, "the
>>definitions are not the same. The term state in 26 U.S. Code
>>3121 (e) specifically includes only the named U.S. territories
>>and possessions." Her letter to Randall, on official House of
>>Representatives stationery, was dated January 24, 1996.
>>
>> This admission is earth-shaking, according to Paul Mitchell,
>>who has conducted an in-depth investigation of federal laws and
>>the U.S. Constitution for seven years now. If the Internal
>>Revenue Code was deliberately written to confuse the American
>>people into believing that "State" means "Arizona" or
>>"California," when it does not, then the Congress has a lot of
>>explaining to do. Mitchell has since challenged Kennelly to
>>produce copies of the correspondence she received from the
>>Legislative Counsel and Congressional Research Service, but she
>>has now fallen silent and refuses to answer any follow-up
>>letters. Congress, incidentally, exempted themselves from the
>>disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>> Writing under several pen names, Paul Mitchell's work has
>>reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted
>>"the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995
>>decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His book entitled The Federal Zone:
>>Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, was first published in
>>1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid
>>language and indisputable legal authority. The book was
>>originally written in electronic form, which made it easy to
>>disseminate through the Internet. The fourth edition can be
>>viewed with the Alta Vista search engine, developed by Digital
>>Equipment Corporation. The Internet version does not preserve
>>any bold, underline, or italics, however. Mitchell has used
>>special character formats to highlight important words and
>>phrases in federal statutes and case laws, easing the reader's
>>burden of deciphering an otherwise unintelligible code.
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly: Page 1 of 2
>>
>> It is clear, there is a huge difference between the area
>>covered by the federal zone, and the area covered by the 50
>>States. "Money is a powerful motivation for all of us," writes
>>Mitchell in a chapter from the book. "Congress had literally
>>trillions of dollars to gain by convincing most Americans they
>>were inside its revenue base when, in fact, most Americans were
>>outside its revenue base, and remain outside even today. This is
>>deception on a grand scale, and the proof of this deception is
>>found in the statute itself." Indeed, the proof is now leaking
>>out on official Congressional stationery.
>>
>> Mitchell goes on to argue, it is no wonder why public
>>relations "officials" of the IRS cringe in fear when dedicated
>>Patriots admit, out loud and in person, that they have read the
>>law. It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted definitions
>>of "United States" do appear to unlock a statute that is horribly
>>complex and deliberately so. As fate would have it, these
>>carefully crafted definitions also expose perhaps the greatest
>>fiscal fraud that has ever been perpetrated upon any people at
>>any time in the history of the world. It is now time for a shift
>>in the wind. That shift is being driven by a growing
>>understanding of personal status and its relation to government
>>territorial jurisdiction.
>>
>> The vivid pattern that has now painfully emerged is that
>>"citizens of the United States", as defined in federal tax law,
>>are the intended victims of a modern statutory slavery that was
>>predicted by the infamous Hazard Circular soon after the Civil
>>War began. This circular admitted that chattel slavery was
>>doomed, so the bankers needed to invent a new kind of slaves.
>>These "statutory" slaves are now burdened with a bogus federal
>>debt which is spiralling out of control. The White House budget
>>office recently invented a new kind of "generational accounting"
>>so as to project a tax load of seventy-one percent on future
>>generations of these "citizens of the United States". The final
>>version of that report upped the projection to eighty percent.
>>"It is our duty to ensure that this statutory slavery is soon
>>gone with the wind, just like its grisly and ill-fated
>>predecessor," concludes Paul Mitchell.
>>
>> The fifth anniversary edition of The Federal Zone will be
>>available before the end of the year. Copies of Mitchell's
>>correspondence with U.S. Representative Kennelly can be obtained
>>by sending email to pmitch@primenet.com, Mitchell's email address
>>on the Internet.
>>
>>
>> # # #
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly: Page 2 of 2
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>>===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail