Time: Tue Sep 23 14:27:26 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA26636;
	Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:54:17 -0700 (MST)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA09005;
	Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:53:09 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:52:50 -0700
To: MSmith6791@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Public Salary Tax Act is unconstitutional: intent is fraud

You are forgetting that peace officers
can "commandeer" anyone in their vicinity,
for emergency assistance.  You don't really
KNOW why they are pulling you over, until
you ask and find out.  In fact, as a Citizen,
you also have the right to "commandeer" anyone
in your immediate vicinity, even police, to
help you execute a Citizen's Arrest.  So, 
stopping people, in and of itself, does not
constitute proper and lawful arrest.  You must
determine the reason for the stop:  is there
probable cause, or not?  And, if so, probable
cause for WHAT??

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 01:14 PM 9/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 9/23/97 5:03:38 PM, you wrote:
><<The law reads that judges should disclose
>contracts which might affect their judicial
>impartiality.  Now that IRS has been proven
>to be an illegal trust domiciled in Puerto Rico,
>I should think that a W-4 ought to be disclosed,
>so that the parties of interest might have an
>opportunity to object, or stipulate a waiver,
>to the existence of this "contract."  Don't 
>think for a moment that state judges are not
>also complicit in upholding the tax scam
>(to quote the title of Alan Stang's excellent
>book on the same subject).  We have already
>attacked federal income taxation of federal 
>judges;  I now believe that the same principles
>apply to federal income taxes on state
>judicial compensation.  The Public Salary
>Tax Act is unconstitutional for being 
>fraudulent by intent.  See the court cases
>now loaded into the Supreme Law Library for
>details, particularly USA v. Knudson:
>The Table of Contents now follow>>
>Thing that bothers me is that you're saying if I am a fed citizen I am slave,
>but all the acts, and amendments etc were all done with intent to decive and
>enclsave.........there was never disclosure that all these things would taint
>my citizenship and make me have to do this that, achange the law etc and so
>forth.  Can't that be right?  Copy stops me years ago and my protest at some
>point he tells me when I got a d/l I had to wavie rights.  DMV never told me
>I had to waive rights or be a fed citizens to get the license.
>Something is n't right with all that.  Where is disclosure?

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