Time: Wed Oct 01 12:16:28 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12219;
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:16:51 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA07992;
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:12:31 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 12:12:00 -0700
To: cia@mwconnect.com (Nick Landholt)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FYI: experience(s) with Becraft
Hi Nick et al.,
If you forward an electronic copy of my
message to anyone else, then you would
lose all control over that message,
in a very practical sense, yes?
We have contracts with all clients of
the Supreme Law School, and all email broadcasts
which I author are strictly controlled by
a non-disclosure clause in that contract.
For details, visit the Supreme Law website,
and read the SLS registration form.
This clause does not apply, obviously, to
mail which I "forward" to the school,
e.g. from broadcasts by list servers
of which I am an active individual member.
In a word, I do not want a war with Becraft;
my beef is with IRS, DOJ, and the federal judges.
If Becraft is proven to be aiding and
abetting them, that will come out in due time.
For now, I would rather not be one of his active
targets, because he obviously cannot, or will not,
debate my research on the merits. So, I will
give him the benefit of certain doubts which
I now have about him and his true motives.
Let him post his own pleadings, on his own
website, if he has not already done so.
If you want the full details, then commit
yourself to reading and studying all of the
materials presently loaded into the Supreme Law
Library. These pleadings are not for casual
reading, like some novel; they require study,
and cross-reference materials, so that you will
know what I am talking about when I cite, for
example, 28 U.S.C. 1746, or a definition in
Black's Law Dictionary.
This work is not meant for casual or simply
curious readers. We are providing a service
to those who are really dedicated, and who
appreciate the money we have saved them by
making these pleadings available publicly,
rather than requiring that people pay Clerks
$0.50 per page, plus postage, plus the inevitable
delays in placing and waiting for such order(s)
to be shipped.
So, for now, let's just keep that Becraft message
between us, and see what develops in time. If you
speak with friends over the telephone, I cannot
prevent you from reading my message aloud to
them, and whether they are recording it, or not,
is completely between you and any others you
may have on the telephone at that moment in time.
Fair enough?
As for the rest of your long message, we encourage
you to enroll in the Supreme Law School. As soon
as I get a moment, I will forward to you our
standard boilerplate response to the high number
of requests we receive, for totally free legal
services. It has become quite a huge problem for
us, and this boilerplate is our first cut at
trying to screen out free-loaders, from serious
investigators and people who are truly in trouble.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 01:13 PM 10/1/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Thanks for taking the time Paul. Very interesting info here. I'll be sure
>to ask your permission before revealing this to select others in my
>particular circle. One I'd like to give a heads up to is Jim Condit, Jr., my
>friend and VoteFraud colleague. You can find some of his work at:
>www.networkusa.org
>
>Another one in the tax movement I'm sure you've heard of is Irwin Schiff. I
>came across his stuff earlier this year via "Media Bypass" magazine and
>ordered some. I then file a Zero Income Tax Return for 1996, with a filing
>status of Married But Separate Return (my wife is a homemaker). This is
>sent to the Austin, Texas IRS offices.
>
>I received an IRS letter dated June 30 from the Kansas City IRS offices
>saying they changed my return and I owed $2,500 more. This amount was the
>difference in the Standard Deduction between a Married But Separate Return
>and a Joint Return (which we usually file). I then filed a 1040X (Amended
>Return) on July 21, but ONLY to change my filing status to Joint Return so
>I'd get the extra deduction, thus owing them nothing. BTW, had I filed a
>"normal" return, I'd have gotten a refund of about $500.
>
>So then got an IRS letter dated Aug. 18 (again from Kansas City) saying
>"after several attempts..." at trying to collect, they may seize my bank
>account, wages, other property, etc.
>
>So following Schiff's procedure, I sent a letter dated Sept. 8 to Kansas
>City asking to meet with them and telling them I would be tape recording the
>session. However, I added something on my on. I requested that prior to
>the meeting they send me the signed copy of the 1040 they changed, citing
>the person who authorized the change and what law authorizes the IRS to
>change returns. I also asked for a copy of the Record of Assessment.
>
>Lo and behold this past Monday, the 29th, I received a tax refund from
>Austin in the amount of $515 (about $17 in interest). Well, I was looking
>for all my witholding taxes back. As mentioned, this looks like the amount
>I'd have gotten back if I filed a "normal" return.
>
>Now I'm wondering if I should call Schiff and explain this. I figure his
>answer will be to file a civil suit against the IRS to recover the rest of
>the witholding taxes. Or maybe I should just send a letter to Austin asking
>where the rest of it is?
>
>I also see in a recent posting you mentioned Bill Conklin in a positive
>light. I've talked once to Bill by phone, and know he thinks Schiff is
>getting people into trouble with this Zero Income Tax thing.
>
>Any hints? Thanks!
>
>
>>Hi Nick,
>>
>>What I am about to tell you here is
>>confidential. Larry once wrote to me
>>demanding that I stop selling the
>>book I wrote, entitled "The Federal Zone:
>>Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue."
>>This came as a total surprise to me,
>>at that time. Read on.
>>
>>He alleged that it was "getting people into trouble."
>>I wanted to write him back, and ask why it was, that
>>other forms of "tax protest" were NOT getting
>>people into trouble, but I was just too disgusted
>>at that moment in time, to do anything about his
>>letter.
>>
>>Subsequent to that, he wrote to me again -- dumping
>>heaps of scorn on the idea of a federal zone.
>>I wrote back to him, explaining that there was
>>a lot of law, and history, to support the distinction
>>between municipal law, and national or general law.
>>He never answered that letter. You will note that
>>Justice Kennedy has now used the term "federal zone"
>>in the Lopez case decided in 1995. That probably did
>>NOT sit too comfortably with Becraft, knowing him
>>as I do. I do not regard him as either a friend or
>>as a colleague. I regard all "attorneys" as suspects,
>>if only because of the documented etymology of the
>>term "attorn" (to transfer an estate from the old lord
>>to the new lord; it is a term from "feudal" law).
>>
>>Then, I was later retained by a trust in Tucson,
>>to oppose a federal grand jury subpoena. At the
>>start of that effort, Becraft got on the phone
>>with Wayne Benson, from Arizona also, and on a
>>4-way conference call Becraft proceeded to
>>insult me, politely, by urging the client to
>>hire a Phoenix attorney instead. All the pleadings
>>in that case are now available -- worldwide --
>>in the Supreme Law Library. The client chose me
>>over Becraft.
>>
>>Then, Becraft later advised the client that
>>there was no right to a jury trial in this GJ
>>subpoena case. At that moment, I showed the
>>client Rule 38 in the Federal Rules of Civil
>>Procedure, and the client agreed with me that
>>the right to a trial by jury is to be preserved
>>inviolate. Becraft should be sanctioned,
>>I believe, for such unprofessional conduct,
>>and for such unconstitutional advice.
>>
>>If you want to speak with someone who has
>>seen Becraft in action, in a court room,
>>I recommend that you contact Bill Medina
>>in Sunnyvale, California, telephone:
>>(415) 961-7752. This is an old number,
>>but it may still be good. Medina's experience
>>with Becraft occurred many years ago, however,
>>so take that into account.
>>
>>You must remember that the government permits
>>certain "losses," as a way of fanning what
>>Dr. Edwin J. Vieira calls "bird seed."
>>If the freedom movement were to lose EVERY
>>case, it would be just too obvious what DOJ are
>>actually doing with federal judges. I regard
>>the Long case to be a good example of bird seed.
>>
>>The documents in the Supreme Law Library are
>>our first-level effort to document the
>>active crimes now being committed by DOJ
>>and by the federal judiciary. I hypothesize that
>>Becraft may be aiding and abetting this effort,
>>although I certainly do not have enough proof,
>>as yet, of any DIRECT involvement by him. I think
>>he is too smart to make THAT mistake. Medina will be
>>able to shed some light on this question for you.
>>
>>The existence of two classes of citizenship is
>>a particularly sore point with me. Becraft has an
>>office in Huntsville, and the Alabama Supreme
>>Court once issued one of the clearest expositions
>>of these two classes that you will find anywhere.
>>Becraft is trying to act as if this decision
>>never happened. Despite all his excellent work
>>on federal jurisdiction, he missed the boat
>>completely on the existence of these two classes.
>>He once concluded, and published a tract which
>>stated, that the federal income tax is imposed
>>on "aliens here and citizens abroad."
>>
>>My best work to date is now available in the
>>SLL, e.g. in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF. Please
>>help yourself. It is work on which I now stand,
>>with my professional reputation fully at stake.
>>There are now 4 cases loaded there, with 26 more
>>cases awaiting funding to be loaded there as well.
>>The key which unlocks this whole mess is the
>>Guarantee Clause. Read it!
>>
>>Since Becraft claims to know a lot about
>>federal law, I have publicly challenged
>>him to rescind his license to practice law,
>>in deference to the original 13th Amendment.
>>His failure to do so is now grounds for me
>>to regard him as an alien, for having
>>deliberately chosen to retain his title
>>of nobility. I make this argument to all
>>licensed attorneys, so Becraft should not
>>feel that I am picking on him. He probably
>>does anyway. Kill the messenger, right?
>>
>>"Aliens here, citizens abroad?"
>>
>>In my opinion, Becraft is suffering from
>>alcohol abuse, and from an inflated opinion
>>of himself. I have been the victim of
>>professional jealousy, before now. If Becraft
>>thinks he is the "Premier" of the Freedom
>>Movement, he has another thing coming,
>>I must say. I cannot approve of the many
>>ways in which he has proven himself to be rather
>>unethical in legal matters over which I have had
>>certain direct professional responsiblities.
>>
>>For what it is worth, that is the truth,
>>from where I stand. I am willing to testify
>>to the truth of what I have said above.
>>My opinions are just that, however -- opinions.
>>
>>Caveat lector, okay?
>>
>>Please follow-up by contacting Bill Medina.
>>And get ready to hear some unpleasant things,
>>if you can succeed in getting Medina to talk.
>>
>>Good luck!
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>copy: off-site archivists & witnesses
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 04:37 PM 9/30/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>Paul:
>>>
>>>Larry Becraft is somewhat involved with the CNC I mentioned below. In
light
>>>of the recent email you sent about Larry's comments on some cases, is
Larry
>>>considered one of the good guys as far as legal issues? He seems to
endorse
>>>the Save-A-Patriot organization.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>
>/s/ Nick Landholt / cia@mwconnect.com / website: www.wimall.com/fatima
>
> For a glimpse at the diabolical agenda rapidly devouring ex-Christian
>America, visit:
> >< > >< > www.networkusa.org and www.waco93.com < >< < ><
>
>The Christian Information Association [C.I.A.] is an educational
>organization founded to awaken conquered Americans (a nation of Dupes, Sheep
>and Wimps) to their status as a Dispossessed Majority. The C.I.A. informs
>its members of 4 key issues:
>
>1) The voluntary nature of income "taxes", and how they can legally drop
>out. Note: A U.S. Senator mentioned the "voluntary system" of income taxes
>in a USA Today article.
>2) Computer VoteFraud: which keeps in tact our corrupt legislative system.
>3) How jury nullification can solve our corrupt judicial system.
>4) How we can abolish the Federal Reserve by implementing Social Credit,
>which has been called "Christianity applied in economics".
>
>For dues and further details, send us your snail mail address.
>
>
>
========================================================================
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