Time: Sat Jan 25 14:26:48 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id MAA07128 for [address in tool bar]; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:56:41 -0700 (MST)
by primenet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
id LAA15391; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 11:57:02 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 11:57:02 -0700 (MST)
To: dixerose@yournet.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Attorney General's authority required
At 12:20 PM 1/25/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Okay. You are saying that you have the IRS off your back. They don't send
>you notices or try to trick you into filing returns and you did it with an
>Affidavit
>of Probable Cause. What is that exactly?
The affidavit which normally accompanies
a criminal complaint, i.e. "verified complaint."
For example:
"As a result of the experiences and documents
described above, Affiant now believes there
is probable cause to charge A, B, and C
with violations of [enumerate criminal statutes here,
for example, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, etc.]"
Remember, 18 U.S.C. 242 is VERY general,
because it covers ALL fundamental Rights,
of which there are many.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>I like your war analogy, but it is not a relevant one. There is a major
>difference in planning a tactical battle with guns, ammunition and previous
>history to know if you drop a well laid bomb it will blow up the enemies
>munitions camp or supply depot. Your analogy is based upon physical fire
>power and the ability to call in more fire power.
Strength in numbers, yes.
>
>With the IRS we are dealing with an agency that has at its beck and call an
>extraordinary amount of power to weal against citizens. I am not afraid of
>taking them on, I have been doing so for over 12 years. But as you admit,
>they are giving illegal legal advice, so we are dealing with laws not
bullets.
I say we leverage the Internet
big time right now, and spread
around public domain files like
all the pleadings In re Grand Jury
Subpoena Served on New Life Health
Center Company, for example.
That set of pleadings was absolutely
devastating to the IRS. They will
NEVER recover from the revelations
which were amply documented in that
case. We are now about to do it again
in another federal court in the South.
The tide has turned, and it is time
to go front page with this stuff.
Another big case is about to get
reported on the Associated Press wire,
because the reporter just got carte
blanche to report the pleadings I wrote
in the Looker case. Once the court was
pressured to file everything, instead
of just "lodging" or "receiving" the papers,
the AP reporter went into high gear.
Expect to see some really amazing
reports on the AP wire over the next
2 to 4 weeks. Looker has effectively
counter-sued every federal employee
who has even remotely touched his case:
we call it "The Electric Fence" phenomenon.
If you touch the case, you are
automatically inside a 20-foot high
chain-link fence, topped with concertina
wire, and electrified with 440 volts,
and the gate swings only one way!
Moreover, we have now proven that the
federal Jury Selection and Service Act
is demonstrably unconstitutional, thereby
overturning every grand jury action and
every trial jury action in any federal
court since the Civil War. There, for
political reasons, we may have to stipulate
that federal citizens do not have standing
to bring this challenge; however, Looker
is not a federal citizen; he is a Citizen
of West Virginia state. Add to that the
fact that the JSSA only has a policy for
jury selection in the District Court of
the United States; there is NO POLICY at all
for jury selection in the United States District
Court.
Can you believe that Congress would
blow it that badly?
I can!!!
This has ASTRONOMICAL importance.
I don't mean to keep repeating myself here,
but all of this has already been amply
documented in the Supreme Law Library
at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
especially the articles "Karma and the
Federal Courts," "State Citizens Cannot Vote",
and "Juries in Check around the Nation."
DOJ finally responded to Looker's MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS, and all they could say was
that Looker is a "resident alien." Looker
was born in America!!! This allegation
assumes facts not in evidence; DOJ has
lost that one, and that is obvious now.
See the Historical and Statutory Notes
after 28 U.S.C. 541; you will be really surprised.
Quoting now:
Words "learned in law" were omitted as unnecessary.
Such requirement is not made of United States judges
and no reason appears to make a distinction respecting
United States attorneys.
There you have it! Right in Title 28 by West Publishing
Company. What a colossal embarrassment for the United
States Department of Justice (Just-US).
And these people put Citizens in federal prison.
I am appalled, really and truly appalled.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>Dixie
>
>At 05:52 AM 1/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 12:24 AM 1/25/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>> I am familiar with this. Now let me ask another question please, how
>>>many people do you know of, personally where you have the printed evidence,
>>>that this has backed the IRS off a collections case?
>>
>>Do you mean a court case,
>>or an administrative collection?
>>
>>
>> I do not know of one -
>>>not one.
>>
>>You are talking to one.
>>
>>
>> I do know of quite a number where it did not stave the IRS one
>>>iota.
>>
>>Next time, try an Affidavit of Probable Cause.
>>That usually stops them in their tracks.
>>
>>
>>> If we are going to beat the IRS, we need things that will work.
>>
>>Yes, like Title 18 :)
>>
>>
>> I do
>>>not mean to be skeptical, but I have learned the hard way, the very, very
>>>hard way, to check everything out and ask for actual cases where these
>>>things have worked.
>>
>>The guys who took Iwo Jima
>>never once asked themselves:
>>
>>"We have never done this before.
>> How do we know it's going to work?"
>>
>>Instead, they brought in Captain Dan Appleton
>>to drop 12-inch shells with pin-point precision
>>1,000 yards in front of the advancing Marines.
>>Appleton did all the aiming and firing, HIMSELF!
>>
>>My father never turned to his partner
>>and asked:
>>
>>"How are we going to secure this runway?
>> We have never done this before."
>>
>>Instead, he screamed for more 50-caliber
>>ammunition for his water-cooled machine
>>gun, and had all he could do to keep the
>>barrel from melting. When that Japanese Zero
>>landed, thinking the coast was clear,
>>can you imagine how great it felt to
>>surround that runway and, without any
>>orders from anybody, they all knew
>>instinctively what they were going to do.
>>The Zero taxied to the end of the runway,
>>opened his canopy, and the Marines let loose
>>with everything they had. That Zero flew into
>>a zillion little pieces, as the landing
>>gear disintegrated and collapsed. And then,
>>you heard the loudest yell in unison that
>>any group of Marines had ever uttered,
>>as they thrust their fists into the air,
>>M-1 rifles in one hand, bullets in the
>>other, and sand between their teeth.
>>Yes, we are going to TAKE this island,
>>and THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>Dixie
>>>
>>>At 12:25 PM 1/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Here is how we used IRC 7401 to show
>>>>that the Secretary's authorization
>>>>was lacking. This was done in 1994,
>>>>so it is a bit dated at present.
>>>>
>>>>The same challenge could be made when
>>>>the Attorney General's authorization
>>>>is lacking, because this statute
>>>>requires authorization by both the
>>>>Attorney General and the Secretary.
>>>>
>>>>Excerpt now follows:
>>>>
>>>> 1. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because
>>>>
>>>>the record does not exhibit the authorization required by Section
>>>>
>>>>7401 of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter "IRC"). The
>>>>
>>>>summonses in question are entitled "Collection Summons", and IRC
>>>>
>>>>7401 makes explicit reference to civil actions for "collection".
>>>>
>>>>There is no evidence on the record that the Secretary of the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>Department of the Treasury, or his delegate, authorized or
>>>>
>>>>sanctioned these proceedings. No such evidence was ever served
>>>>
>>>>on Respondent:
>>>>
>>>> Thus, where the Congress prohibits the commencement of a
>>>> civil action unless certain specific acts are performed,
>>>> this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter until
>>>> the requisite conditions are met in fact and such compliance
>>>> is shown by the pleadings and, where necessary, established
>>>> by proof. ... [B]ut the mere allegation of facts necessary
>>>> for jurisdiction without supporting proof is fatally
>>>> defective. ... This Court holds that 26 U.S.C. Section 7401
>>>> requirements constitute facts essential to jurisdiction.
>>>> The failure to prove jurisdictional facts when specifically
>>>> denied is fatal to the maintenance of this action.
>>>>
>>>> [USA v. One 1972 Cadillac Coupe De Ville] !!!
>>>> [355 F.Supp. 513, 515 (1973), emphasis added]
>>>>
>>>> 2. IRC 7401 requires that the "Secretary" authorize or
>>>>
>>>>sanction such proceedings. The term "Secretary" means the
>>>>
>>>>Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate, IRC 7701(a)(11)(B).
>>>>
>>>>Since January of 1993, lawful delegation by Mr. Lloyd Bentsen to
>>>>
>>>>any subordinates has been impossible. During his latest Senate
>>>>
>>>>term beginning in January of 1989, Mr. Bentsen voted to increase
>>>>
>>>>the pay for the office of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, see
>>>>
>>>>P. L. 101-194, 5 U.S.C. 5318. His vote now bars Him from
>>>>
>>>>occupying that office until the end of his latest Senate term
>>>>
>>>>(January 3, 1995). This bar is found in Article 1, Section 6,
>>>>
>>>>Clause 2 (1:6:2) of the Constitution for the United States of
>>>>
>>>>America (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), as lawfully amended.
>>>>
>>>>Congress cannot cure this bar, because it cannot by legislation
>>>>
>>>>alter the U.S. Constitution, from which alone it derives its
>>>>
>>>>power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power
>>>>
>>>>can be lawfully exercised, see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189,
>>>>
>>>>206 (1920) and U.S. v. Twenty-Two Firearms, 463 F.Supp. 730
>>>>
>>>>(1979). Unlawful exercise of power is a violation of Law.
>>>>
>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>>
>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For a good example, see IRC 7401,
>>>>and the related case of
>>>>USA v. One 1972 Cadillac Coupe de Ville,
>>>>355 F.Supp. 513, 515 (1973).
>>>>
>>>>"... this Court has no jurisdiction over
>>>>the subject matter until the requisite
>>>>conditions are met in fact .... This
>>>>Court holds that 26 U.S.C. 7401
>>>>requirements constitute facts essential
>>>>to jurisdiction. The failure to prove
>>>>jurisdictional facts when specifically
>>>>denied is fatal to the maintenance of
>>>>this action."
>>>>
>>>>Now, you must read IRC 7401 to understand
>>>>what is going on here -- both the Secretary
>>>>and the Attorney General must authorize the
>>>>action, or it cannot proceed, and the
>>>>court has no jurisdiction to proceed over
>>>>the subject without BOTH authorizations!
>>>>
>>>>Remember that "Secretary" means the
>>>>"Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate"
>>>>when you read IRC 7401. The definition
>>>>of "Secretary" is found in IRC 7701 et seq.
>>>>
>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 10:30 PM 1/22/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>>Paul and fellow common law folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see I am still a teensy weensy bit behind. The below
message
>>>>>seems to be incomplete or missing something or am I missing something.
The
>>>>>implication here is that there is no Attorney General or authorized
>>minions.
>>>>>Are you referring to the fact the Attorney General must give up his/her
>>>>>American citizenship for the time they serve in that capacity?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the purpose of this list is to educate ourselves in the use of
the
>>>>>common law in our lives, then it would seem we need to be more
specific in
>>>>>our posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you shed a little more light on this subject?
>>>>>
>>>>>Dixie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>At 07:04 PM 1/14/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>>The United States must have the authorization
>>>>>>of the Attorney General, or the Attorney General's
>>>>>>delegate, before it can commence any civil
>>>>>>or criminal action against a Citizen in any
>>>>>>federal court. If there is no Attorney General,
>>>>>>then there can be no delegate, and therefore
>>>>>>there can be no civil or criminal action against
>>>>>>a Citizen in any federal court. Period. If that
>>>>>>authorization did not exist in the past, then
>>>>>>all civil and/or criminal actions against Citizens
>>>>>>in any federal court were fraudulent for lacking
>>>>>>authority. Period. This is fundamental American
>>>>>>law, never repealed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>===========================================================
>>>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>>>>email: [address in tool bar]
>>>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
>>>> Tucson, Arizona state
>>>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc
>>>>===========================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>>email: [address in tool bar]
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
>> Tucson, Arizona state
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc
>>===========================================================
>>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0 on 80586 CPU
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail