Time: Fri Jun 27 18:48:51 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26832;
	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:32:24 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA08454;
	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:32:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:30:36 -0700
To: sterling@palacenet.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "The Cooper File"

The source documents are photocopied in 
the Veritas edition where the article
first appeared.  Get a reprint, if you can,
from Cooper himself.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

p.s.  The "Volstead" connection now follows:

                    FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

Dear Representative/Senator ____________________________________:

     This is a formal Petition to Congress for redress of a major
grievance which I have with the federal government.

     Recent research  has disclosed  that the original motive for
Prohibition (the  Volstead Act),  was to  give oil  companies  an
unfair jump  on their  monopoly over  automotive fuels.   It also
appears that the BATF were created to disperse an unlawful police
force  throughout   the  several   States,  under  the  guise  of
controlling commerce in alcohol.  Once the monopoly was in place,
Prohibition was  repealed, leaving  alcohol high  and dry  as the
preferred fuel  for automobiles, and leaving this unlawful police
force in place to extort money from the American People.

     This  research   also  proves  that  the  "Internal  Revenue
Service" [sic]  is actually  an alias  for  the  Federal  Alcohol
Administration domiciled  at Trust  #62 in  Puerto Rico, under an
Act of  Congress which  was held  to be unconstitutional in 1935.
The proof  is found, among other places, in all the references to
Title 27  which can  be found  in the  regulations for  Title 26.
None of  these regulations  is lawful,  because IRC 7851(a)(6)(A)
states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the
day after  the date  of enactment of Title 26.  Unfortunately for
the federal government, Title 26, as such, has never been enacted
into positive  law, rendering  ALL the  enforcement provisions of
subtitle F  null and  void.   For example, the authority to issue
regulations in the first instance is found in subtitle F.

     From the  research cited  above, I have come to believe that
the United States federal government is now engaged in a criminal
syndicate of  extortion, perjury,  mail fraud, theft, conversion,
fraud, and  conspiracy involving  all of  the above.  I therefore
demand immediate  hearings on the relations between the "Internal
Revenue Service" and the Federal Alcohol Administration domiciled
in Puerto  Rico and operating elsewhere on this planet.  If these
hearings should  prove that the Internal Revenue Service is not a
lawful organization  within the  United States  Department of the
Treasury, then  it is time for a major shift in the wind, because
every piece  of mail  they are sending these days is one count of
mail fraud  by the  sender.  I think you will agree that We, as a
Nation, have a very big problem here.

     I will  look forward  to your  immediate  response  to  this
formal, verified  Petition for  Redress of  this major  grievance
which I,  and millions  of other  Americans, now have against the
United States  (federal government).  I never thought I would see
the day when I would be forced to define the "United States" as a
criminal enterprise, but sadly that day has now arrived.


     I hereby  certify, under  penalty of perjury, under the laws
of the  United States  of America,  without the  "United States",
that the  above statements  of fact  are true and correct, to the
best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me
God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Executed on the ____________ day of ______________________, 1997.

Signed and printed,

Citizen of __________________________ state
all rights reserved without prejudice

At 12:40 PM 6/27/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>Yesterday, an old friend of mine (20 years) e-mailed me.  He's been
>receiving a lot of my e-mails lately, as I wanted him to be informed as
>to my new direction.  His name is Eric, and he's the senior editor of a
>national Christian magazine based in Chicago.  Following is most of his
>e-mail to me.  He spent a lot of time looking through the materials I
>suggested, and surfing certain sites, and he said some interesting
>things, especially about William Cooper.  Can anyone tell me anything
>more about William Cooper?  He has an article available at the Supreme
>Law Firm Web Site Library.  I have made the article available on my own
>Does anyone know anything about William Cooper's claim that he'd found a
>"Trust Fund #62 Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue)"?  Has
>anyone seen any evidence of it?  Why didn't he put the actual evidence
>into the article?
>Eric is not the type to dismissm a person's claims with a wave (we are
>all familiar with this).  He's thoughtful, and I thought you might like
>to hear his first response to this whole patriot thing.
>Anyway, you'll understand more when you read Eric's e-mail.
>Dear Charlie,
>   Thanks for sending me the questions and the replies you've mailed to 
>your senators.  I can't take too long with this reply, since I've 
>really got to be working on my presentation on Major Religions of the 
>World for the upcoming Cornerstone Festival. (Wish you could be there.)
>   This correspondence has been interesting. It is clear that the IRS 
>district director avoided your questions. I should say that I was 
>concerned when you first started telling me about your opposition to 
>the IRS and the Social Security, and worried that you might be wasting 
>your talents and time on a tangential issue that might take up much 
>more of your time than the matter was worth.
>   But out of respect for you, I did follow up on some of the e-mail 
>you've sent me.  I read the first set of letters carefully. The 
>question which really started me thinking was this one: Is the IRS an 
>agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico?  I visited Karl 
>Kleinpaste's web site and read ALL the correspondence he's had with the 
>IRS. Then I "backed up" and read the related sites off his home page 
>(went to "The Federal Zone," for instance).
>   I've visited your home page and checked out several of the sites 
>there, including the Supreme Law Firm, and read the correspondence 
>section, including all the notes from the Larouche gang, and your 
>postings about fringe on the U.S. Flag, and how the courts ruled that 
>questioning their authority on that count was a frivolous, "fringe" 
>issue. <grin>  On whether a court is lawful if they hang the flag in 
>"portrait" instead of "landscape" form, I tend to agree that the 
>question is picayune.
>   I also read the article on your web page by William Cooper, and I'm 
>a little bothered about him in particular (since I've scanned and read 
>his book, "Behold, a Pale Horse").  I borrowed a copy of this book 
>because Chapter 17 concerns Michael Aquino's involvement with the U.S. 
>Army, but the preceding chapters indicate the man is overwhelmed with 
>bizarre conspiracy theories involving the JFK assassination, UFO's, 
>FEMA, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an impending 
>takeover of the United States and the abolition of the U.S. 
>Constitution, etc. He at one time had an electronic BBS and a radio 
>program airing, and I tried to get his BBS number but it was either 
>down or disconnected, so I called him at his home number (true!), and 
>listened to a tape on his recorded message machine say that he was 
>going offshore because the U.S. would be taken over by the New World 
>Order by 1995, etc., so we should tune in to his shortwave broadcasts 
>at a particular time and frequency.
>   Okay, I can agree that he might have some good questions to ask 
>about taxation or other matters, but I would be wary of letting *him* 
>be the one to ask them.  You want to present yourself as one who is not 
>swayed by extreme conspiracy theorists.  (Oh, and BTW, though Cooper 
>and Klienpaste indicate the origin of the IRS as with the Dept. of the 
>Treasury, Puerto Rico, Kleinpaste says that "nonresident aliens" do NOT 
>have to pay taxes and Cooper says they DO have to pay taxes.  Maybe I'm 
>reading them differently, but I did percieve a contradiction there.)
>   A week or two ago I e-mailed Karl Kleinpaste, asking him about his 
>claim that he was not a citizen of the United States, in light of the 
>14th Amendment, which says that everyone born in the U.S. and subject 
>to its jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen and is entitled to equal 
>protection under the law.  He says he's not subject to its 
>jurisdiction.  I told him that was what the Southern States argued when 
>they wanted to practice slavery and to secede from the United States. 
>They were wrong.  Kleinpaste replied that they were "wrong" only 
>because they lost the war, but his message indicated that he felt their 
>side was right.
>   I tried explaining that the 14th Amendment was a post-Civil War 
>amendment and was meant to grant full U.S. citizenship and protection 
>to black people, who had been born in the United States under slavery, 
>and that the natural reading is that anyone who is born in any of 
>the States is a U.S. citizen.  He replied that there are three senses 
>of the term "United States" and that even though you might be born in 
>Illinois (like he was), you might not necessarily be a U.S. citizen.  I 
>told him that a plain construction is to preferred to an obscure or 
>esoteric meaning of terms, and that if Congress had intended to exclude 
>citizenship to some people born in some states, it would have said so. 
>But Karl prefers the obscure interpretation, and says that it all 
>hinges on the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" and so I don't think 
>I made much headway with him.
>   I did ask him what would happen on Election Day in Alabama if a 
>judge told a black man that he wasn't entited to vote because (by 
>Karl's reasoning) though the man might be a citizen of Alabama, he was 
>not a "citizen of the United States", so he couldn't vote for the 
>President. Karl replied that U.S. citizenship isn't required for voting 
>in federal elections, so my question didn't really apply.
>   Now let me ask you a question.  If the IRS is *not* a division of 
>the U.S. Department of the Treasury, why are they (and the BATF and the 
>Secret Service) specifically included as divisions in the U.S. Dept. of 
>the Treasury's web page? <http://www.ustreas.gov>
>   I need to wrap this message up.  I've been asked design the web page 
>for Cornerstone magazine...
>   ...Last thing: if you like "surfing" just for sheer beauty, I found
>interesting and touching site, Missy's Online Journal, located at
><http://shoga.wwa.com/~missyp/> . I believe Missy is dying of multiple 
>diseases, but she's designed a very beautiful page recording her 
>thoughts and journals (which you can also read).  I think the entries 
>and musings in her private journal are very touching, and help the rest 
>of us (who can walk outdoors without assistance, for example) to 
>appreciate the better things we have in life.  If you've got a little 
>time on your hands, it would be worth checking it out.
>   All for now.  Thanks for your input here.
>                                 Yours/His,
>                                 Eric
>                                 Jer. 9:23-24

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
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

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail