Time: Sun Jun 29 14:46:14 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA26392;
	Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:46:04 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14734;
	Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:45:46 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:44:05 -0700
To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Evans v. Gore mentioned in some posts (fwd)

O'Malley v. Woodrough began
in the United States District Court,
not the District Court of the United States.

They are not one and the same forums.

Gilbertson v. U.S. et al. began in the
DCUS, where a guarantee like those found
in Article III can be enforced.  

Unconstitutionality dates from enactment,
not from the decision so branding it.

The high Court cannot change the Constitution,
any more than Congress can.  The Public Salary
Tax Act is unconstitutional for being deceptive
by intent: namely, to funnel massive quantities
of money into foreign banks.

O'Malley accomplished nothing except more of
this same old, ugly ruse.  Rehnquist claims
to have the power to "change doctrine".

He is just full of himself (and a few other things
not worth mentioning here).

When I confronted him at the University of 
Arizona, he had to draw a long breath, because
he was wrong about the Constitution:  it grants
no authority to the Supreme Court to declare
acts of Congress unconstitutional.  C.J. Marshall
usurped that power, for better or for worse.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 11:56 AM 6/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>         ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>               Type: Not Moderated
>     Distributed on: 29-JUN-97, 11:56:22
>Original Written by: IN:noborders@worldnet.att.net.
>: >JUDGES, salaries of, not taxable as income.
>: >Evans v. Gore (1920), 253 U. S. 245, ref Amend,Art.16,Cl.2
>: Salaries of judges are not taxable NOTWITHSTANDING
>: (despite) the so-called 16th amendment.
>But they are nevertheless presently TAXED.

... in violation of two international human
rights treaties which guarantee courts of
competent jurisdiction, with presiding judges
who are qualified.  When Rehnquist admitted
that they are all being taxed, in that one
statement he also admitted that there are
presently no federal judges who are qualified
to preside on the District Court of the
United States.  This means that state Citizens
now have authority to remove ALL federal cases
into their state courts, which do have 
original jurisdiction, under an explicit grant
to "localities" which Congress attached to its
enactment of these two treaties.  America is
just now beginning to awaken to the immense
power which has been reserved for them by their
Congress (one of the few good things which Congress
has ever done, imho).

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>: >
>: >Foregoing case overruled.
>: >O'Malley v. Woodrough (1939), 307 U.S. 277, ref Art.3,Sect.1,Cl.2, ref
>: >Amend,Art.16,Cl.2
>: Objection:  the Sixteenth Amendment
>: was proven to be a fraud in
>: People v. Boxer, California Supreme
>: Court, case number S-030016, Dec. 1992.
>: Therefore, it is not an Amendment.
>: O'Malley v. Woodrough was based on two false and
>: rebuttable presumptions:
>: 1.  That there is only one class of citizenship
>:     in America (there are two);
>: 2.  That judges are citizens
>:     (no law requires judges to be citizens
>:      of either class).
>: Lord v. Kelley admitted openly that federal judges
>: are subject to the undue influence of the IRS,
>: if they are taxpayers.
>: For more details, read "The Lawless Rehnquist"
>: in the Supreme Law Library at URL:
>:   http://www.supremela.wcom
>: For these reasons, O'Malley has been challenged
>: formally before the 8th Circuit as we speak,
>: for violating Article III, Section 1 -- the
>: Supreme Law of the Land, pursuant to the
>: Supremacy Clause.
>But until the lawless Rehnquist & Associates At Law overturn it O'Malley
v. Woodrough (1939) is still the law.

Objection.  They are not proceeding At Law
when they arbitrarily "change doctrine."

This is a crime, not discretion.

Cases can now be removed into state courts,
if Rehnquist tries any more of this nonsense.
O'Malley is pure nonsense;  that is all there
is to it!  Rehnquist may not like it, but
these treaties are supreme Law,  the dicta
from the Chief Justice are not supreme Law.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

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