Time: Tue Sep 30 10:21:59 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA22293;
	Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:13:09 -0700 (MST)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15415;
	Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:03:20 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:02:51 -0700
To: jus-dare@freedom.by.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Appeal for Legal Advice

Form 1040 has a perjury jurat which conforms
to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), declarations under
penalty of perjury INSIDE the United States.
As such, it conforms to the requirements for
affidavits, under federal rules of evidence.

You bet it can be used against you!  By signing
a Form 1040, you are effectively testifying
against yourself, and this testimony can be
used against you.  Bill Conklin  has done some
of the very best work on this particular subject.

We spend a lot of time explaining 28 U.S.C. 1746
to clients and friends, because it contains some of 
THE most telling, and earth-shaking evidence, you will
ever find in any federal statute.  For one, it
mentions "United States" and "United States of
America" in the same section.  It also makes
the all-important distinction between "within"
and "without" the "United States".  Need I say
any more?  All the details have been published
in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue" since 1992, now available in an electronic
seventh edition.

If you cannot afford to buy the book, then please
avail yourself of all the free documents which are
now loaded into the Supreme Law Library.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 09:45 AM 9/30/97 +0000, you wrote:
>*Jus Dare*
>Appeal for Legal Advice
>From: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
>Subject: Information On Lawyers Who Will Provide Written Legal Op
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>From:          "Jimmy Hammonds" <hammondsjh@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject:       Information On Lawyers Who Will Provide Written Legal 
>Opinions Concerning the Income Tax 
>Date:          Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:35:13 -0400
>To Whom It May Concern:
>     I am trying to get written legal opinions from attorneys in regard to
>the Income Tax.  Specifically, I am trying to determine if an individual
>waives his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination when he files an
>income tax form(s), since the information may later be used against him in
>a court of law.  I have found extensive case law which seems to back this
>idea, but I am not an attorney.  I am trying to contact an attorney(s) who
>are familiar with the issue.  I have included several cases relating to
>this topic.  
>Please help!!??
>11/03/89 US v. George ALLEE; 888 F.2d 208; Massachusetts; 1st Cir.
>03/11/91 US v. Alberto E. ARGOMANIZ; Florida; 11th Cir.
>12/01/83 US v. Joe O. BAKER; Nebraska; 8th Cir.
>04/16/86 US v. Bernard M. BARRETT, Jr.; 787 F.2d 958; Texas; 5th Cir.
>12/03/86 US v. Bernard M. BARRETT, Jr.; 804 F.2d 1376; Texas; 5th Cir.
>02/24/88 US v. Bernard M. BARRETT, Jr.; 837 F.2d 1341; Texas; 5th Cir.
>05/04/89 US v. Patricia K. BARRY; 873 F.2d 967; Ohio; 6th Cir.
>09/16/71 US v. Irving BELL; 448 F.2d 40; 9th Cir
>09/08/87 US v. Zulema BICHARA; Florida; 11th Cir.
>10/23/91 US v. James A. BISHOP; Ohio; 6th Cir 
>11/17/86 US v. BLACK; Missouri; 8th Cir.
>01/02/96 US v. Marc D. BLACKMAN; Oregon; 9th Cir.
>09/20/95 US v. Ronald L. BODWELL;California; 9th Cir.
>02/03/87 US v. Ira E. BORCHARDT; 809 F.2d 1115; Texas; 5th Cir.
>09/28/92 US v. Joseph P. BORNSTEIN; Maryland; 4th Cir.
>01/12/90 US v. Tracy L. BROWN; 918 F.2d 82; Washington; 9th Cir. 06/26/87
>US v. Wesley A. CALDWELL, Jr.; 820 F.2d 1395; Mississippi; 5th Cir.
>06/01/88 US v. Richard D. CLARK; 847 F.2d 1467; Colorado; 10th Cir.
>01/09/73 COUCH v. US; Supreme Court; Virginia; 4th Cir.
>06/10/57 CURCIO v. US; Supreme Court; New York; 2nd Cir. 
>09/10/93 US v. Johnny DACCARETT; 6 F.3rd 37; 2nd Cir.
>10/21/94 US v. James P. DARBY; N. Carolina; 4th Cir.
>02/05/90 US v. Lawrence G. DeCLUE; 889 F.2d 1465; Tennessee; 6th Cir.
>02/28/84 US v. DOE; Supreme Court; New Jersey;
>04/08/96 US v. Robert L. DROLLINGER; California;9th Cir.
>06/07/91 US v. DUBIN; 935 F.2d 501; New York; 2nd Cir.
>05/10/84 US v. David E. EDGERTON; 734 F.2d 913; Connecticut; 2nd Cir.
>07/03/86 US v. Bonnie B. ERWIN; 793 F.2d 656; Texas; 5th Cir.
>04/21/76 FISHER v. US; Supreme Court; 3rd Cir.
>10/13/82 US v. Martin FLANAGAN; 691 F.2d 116; New York; 2nd Cir. 
>thank you
>Jimmy Hammonds
>Harold Thomas
>  *  *  *  *  *
>*Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>This list deals with the perversion of the Supreme Court.
>To subscribe, send the message "add yourmailname.server"
>in the body of a message to jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>or contact Dave Delany <freedom@hancock.net>
>Visit us on the web: http://www.hancock.net/~freedom/jus_dare
>Dave Delany's Freedom House  PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>*Jus Dare* is a service of Hearthside Family Publications.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : 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://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