Time: Sun Jul 06 03:28:13 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA19793;
Sun, 6 Jul 1997 03:27:29 -0700 (MST)
by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA08754;
Sun, 6 Jul 1997 03:27:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 03:27:11 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Chief Judge defines "citizenship"!
References: <3.0.3.16.19970705174805.312733fa@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970705194327.3cf7f5e8@pop.primenet.com>
No, not a letter. We use a formal FOIA request,
with notice that we are challenging the blanket
FOIA exemption for the judiciary, for being
overly broad and for conflicting with the
Oath of Office Clause. Also, federal judges
take the oath required of them by 28 U.S.C. 453:
Oaths of justices and judges. 5 U.S.C. 3331 is
for executive branch employees. When they ignore
the FOIA, then we do a formal NOTICE AND DEMAND
to the Clerk, the judge, and the Executive Office
of the United States Courts in Washington, D.C.
That creates the deadline, after which estoppel
activates. Then, Gilbertson did an AFFIDAVIT OF
DEFAULT, testifying to their failure to produce
the requisite oath. At this point, Gilbertson
filed a COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF, to compel production of the document.
Of course, since estoppel was activated, we were
ready to move right into Quo Warranto, because
we could exploit the estoppel to PREVENT admitting
the oath into evidence. Therefore, when everyone
refused to produce an oath, the judge was no longer
a judge, and we began referring to him as "Mr. Rosenbaum."
The complaint specifically named him in the caption,
as follows:
Everett C. Gilbertson
v.
United States,
James Rosenbaum,
et al.
Piece of cake, actually.
At sentencing, it was the GOVERNMENT who kept bringing
this complaint to the attention of Mr. Rosenbaum, because
he was in violation of 28 U.S.C. 455: adverse conflict
of interest. It's all in the sentencing transcript,
which required about 50 major edits before we would
accept it. It was a travesty of the worst kind. The
judge is yelling at the defendant that he is a flight
risk, when the defendant has made every required
appearance, and is standing in the judge's courtroom
at that very moment.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 11:34 PM 7/5/97 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>
>Thank you so much for your quick response to my questions!
>
>You stated that the "Gilbertsons OPENING BRIEFf", is where Gilbertson
>"sued the district judge in the DCUS for failing to produce Oath of
>Office."The following is an example of such;
>
>Dear Judge-----------,
>
>The Constitution of the Unites States requires an oath of allegiance from
>each and every official of the United States and of the several states
>including county and city governments.
>
>The oath of allegiance is required by the Constitution in order that
>elected and appointed officials remain obedient and accountable to the
>oath and to the Constitution.
>
>Title 5, Section 3331 of the Code of Federal Regulations states the oath
>of office thusly, “I_______________________, do solemnly swear (or
>affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
>States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
>faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,
>without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
>well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
>about to enter. So help me God.”
>
>The words are simple, powerful and self-explanatory!
>
>The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the amendment on
>which our income tax is based, has been found to be fraudulent. The
>hard, irrefutable evidence of this fraud was presented to the federal
>government in 1984.
>
>You, as one of the designated sworn officials of the government, swore to
>support and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies,
>foreign and domestic.
>
>Your record reflects that you have not supported and defended the United
>States Constitution on this issue.
>
>Please forward to me a certified, signed copy of the oath of office and
>allegiance you took when you entered government service. In accordance
>with Section 2906, Title Five, USC, your oath of office is in the custody
>of your employing department or agency.
>
>Constitutionally yours,
>
>***** If I understand you correctly, this is not a "recusal", but a
>seperate law suit for failing to produce an "Oath of Office." What was
>the basis of the Law suit, and by what authority was it presented?
>
>Secondly, I would love to receive more info on your "Distributor for
>Supreme Law Publishers", so if you would please, e-mail me the
>information, and / or fax me, I would apprecitate it.
>
>Thanks so much Paul, I bought your Federal Zone Publication when it first
>came out and have your recent addition on my computer.
>
<snip>
>
>On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 19:43:27 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in tool bar] writes:
>>At 10:13 PM 7/5/97 EDT, you wrote:
>>>Dear Paul,
>>>
>>>Just finished reading this Post and must wonder if you have ever
>>>"Recused" a judge based on these observations/ challenges, such as
>>"Oath
>>>of office","USDC v. DCUS"," Judge paid by Federal Income Tax" etc.
>>etc.
>>>etc.
>>
>>Yes, that's what Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF
>>is all about: Gilbertson sued the district
>>judge in the DCUS for failing to produce
>>an oath of office. The rest is history.
>>You MUST buy and read this brief; it is
>>the culmination of 7 full years of research.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If so, please tell us of the outcome, If you appealed, and how or
>>when
>>>you won!
>>
>>It's before the Circuit Court right now.
>>The U.S. has until July 18 to respond to
>>the OPENING BRIEF. Then, we get to
>>rebut their Reply Brief. So, we are
>>in the thick of it right now, as I write
>>this.
>>
>>Are you interested in becoming a
>>Distributor for Supreme Law Publishers?
>>This OPENING BRIEF will be the first of
>>many excellent publications.
>>
>>All I need from you right now is a fax
>>number, and I will fax some confidential
>>sheets to you asap.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>There is so much to this entire game, but you imply simplicitity!
>>Reality
>>>is reality, so please tell your readers and members of your Law
>>School
>>>how you would attack these arguments against the Respondent, by the
>>>"judge", in this instant case, to either recuse the judge for lack of
>>>jurisdiction, subject matter and personum, classification of
>>>citizenship, and how you would move this up the ladder so that we
>>could
>>>receive a qualified response / ruling from the Supreme Court?
>>
>>
>>I already did. I won't analyze the case
>>until those 7 points below are answered,
>>conclusively. Otherwise, we are just
>>wasting our time on fictions.
>>
>>I would not have let that case get
>>that far. I would have done a lot more
>>ground work, such as filing NOTICE AND DEMAND
>>FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE of the pleadings
>>in People v. Boxer, and a ton of other stuff.
>>We did that in Nebraska recently, and somebody
>>got to the client (an alcoholic) and persuaded
>>him to insult me instead. Go figure!
>>
>>That federal judge is still scratching his head,
>>even AFTER he issued a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
>>Believe it or not, that client's previous
>>Counsel talked him out of a jury trial.
>>What a colossal error: that is grounds for
>>attorney malpractice, in my opinion.
>>Rule 38 says that a jury trial is a fundamental
>>Right; why would anyone want to waive a
>>fundamental Right? I don't get it. It's
>>beginning to look like another case of
>>"let's frustrate Paul Mitchell, one more time."
>>
>>For a real "live" case, the Gilbertson
>>OPENING BRIEF should go down in history
>>as a classic study. We leveraged it
>>within 7 days of filing it, and brought
>>it before another Circuit Court. We need
>>to do this in ALL Circuits, so that we
>>can guarantee discrepant rulings. The challenge
>>to the JSSA is a blockbuster. I found the
>>Maine Supreme Court decision today which
>>elaborates on "Right of Election," in exactly
>>the same language I have used in Gilbertson's
>>attack on jury selection. That was gratifying,
>>very gratifying. I will post that research,
>>tomorrow some time, if I can get it together.
>>
>>Getting discrepant rulings from the Circuit Courts
>>will almost guarantee a hearing before the
>>U.S. Supreme Court. The IRC will die for
>>vagueness. That is my prediction. Congress
>>will just need to try another stunt; only,
>>this time we will be watching. And, if I have my
>>way, I will be IN Congress, to make sure that
>>the same thing doesn't happen again.
>>
>>>
>>>So many questions, so little time!
>>
>>That's one of my MAJOR criticisms of the IRC:
>>it is too terribly complex for ANYONE to
>>decipher properly. I love it when people
>>disagree with me, because it proves that
>>people of common intelligence are unable
>>to agree on the real meaning of the law. This
>>test proves that the IRC is null and void
>>for vagueness. Do you stop for red, and
>>go for green, in your town?
>>
>>See what I mean?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Thank you very much for your time and energy!
>>
>>You are very welcome.
>>If we don't stop the IRS, they
>>will succeed in destroying our
>>country. Mark these words!!
>>THAT is their very intent.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 17:48:05 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>>>[address in tool bar] writes:
>>>>Before I would consider reading this alleged ORDER,
>>>>I would need to know a few things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>#1: Has this "judge" executed an oath of office,
>>>> as required by the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> I reserve the Right to prove that he is in
>>>> the wrong contract with the American People,
>>>> even if he has.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>#2: Was he claiming to preside on the United States
>>>> District Court, or the District Court of the=20
>>>> United States?
>>>>
>>>> See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton,
>>>> and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic], for proof that
>>>> there are two (2) classes of federal district courts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>#3: Was his judicial compensation being diminished
>>>> by federal income taxes during this case?
>>>>
>>>> See Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore. =20
>>>> O'Malley v. Woodrough, which is reported to have
>>>> overturned Evans, is wrong for two obviously false
>>>> premises.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>#4: Did the court have a clear and irrefutable statement
>>>> of subject matter jurisdiction for the case before it?
>>>>
>>>> Federal courts are, in general, presumed to lack=20
>>>> jurisdiction, until an affirmative showing is made
>>>> in the official record of the instant case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>#5: Has this judge ever accepted any kickbacks from IRS or
>>>> another source, in violation of 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq.?
>>>>
>>>> Our information leads us to conclude that the practice
>>>> of IRS kickbacks to federal judges is extremely widespread.
>>>> For proof, submit a FOIA for all financial records of the
>>>> Performance Management and Recognition System, which
>>>> program was repealed in 1993.
>>>>
>>>>#6: Was this "judge" ever a licensed bar member?
>>>>
>>>> If he was, he was forever barred from occupying ANY
>>>> public office anywhere in America, and he also forfeited
>>>> his citizenship, when he did so. See the original
>>>> 13th Amendment for the 2 penalties that attach to=20
>>>> such a Title of Nobility ("ATTORN" is a term from
>>>> feudal law).
>>>>
>>>>#7: Did he guarantee due process of law in the instant case?
>>>>
>>>> If he deprived any litigants of due process of law,
>>>> under color of law, he has violated 18 U.S.C. 242,=20
>>>> and possibly also 18 U.S.C. 241 for conspiring with
>>>> the U.S. Attorneys in the instant case, to deprive
>>>> a litigant of a fundamental Right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Until I can get honest and complete answers to the above
>>>>questions, I cannot in good faith even bother to read this
>>>>decision, because I must presume that the judge did NOT
>>>>have judicial authority. Like jurisdiction, I am entitled
>>>>to presume that there was no judicial authority until
>>>>proven, beyond any doubt in my own mind. I have it on the
>>>>direct spoken word of C.J. Rehnquist that ALL federal judges
>>>>are currently paying federal income taxes on their judicial
>>>>compensation. Therefore, none is presently qualified to
>>>>preside on any federal court within the several states of
>>>>the Union. The federal zone is another matter entirely.
>>>>For background, read "The Lawless Rehnquist" in the
>>>>Supreme Law Library at URL http://www.supremelaw.com.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but you know the rules of the game as well as anyone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>>>
>>>>p.s. By the way, I have been before several "chief judges,"
>>>>and that title doesn't mean anything to me. One in Arizona
>>>>is very fond of picking his nose in public, and he does not
>>>>think the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have any
>>>>legal significance at all; he made this statement in an
>>>>ORDER denying a procedural stay to one of my clients.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 02:50 PM 7/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D[ Distributed
>>>>Message=
>>>> ]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>>>>> Type: Not Moderated
>>>>> Distributed on: 05-JUL-97, 14:50:22
>>>>>Original Written by: IN:t42usc@juno.com.
>>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I
>>
>>>>am
>>>>>sovereign, my State is sovereign, and I am not a citizen of the
>>U.S.!
>>>>> Chief Judge Voorhees, in Federal District, North Carolina,
>>>>>respectfully disagrees.
>>>>> The following is from an Order to Comply with IRS
>>Summonses,
>>>>>responding to several "protestor" challenges, including those of
>>>>>jurisdiction and State sovereignty. Enjoy.
>>>>>
>>>>>>From David R. Myrland.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>BEGIN QUOTE OF ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IRS SUMMONSES.
>>>>>
>>>>> "A JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The "Foreign State" of North Carolina.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respondent (Citizen/"taxpayer") claims that Petitioners
>>(IRS
>>>>and
>>>>>agent Kreizel) may enforce neither the Code nor the Summonses
>>against
>>>>him
>>>>>because he is a citizen of the State of North Carolina, "a foreign
>>>>state
>>>>>with respect to the 'United States,' and . . . therefore . . . and
>>>>area
>>>>>'abroad' or outside the 'United States.' This [i.e. North Carolina]
>>
>>>>is
>>>>>also considered a foreign country for U.S. revenue purposes."
>>Motion
>>>>to
>>>>>Vacate at 3-4. Apparently, as a citizen of the "foreign country" of
>>
>>>>north
>>>>>Carolina, Respondent neither resides in nor is a citizen of the
>>>>United
>>>>>States of America. As a result, Respondent claims that he is not
>>>>subject
>>>>>to an internal revenue tax, the Code, the Collection Summonses
>>issued
>>>>by
>>>>>Agent Kreitzel pursuant to =A7 7602, or the territorial
>>jurisdiction
>>>>of the
>>>>>Untied States. See id. at 4. No authority is cited by Respondent
>>for
>>>>this
>>>>>conclusory allegation of North Carolina's Foreign sovereignty.
>>>>> "Although the concept of federalism recognizes the dual
>>>>>sovereignty of the State of North Carolina and the United States of
>>>>>america, North Carolina is indeed on of the fifty states
>>constituting
>>>>the
>>>>>United States of America. (FOOTNOTE 9) See, e.g., Testa v. Katt,
>>330
>>>>U.S.
>>>>>386, 389-91 (1947); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581,
>>604-05
>>>>>(1889); U.S. v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542, 550 (1876); Cohens v.
>>>>Virginia,
>>>>>19 U.S. 264, 380-83 (1821). "This State shall ever remain a member
>>
>>>>of
>>>>>the American Nation; there is no power on the part of this State to
>>>>>secede . . . ." N.C.Const.art.I, =A7 4. "Every citizen of this
>>State
>>>>owes
>>>>>paramount allegience to the Constitution and government of the
>>United
>>>>>States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or
>>>>>subversion thereof can have any binding force." Id. at art.I, =A7
>>5.
>>>>"all
>>>>>persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
>>the
>>>>>jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
>>>>State
>>>>>wherein they reside." U.S.Const.amend. XIV, =A7 1.
>>>>> The fact that Respondent is a citizen of North Carolina
>>does
>>>>not
>>>>>relieve him of the rights and obligations created by the laws of
>>the
>>>>>United States, including the Code. Dennis v. U.S., 660 F.Supp. 870,
>>
>>>>875
>>>>>n.2 (C.D. Ill. 1987) ("[T]he taxing power of the United States of
>>>>America
>>>>>extends to every individual who is a citizen or resident of this
>>>>>nation."); Sloan v. U.S., 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1073-74 (N.D. Ind.
>>1985)
>>>>>(Secretary may issue summonses to obtain information about ANY
>>>>potential
>>>>>tax liability), aff'd. in part, dismissed in part, 812 F.2d 1410
>>(7th
>>>>>Circuit 1987), aff'd. 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.den. ___
>>>>U.S.
>>>>>___, 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); Channel v. U.S., No. C88-0118P(CS), 1988
>>
>>>>U.S.
>>>>>Dost. LEXIS 16904 at *5 (W.D. Ky. August 9, 1988)(opinion by
>>>>Magistrate
>>>>>Judge King). To paraphrase Justice Willis Van Devanter, when
>>>>Congress, in
>>>>>the exertion of the power confided to it by the sixteenth
>>amendment,
>>>>>(FOOTNOTE 10) adopted by the Code, it spoke for all the people and
>>>>all
>>>>>the States, and thereby established a policy for all. That policy
>>is
>>>>as
>>>>>much the policy of North Carolina as if the Code had emanated from
>>>>the
>>>>>North Carolina General Assembly, and should be respected
>>accordingly
>>>>by
>>>>>the citizens and courts of the State of North Carolina. Second
>>>>Employers'
>>>>>Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912). See also, Claflin v.
>>>>Houseman, 93
>>>>>U.S. 130, 136 (1876) ("The laws of the United States are laws in
>>the
>>>>>several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts
>>>>>thereof as the State laws are.") Respondent's "foreign state of
>>North
>>>>>Carolina" argument is patently frivolous, (FOOTNOTE 11) and is
>>hereby
>>>>>rejected as a basis for quashing the Collection Summonses in
>>>>question."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Respondent's Nonresident Alien Status.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respondent also challenges Petitioners' jurisdiction to
>>serve
>>>>the
>>>>>Collection Summonses and to assess a tax liability by asserting the
>>>>>nonresident alien status under 26 USC =A7 865(g)(1)(B).(FOOTNOTE
>>12)
>>>>The
>>>>>"nonresident alien"status is actually defined in 26 USC =A7
>>>>7701(b)(1)(B)
>>>>>as "[a]n individual . . . [who] is neither a citizen of the United
>>>>States
>>>>>nor a resident of the Untied States (within the meaning of
>>>>subparagraph
>>>>>(A))." See also 26 CFR =A7 1.871-2(a).
>>>>> Respondent has failed to produce evidence demonstrating he
>>is
>>>>>indeed a nonresident alien. First, as to Respondent's citizenship,
>>>>the
>>>>>record is void of evidence showing that Respondent was born or
>>>>>naturalized somewhere other than the United States. U.S.
>>Const.amend.
>>>>>XIV, =A7 1. (FOOTNOTE 13) Second, Respondent's "Declaration of
>>>>Status" does
>>>>>not constitute a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of United
>>>>>States nationality under 8 USC =A7 1481. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444
>>
>>>>U.S.
>>>>>252, 260 (1980); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 268 (1967); Kahane
>>v.
>>>>>Secretary of State, 700 F.Supp. 1162, 1166 (D. D.C. 1988).
>>(FOOTNOTE
>>>>14)
>>>>>Third, Respondent has failed to satisfy the "lawfully admitted for
>>>>>permanent residence," "substantial presence," or "first year
>>>>election"
>>>>>residency tests under 26 USC =A7 7701(b)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii),
>>
>>>>thereby
>>>>>precluding his qualification as a nonresident alien. Because
>>>>Respondent
>>>>>is admittedly both a citizen and a resident of North Carolina, and
>>>>North
>>>>>Carolina is on of the United States, the Court can only presume, in
>>
>>>>the
>>>>>absence of any contradictory evidence, that Respondent is a citizen
>>
>>>>of
>>>>>the Untied States.=20
>>>>> Even if the Respondent could demonstrate that he was a
>>>>>nonresident alien, he would still be subject to the Code's
>>>>nonresident
>>>>>alien individual provisions, 26 USC =A7 871 et seq. The uncontested
>>>>>evidence presented at the hearing established that Respondent had
>>>>>substantial income from real estate business in Florida, another
>>one
>>>>of
>>>>>the United States, between 1980 and 1982. That would constitute
>>>>taxable
>>>>>United States source income under 26 USC =A7 871. Furthermore,
>>>>>
>>>>> every nonresident alien individual . . . who is
>>>>engaged
>>>>> in business or trade in the United States . . . or
>>>>who
>>>>> has [taxable] income . . . shall make a return on
>>>>Form
>>>>> 1040NR, . . . even though (a) he has no income
>>>>> which is effectively connected with the conduct of
>>a
>>>>> trade or business in the United States, (b) he has
>>no
>>>>> income from sources within the United States, or
>>(c)
>>>>> his income is exempt from income tax by reason of
>>an
>>>>> income tax provision or any section of the Code.
>>>>>
>>>>>26 CFR =A7 1.6012-1(b). See also 26 CFR =A7 1.6015(i)-1(b)
>>>>(requiring=
>>>> certain
>>>>>nonresident aliens to file declarations of estimated income tax).
>>If,
>>>>as
>>>>>set forth in his "Declaration of Status," Respondent has no taxable
>>>>>United States source income, he may still be subject to taxation on
>>>>>income derived from sources OUTSIDE of the United States. 26 USC
>>>>=A7=A7=
>>>> 862,
>>>>>863(b). Respondent has failed to explain how, if he is indeed a
>>>>>nonresident alien, these provisions would be applicable to him.
>>>>> Finally, the IRS is entitled to use its authority under =A7
>>
>>>>7602 to
>>>>>determine the accuracy of Respondent's alleged nonresident alien
>>>>status
>>>>>and any assertion that the Code's nonresident alien provisions do
>>not
>>>>>apply to him. See e.g., Kis, 658 F.2d at 537; Sloan, 621 F.Supp. at
>>
>>>>1074.
>>>>>The Court concludes that the Summonses may not be quashed on the
>>>>basis of
>>>>>Respondent's alleged nonresident alien status."
>>>>>
>>>>>FOOTNOTE #9 reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> "So long as the separate organization of the members be
>>not
>>>>> abolished, so long as it exists by a constitutional
>>necessity
>>>>for
>>>>> local purposes, through it should be in perfect
>>subordination
>>>>to
>>>>> the general authority of the Union, it would still be, in
>>>>fact
>>>>>and in theory, an association of States,or a confederacy.
>>The
>>>>>proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of
>>
>>>>the
>>>>>State Governments, makes them constituent parts of
>>>>the
>>>>>nationally sovereignty by allowing them a direct
>>>>representation
>>>>>in the Senate, and leaves in their possession
>>certain
>>>>>exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.
>>>>This
>>>>>full corresponds, in every rational import of the terms,
>>with
>>>>the
>>>>>idea of a Federal Government.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Federalist No.9, at 55 (A. hamilton) (J. Cooke
>>ed.1961)
>>>>>(emphasis added) See also, "The Federalist" No. 33, at 208 (A.
>>>>Hamilton)
>>>>>("CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only
>>>>>admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to
>>this
>>>>>branch of power, of the State authority to that of the Union.")."
>>>>>
>>>>>FOOTNOTE #10 quotes in full the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>>FOOTNOTE #11 reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The contention that appellants are not taxpayers because they are
>>
>>>>'free
>>>>>born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law
>>'de
>>>>>jure' citizens of Kansas' is frivolous." U.S. v. Dawes, 874 F.2d
>>746,
>>>>>750-51 (10th Cir.1989). See also U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937
>>
>>>>(9th
>>>>>Cir. 1986) (an "absolute, freeborn and natural individual" is still
>>a
>>>>>"person" under the Code and thus is subject to its provisions).
>>>>>
>>>>>FOOTNOTE #12 reads: "Respondent sets forth his residency status in
>>>>the
>>>>>following statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> I, Joe Lunchbucket, declare that: I am an American
>>inhabiting
>>>>> North Carolina State; I am a Non-Resident to the United
>>>>States
>>>>> [26 USC 865(g)(1)(B)]; I have never worked for domestic
>>>>> corporation; I have never filed a Form 1078 or an
>>equivalent
>>>>as
>>>>> prescribed in 26 CFR 1.1441-5, that would rebut my
>>>>> non-resident status [26 CFR 1.871-4(b)]; I never
>>had
>>>>any
>>>>>gross income attributable to 26 CFR 872(a)(1) or (2); I am
>>>>>excluded from being required to obtain and submit and
>>>>identifying
>>>>>number [26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)]; should I have income from
>>>>sources
>>>>> within the Untied States, I am still not subject to a
>>>>withholding
>>>>>of any kind as it is not deemed to be income.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore I am neither now nor ever been subject to the
>>>>> jurisdiction of the United States for "internal
>>>>revenue."
>>>>>
>>>>>Asseveration, Declaration of Status, Dated September XXXXX,
>>attached
>>>>to
>>>>>Demand I."
>>>>>
>>>>>FOOTNOTE #13 reads:=20
>>>>>
>>>>> "See also Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 74 (1873) ("He
>>
>>>>must
>>>>>reside within a State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only
>>>>>necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United
>>States
>>>>to
>>>>>be a citizen of the Union."); Factor v. Pennington Press, inc., 230
>>>>>F.Supp. 906, 909 (N.D. Ill. 1963) ("But in order to be a citizen of
>>a
>>>>>state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the
>>>>>united States."); Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lamson Bros. & Co.,
>>
>>>>42
>>>>>F.Supp. 1007, 1012 (S.D. Iowa 1941)("Under our system of government
>>
>>>>and
>>>>>individual citizen of a State is also a citizen of the untied
>>>>>States...").
>>>>>
>>>>>FOOTNOTE #14 reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Even if the "declaration of Status" is sufficient to
>>>>relinquish
>>>>>Respondent's United States nationality, the Code provides for the
>>>>fully
>>>>>graduated taxation of all United States source income for the ten
>>>>years
>>>>>preceding the date of such expatriation, or September 19, 1991,
>>>>unless
>>>>>Respondent can prove the avoidance of taxes was not one of the
>>>>principal
>>>>>purposes for his expatriation. See Di Portanova v. U.S., 690 F.2d
>>>>169,
>>>>>176-78 (Ct.Cl.1982); 26 USC =A7 877. hence, Respondent's tax
>>>>liability
>>>>>could date back as far as 1980, the first year questioned by the
>>>>issued
>>>>>Collection Summonses."
>>>>>
>>>>>END QUOTE OF ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IRS SUMMONSES.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because I can identify profound protection within the Code itself,
>>I
>>>>>don't make the challenges of jurisdiction and State sovereignty. I
>>>>hope
>>>>>this look at the Federal view of the arguments has helped you. In
>>>>Court
>>>>>twice now, the IRS has been unable to prove the Secretary of the
>>>>>Treasury's authority to operate outside D.C., as required under 4
>>USC
>>>>72.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net
>>>>>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use
>>UNSUBSCRIBE
>>>>to
>>>>>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
>>>>> email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net
>>>>>For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net
>>>>>
>>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
>>>>>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>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 3.0.3 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.
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=
>>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional
>>>>spacing.]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>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 3.0.3 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.]
>>
>
>
========================================================================
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 3.0.3 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