Time: Tue Jul 01 06:11:02 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA29001;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 05:48:57 -0700 (MST)
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA06472;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 05:48:49 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 05:47:07 -0700
To: "Paracleas" <paracles@magg.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: personal
<snip>
>
>Background: My client is in federal court defending, as the only trustee,
>against the UNITED STATES as plaintiff
Are you sure it is the UNITED STATES?
Please double check the original pleadings!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>in a bid to foreclose upon property
>which is in multiple ownership.
Their assessments were never valid,
because they were not signed by
assessment officers. You can prove
this by submitting a FOIA request for
their credentials, i.e. Appointment
Affidavits. If they come into court
with valid Appointment Affidavits,
attack the Affidavits for exhibiting
an oath to defend the wrong constitution.
This will smoke out the failed 16th
amendment, because the constitution as
published in the federal depository
libraries, and as published in the
official law books upon which the court
depends for conclusive evidence of the law,
was incorrectly published on the date(s)
the Appointment Affidavits were executed.
SWITCH THE COURT INTO EQUITY TO SUE OUT
THE EXACT PROVISIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!
The feds will jump out of their skin when they
see you do this.
>
>The federal government has attempted to overcome a title 4 challenge by
>using title 28, section 1340 and 1345,
Check the original pleadings by the
U.S. Attorneys. Here's 50 cents to
say their "Plaintiff" [sic] is the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [all caps].
See discussion of 1345 below.
bolstered by section 7402 of the IRC
>of 1986.
>
> What do you believe the possibilities would be in challenging subject
>matter jurisdiction by and through claiming the IRS is not a federal
>entity, ergo, the US Atty Gen's office has no authority to commence the
>action in the name of the UNITED STATES?
Excellent: 7402 mentions both the
United States District Court and
the District Court of the United States.
Read the various subsections to determine
which court has which authority. We did
the same thing in U.S.A. v. Knudson. I can
share those pleadings with you.
1340 says "district courts" which embrace
both forums. "Any Act of Congress" must
take judicial notice of IRC 7851(a)(6)(A)
where the term "this title" refers to
Title 26, which has not been enacted into
positive law, and is void for vagueness
anyway, for referring to itself (i.e.
"I go into effect when I go into effect").
Section 7851 falls within subtitle F!!
Don't forget IRC 7401: that is your most
powerful weapon. Since Janet Reno has
failed to produce a certified copy of
her oath of office, she can delegate
no authority downwards to anyone. This means
that nobody within DOJ is presently
authorized to commence any action for
the collection or enforcement of internal
revenue taxes. The Cadillac case makes
the implications of 7401 extremely clear.
I would begin by alleging that there is
no 7401 authorization, and force the question
by submitting a FOIA request for same. This
will automatically invoke the original
jurisdiction of the DCUS, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). That one statute
will smoke out the difference between the
USDC and the DCUS. U.S. District Judge
John M. Roll ruled, last spring, that the
USDC is not the proper forum to bring a
request under the FOIA!!!!
Last but not least, the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA have never been granted standing
to sue in either forum, and the U.S. Attorneys
have no powers of attorney to represent
these Plaintiffs (plural). See Bouvier's
Law Dictionary for the exact legal definition
of "United States of America". See also the
Preamble. It is synonymous with "Union".
Compare, in pari materia, 28 U.S.C. 1345 and
1346, where "United States" has been granted
authority to sue and be sued, but not the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Be sure you understand the use of FOIA as
discussed in the essay entitled "Karma and
the Federal Courts" in the Supreme Law Library
at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
Go get 'em!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>The premise is that presumptive facts are considered as truth only until
>rebutted.
Yes. See Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301.
In that the government has brought forth no proof of the
>presumption that the IRS is a governmental agency in their bid to overcome
>the title 4 challenge, I feel that if the judge doesn't dismiss, there's
>good chance for a mandamus on interloc. appeal.
Under your state discovery laws, and
28 U.S.C. 1652 (State laws as rules
of decision), you can submit the
equivalent of a FOIA request for the
contract which the state taxing agency
consummated with the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. I have a copy of
the one signed by the Oklahoma Tax
Commission. They all appear to be
the same, because they were drafted
with blanks for the state officers
to complete. These contracts are
utterly astounding, and they are
certainly admissible in court.
This contract will take you down the
road, via evidence, to discover the
true identify of the IRS (a 3-tiered
trust domiciled in Puerto Rico).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
========================================================================
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