Time: Wed Jul 09 20:32:30 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09147;
	Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:28:23 -0700 (MST)
	by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21084;
	Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:28:11 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 20:28:03 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: LEADERS "Insider's Report" July, 1997 (Part 1) (fwd)

This may be a repeat, but I am sending anyway.
Part II will follow immediately behind this.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>                       (LEADERS)
>        P.O. Box 3245; Frederick, MD  21705
>301-293-0001                                            Leaders@aol.com
>301-759-1010                                       Leader Mag@aol.com
>                       http://logoplex.com/shops/leaders/
>                            American Leadership's
>                  INSIDER'S REPORT   ---   July, 1997
>                      Special Promotional Publication
>     (Hopefully, those active in the movement to restore constitutional
>who have never before heard of LEADERS, will be encouraged to discover what 
>our network of supporters is doing.  This Insider's Report, and our other
>tions, are the vehicles we are using to educate people.  We hope you will
>find the 
>information contained herein useful.  More information about LEADERS, our
>legislative research, and other projects, is contained near the end of this
>We always welcome your comments and suggestions.  REPUBLICATION OF
>     Congress would like nothing better than to undo the system of checks
>and balances of the Constitution.  A "Balanced Budget Amendment" will be,
>if the New World Order has its way, submitted to the states for ratification
>in the near future.  This is a dangerous and artfully crafted piece of
>legislation, and must be stopped.
>     A perfect system for balancing the budget is already a part of the
>Constitution.  Unfortunately it has been ignored since about the time the
>Federal Reserve was granted a license to destroy our nation's economy. 
>Indeed, our federal budget can never be in balance as long as borrowing
>is practiced routinely--and from the Federal Reserve in particular.
>     The power of direct taxation described in Article I, Section 2, Clause
>3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (apportioned direct taxes on state
>governments) is the answer to our budgetary woes.  However, the day
>Congress holds itself accountable to the state legislatures of this nation,
>be the day the spending and borrowing ceases.  No doubt about it.
>     How do we know this power of taxation was meant for the purpose of
>deficit extinguishment?
>     When the states were ratifying the proposed Constitution (beginning
>in 1787), each state called a convention of its own for that purpose. 
>Several of the states (NY, NH, SC, RI, NC, and VA) included in their
>ratification documents wording similar to the following (taken from the
>ratification document of the State of New York):
>     . . . that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State,
>     but when the monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be
>     insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then until Congress
>     shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess,
>     levy and pay the amount of such Requisition made agreeably to
>     the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and
>     manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that
>     in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its
>     proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may
>     assess and levy this States proportion together with interest at
>     the Rate of six percentum per Annum from the time at which the
>     same was required to be paid.
>     When are direct taxes to be laid?  When monies coming from
>Congress' regular sources (imposts and excises) are insufficient for public
>needs.  (In other words, when red ink appears!)  
>     The states ratifying the Constitution recognized the power of directly
>taxing them, based on the census (their voting strength in Congress) was
>a strictly limited power, only to be used when a serious need arose.  
>     This power was used--several times--in our nation's history, and each
>state paid its share of the direct taxes levied by Congress on every
>occasion--lest the federal revenuers would enter their state and levy and
>collect the tax themselves.
>     Congress retired the debt accumulated by the Revolutionary War, the
>War of 1812, and the Civil War in this manner.  (Documentation proving
>that fact is found on pages 8-11 of American Leadership Spring 1996
>     And this is how deficits are STILL REQUIRED TO BE
>EXTINGUISHED!  That is, until the seditious Balanced Budget
>Amendment now parading through the halls of Congress is adopted and
>added to our Constitution!

>     The B.B.A. is considered a primary weapon for the  NWO.  Its failure
>to be passed out of Congress (earlier this year) will likely be considered a
>signal of the "urgency" for a full blown Constitutional Convention to occur,
>whereby such an amendment can supposedly be "proposed" by the states. 
>(In reality, the B.B.A. is just an excuse to open a convention whereby the
>entire Constitution can be modified to more nicely fit into this "New World
>Order.")  If it should be passed directly by Congress to the states, and
>subsequently ratified, it would bury the method of balancing the budget
>carefully crafted by the Constitution's framers.  Either way, the people are
>looking straight down the barrel of a gun.
>     The tax and spend brigade wants to constitutionally allow "smoke and
>mirrors" projections and other accounting malfeasance to be accepted as
>the law of the land.  And that plan is what this B.B.A. is all about.
>     This proposed amendment WOULD NOT balance the budget in any
>way.  It would simply legalize that, which, although current federal
>accounting practice, is flatly forbidden by the terms and conditions of the
>EXISTING contract between the states.
>     Educating the masses about the fraud of this amendment is a double
>edged sword.  In defeating this proposed amendment, we can convey to
>people the proper relationship between spending and accountability.  More
>precisely, we can show the proper mechanism for accountability in the year
>the money is spent!  If there is a "silver bullet" to collapse the NWO, this
>     Yes, levying a direct tax on the states would cause a huge deficit in
>state "rainy day funds." Realistically, at current federal spending levels,
>imposition of a direct tax on each state for their share of the federal
>would deplete every state treasury, and cause a HUGE state tax increase
>to make up for the shortfall.  The good new is, it would only happen once. 
>Every state legislature would send forth their troops to tar and feather the
>members of Congress who voted for illegal, unauthorized and/or improper
>     Imagine the governor of California advising the state legislature that
>their share of the 1995 federal deficit must be paid within 6 months. 
>California would be required to come up with 45/435 of the total deficit
>the Constitutional rule.  (California has 45 members in Congress.  Those
>with the most votes for spending must come up with the most money. 
>Small states would contribute a proportionately smaller amount, since their
>fewer number of representatives have less say in spending--their
>proportional share of the deficit.) It is the rule of representation with
>proportional obligation.  Taxation and representation are inseparable
>under the current constitutional formula--as morally they should be.  The
>rules change under a B.B.A..  What we need is enforcement of the rule
>book, not a change in the rules!
>     That would be a very bitter pill for Congress to swallow, as the
>members thereof would then be required to answer to their state for the
>spending and resultant taxation--exactly the way it was before the creation
>of the Federal Reserve system.
>     Our problem (since the institution of Federal Reserve control over our
>money) is that we have been able to borrow unendingly.  We have been
>hypnotized by paper money--and the thoughts of never having to pay the
>     The bankers are about to call in the notes--as is evidenced by
>numerous warning signs in international financial markets.  Restoring both
>constitutional money, and honest taxation, is the only formula for "balancing
>the budget."
>     Taking the "quiet" course proved disastrous for supporters of Idaho
>State Senator Grant Ipsen's resolution to repeal Idaho's calls for a
>Constitutional Convention.  Idaho, which has eight standing calls for a
>convention dating back to 1901, could have wiped the slate clean by
>passage of SCR/HCR 115, offered by Senator Ipsen.  
>     This extremely well researched and drafted piece of legislation
>identified each previous call Idaho made for a constitutional convention--by
>both name and date.  It further sought to "repeal, rescind, cancel, nullify
>supersede" all those previous resolutions; prevent the creation of "legal
>chaos" in opening a convention; and to "protect the lives and liberties of
>citizens" by sparing the Constitution from the uncertainties of a convention.
>     Senator Ipsen, along with his supporters, managed to get the bill
>through the Senate without any major difficulty.  The vote on 26 February,
>1997 was an astonishing 30-4 in the full Senate (with one member absent). 
>     As the bill found its way into the House State Affairs Committee,
>Senator Ipsen (and many others) thought it best not to sound any alarms
>that would bring down the wrath of the establishment.  They were
>concerned that publicity would bring with it the big gun-supporters of the
>proposed Balanced Budget Amendment.  It was feared that folks like
>Idaho's U.S. Senator Larry Craig, a major B.B.A. supporter, would twist
>arms and force a showdown of loyalty to persona.
>     Quietly, with little fanfare or publicity, on 14 March, 1997 the bill
>its demise in the House Committee--never having a chance to be brought
>before the full House.  
>     The vote was a razor thin 10-9 margin.  The chairman of the House
>Committee, Ron Crane, and another member of that committee, Ruby
>Stone were said by sources near the legislature to have remarked that this
>bill would "cut off Larry Craig's legs," and for that reason, they voted to
>     Interestingly, it is supposed to be the state legislature that dictates
>beliefs and voting patterns of their representatives in the United States
>Senate. Apparently, at least in Idaho, the tail is permitted to wag the dog.
>     No better time exists than the present for this type of legislation.
>Indeed, with only 34 states needed to call for a convention (see Article V
>of the Constitution), and with 30 having made such calls (Idaho included),
>this would have been an excellent opportunity for Idahoan statesmen to
>have helped pull the plug on a convention by passing the Ipsen resolution.
>     32 states had officially called for a convention, ostensibly to propose
>a Balanced Budget Amendment, until Louisiana & Florida passed
>rescission resolutions in the late 1980's.  (Louisiana passed a "blanket"
>resolution--similar to the Idaho measure, whereas Florida only repealed its
>call for a "B.B.A. Convention.")  Since then, action has been sporadic, and
>no other states have either issued calls, nor repealed earlier calls.
>     Much information has been distributed by a wide coalition of patriot
>groups, and even some from the political left, warning of the dangers of a
>convention.  This information has effectively blocked passage of Con-con
>calling resolutions in states where the measures have been brought.  
>     But the forces that want to expose the Constitution to radical surgery
>have also been ominous--blocking the passage of rescinding resolutions--
>like that issued by the courageous Senator Ipsen.  Inquiring minds
>want to know if Larry Craig had his hands in this matter.  And, if he is
>sincere in his vocalizing about balancing the federal budget, why does he
>vote to increase the limit on the national debt year after year?
>     The following State Affairs Committee members voted AGAINST the
>Ipsen resolution:  Ron Crane (chairman) Bill Deal (co-chairman), Ruby
>Stone, Margaret Henbest, Thomas Loertscher, Jeff Alltus, Twila Hornbeck,
>Debbie Field, Jim Jones, Cameron Wheeler.  Patriots should immediately
>remove these people from their Christmas card list.
>     Those who voted FOR the Ipsen resolution (and should therefore be put
>ON the Christmas card list) are Delegates: Tippets, Stevenson, Denney,
>Ellsworth, Kunz, McKague, Stoicheff, Alexander & Judd.  Absent when the
>vote was taken were delegates Kjellander and Newcomb--who, if present
>and voting in favor, would have turned the vote around.  (Where were you
>when the Constitution--which you have taken an oath to protect--needed
>your help in that committee?)
>     So, instead of Idaho being an example of how these types of bills can
>be "quietly" passed, it stands as testimony that, in such matters, the public
>needs to be made aware of the bill IMMEDIATELY.  Because, if our side
>knows about it, you can bet it has not gotten past those who have been
>trying for decades to open a Constitutional Convention.  They have a
>wrecking ball ready for the bill of rights--and everything else that
>holds the would-be tyrants at bay!  
>     Both sides must be heard.   Unfortunately, in Idaho, the opportunity is,
>as least for now, lost.
>                          (END, PART 1)
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.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 3.0.3 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