Time: Sun Sep 21 12:33:14 1997
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00224;
	Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:15:56 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:15:39 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Go for Red, Stop for Green

Dear America,

One of the most satisfying observations which
I have been able to confirm, over the past 7+ years
of intensive research into the U.S. Constitution and
the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), is the VERY high 
probability of intense disagreements which people do have
 -- over the many constitutional issues which arise from 
the Internal Revenue Code (read "municipal revenue code").

People have gone so far as to chastise me vehemently for 
not agreeing with certain key points which seem convincing,
even "intuitively obvious," to them!  :)

Well, I am writing this long message, to make two key
points here:

#1:  the existence of widespread and/or intense
     disagreements, is empirical evidence that the
     law(s) in question are null and void for vagueness;

#2:  apply a good test, the next time you begin a discussion,
     or enter an argument, over the IRC:

     Ask all contestants if they stop for red, and go for green,
     on the highways and byways in their home towns.

(Entering these arguments is very much like 
 entering an intersection with your car or truck.)

Then, ask them why, on earth, the IRC cannot be as clear,
and as just, as this widely accepted, and easily understood,
common law of travel on the highways everywhere in the world.

You may be surprised at the answers you will get!  :)

Try this English comprehension test, on the very next jury
you have occasion to impanel:

  "Juror #3:  what does the following sentence mean to you:
   The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect
   on the day after the date of enactment of this title?"

Most states require jurors to have a basic understanding
of the English language.  

Here's another great question:

  "Juror #5:  are you a citizen of the United States?"

If they answer  "no," then disqualify them.  
If they answer "yes," then disqualify them.  (!!)

Details are available in the Supreme Law Library,
in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, at the URL
just below my name here.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

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