Time: Tue Jul 29 19:34:21 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA29470;
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:28:41 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA23017;
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:24:27 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:23:43 -0700
To: Common Right Group at San Diego county <sj346280@4dcomm.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: DOJ does not read pleadings, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson
References: <3.0.3.16.19970728193159.3277e4aa@pop.primenet.com>
Think RIGHT OF ELECTION, which was upheld
by the Maine Supreme Court right after
Dred Scott. When faced with the choice
between two classes of citizenship,
the exercise of this RIGHT OF ELECTION
is directly pertinent. I pulled the few
cases DOJ cited to dispute two separate
classes of citizenship, and those cases are
filled with dicta, and/or conclusions based on
the presumption that the 14th amendment was
lawfully ratified. Wrong!! Even if the 14th was
lawfully ratified, subsequent cases have held
that you can be a state Citizen without also
being a federal citizen. THIS is now the
main issue in our attack on the JSSA
(you use "FJJS", yes?).
Citizenship is a term of municipal law, and
the Guarantee Clause does not require the
United States to provide a Republican Form
for itself, only for the several States.
This is the pivotal matter -- not Otto Skinner's
theory. The federal government is now trying
to argue that if you are a state Citizen,
then you are forced into federal citizenship,
per force. This is absurd, particularly since
the United States has descended into a criminal
enterprise. This is like saying you must be
a criminal if you want to eat in our town.
BTW, what authorities does Skinner cite lately
for creating the liability in the first place?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
p.s. I am very curious: are you going to settle
for reading the Appellee's Brief, without first
reading the OPENING BRIEF? Is that giving a
fair hearing to both sides? You wouldn't want
the judges to do that, would you?
At 06:02 PM 7/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Dear Clients and Friends,
>>......... [deleted text]
>
>> Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is unconstitutionally
>> vague. 4/" [REPLY BRIEF, page 9]
>>
>> Footnote 4 reads:
>>
>> "Although defendant earlier challenged the authority
>> of the United States government to collect income
>> taxes from him, he appears to have raised this
>>
>
>........[deleted text]....
>
>Paul,
> First, thank you from the bottom of my pea-picin' heart for the copy of
>the 'reply brief' which, admittedly, has not yet been thoroughly read -
>just "decoded."
> Second, the glances taken at it appear to be the S.O.P responses used
>by the U.S. attorneys as a shotgun approach to see in the form of a trial
>balloon which way the court is likely to lean. Standard arguments taken
>off some boilerplate or whatever.
> Third, the challenge to whether or not the fed. gov't. has authority to
>collect 'income' taxes from him needs to be looked at in light of
>appellate case of LONSDALE v. UNITED STATES, 919 F.2d 1440 (1990) [10th
>Cir]. On the last page of the court's decision is a "short list of
>rejected tax protestor arguments" that included the authority mentioned.
>In effect, the court called these arguments frivolous and imposed some
>pretty heavy sanctions agains Lonsdale.
> This is the same subject matter that Otto Skinner addresses in *THE
>BIGGEST TAX LOOPHOLE OF ALL*. There are circumstances surrounding
>LONSDALE that may be exigent, such as, he'd already covered essentially
>the same territory in the fifth circuit, etc. Likewase and furthermore,
>it appears Gilbertson is challenging the FJJS Act more as the fundamental
>and underlying cause of the challenge of authority for the court to
>adjudicate on the matter. However, caution is urged in proceeding with
>this as there are numerous cases citing Lonsdale since. Eight of them, to
>be more precise.
> I haven't sorted through everything yet as I just came acorss this case
>this last weekend while attending Lynn Palladin's class, but it looks
>like there may be merit to the court's decision in light of the
>principles outline by Skinner in his book.
> Catcha later - and Yah bless and keep you safe.
> Bill
>
>
========================================================================
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