Time: Fri Aug 29 09:47:23 1997
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA23048;
	Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:00:05 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:58:29 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Walter Updegrave on ZIP codes

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

             Explanation of ZIP Code Address Purpose
                 (Version 910816Z;  rev. 081991)


                         W. C. Updegrave
                  c/o 300 Adams Street, Esterly
                      Reading, Pennsylvania
                  zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

     It is this writer's opinion, both as a result of study, e.g.
of page  11 of  the National  Area ZIP Code Directory;  of 26 USC
7621;   of Section  4 of  the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number
53, of  Wednesday, March  19, 1986, Notices at pages 9571 through
9573;  of Treasury Delegation Order (TDO) 150-01;  of the opinion
in United  States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 308, 98
S.Ct.2d 2357,  57 L.Ed.2d  221 (1978);  of 12 USC 222;  of 31 USC
103;   and as  a result  of my actual experience, that a ZIP Code
address is presumed to create a "Federal jurisdiction" or "market
venue" or  "revenue districts"  that override  State  boundaries,
taking one  who uses  such modes  of address  outside of  a State
venue  and   its   constitutional   protections   and   into   an
international, commercial  venue involving  admiralty concerns of
the "United  States", which is a commercial corporation domiciled
in Washington, D.C.

     More specifically,  looking at  the map  on page  11 of  the
National ZIP  Code Directory,  e.g. at  a local  post office, one
will see  that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that
includes more  than  one  State.    The  first  sentence  of  the
explanatory paragraph  begins:   "A ZIP  Code is a numerical code
that  identifies   areas  within   the  United   States  and  its
territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)].  Note the
singular  possessive   pronoun  "its",   not  "their",  therefore
carrying the  implication that  it relates to the "United States"
as a  corporation domiciled  in the  District of Columbia (in the
singular sense),  not in  the sense of being the 50 States of the
Union (in the plural sense).  The map shows all the States of the
Union, but  it also  shows  D.C.,  Puerto  Rico  and  the  Virgin
Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.

     Properly construed,  ZIP Codes  can only  be  applicable  in
Federal territories  and enclaves  that may be located within the
50 States  of the  Union, and to the "United States" and District
of Columbia  and its  territories --  cf. Piqua  Bank v. Knoup, 6
Ohio 342, 404 (1856) and U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936) to
the effect  that "in  every state  there are two governments; the
state and  the United States."  Therefore, ZIP Code addresses are
for the  corporate "United States" and its agents, for example, a
customs and duty collector at New York harbor, when they move out
into the  States of  the Union  to perform functions delegated to
the "United  States" by the National/Federal Constitution, or the
Pennsylvania  Department   of  Transportation,  Bureau  of  Motor
Vehicles, or a U.S. Congressman.

     But, by  propaganda, misleading  information  and  seditious
syntax, government has gotten nearly everyone in the 50 States of
the Union  to use  ZIP modes  of  address,  and  that  creates  a
PRESUMPTION or  a PREJUDICIAL  ADMISSION that  one is  in such  a
Federal venue, or that one is such a government agent.

     In general,  it is  well settled  in  law  that  Income  Tax
Statutes apply  only  to  corporations  and  to  their  officers,
agents, and  employees acting  in their official capacities, e.g.
from Colonial  Pipeline Co.  v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L.Ed.2d
1, 95 S.Ct. 1538 (1975):  "... However, all 'income tax statutes'
apply only  to state  created creatures  known as corporations no
matter whether state, local, or federal."  Since corporations act
only through  their officers,  employees, etc.,  the  income  tax
statutes  reach  out  to  them  when  acting  in  their  official
capacities, but not as individuals.  This is the real purpose for
Identifying Numbers  -- cf. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) & (g) and 26 USC
6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4.

     Use of  a ZIP Code address is tantamount to the admission of
being a  "citizen of  the United States" who does not necessarily
have the  protections  of  the  first  eight  Amendments  to  the
Constitution (in  the Bill  of Rights)  when proceeded against by
Federal or  State authority  -- Maxwell  v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20
S.Ct. 448  (1900), but,  "All the  provisions of the constitution
look to  an indestructible union of indestructible states", Texas
v. White,  7 Wall.  700;  U.S. v. Cathcart, 25 F.Case No. 14,756;
In re  Charge to  Grand Jury,  30 F.  Case No.  18,273  (65  C.J.
Section 2) -- not known to be overturned.

                             #  #  #

Also available from the same author:

"Brief of Law for ZIP Code Implications," by W. C. Updegrave, c/o
300 Adams Street  Esterly,  Reading,  NON-DOMESTIC,  Pennsylvania
(11 pages plus "Appendix of Unused Data and Quotes")


           My Continuing Objection to Mail Sent with a
             National Area ZIP Code Mode of Address


                         W. C. Updegrave
                  c/o 300 Adams Street, Esterly
                      Reading, Pennsylvania
                  zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

     1.   In spite  of my  repeated demands  that you correct the
way in which you send mail to me, you insist and persist, over my
most strenuous  objections and contrary to my repeated NOTICES to
you, to  continue to  send my mail with a National Area ZIP Code,
which is  both unnecessary,  even by  the application of Domestic
Mail statutes  and regulations,  and is, in fact, an unlawful and
fraudulent attempt  to define  me into an alien and foreign venue
and jurisdiction  that are,  as a matter of fact, contrary to the
Federal and  State  Constitutions  and  the  case  law  that  has
developed on  this issue.   Briefly  put,  on  the  basis  of  my
studies, such  an address  can only  properly  apply  to  Federal
enclaves within  the States  of the  Union, and  perhaps to  14th
Amendment citizens  of the United States.  For this reason alone,
you are  either making  a mistaken or a fraudulent presumption as
to my status.  How would you prefer to be classified:  as one who
made an error?  or one who has committed acts of fraud?  If it is
fraudulent, then  you are also engaged in a conspiracy against me
and mine.   All  such mail  is reviewed without prejudice but not

     2.   My use  of the  term "without  prejudice, UCC 1-207" in
connection with  my signature  on this  document,  or  any  prior
document or  instrument, indicates  that  I  have  exercised  the
remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code, Article I,
Section 207,  whereby I  have reserved  my natural and common law
right  not  to  be  compelled  to  perform  under  any  contract,
commercial  agreement,   or  bankruptcy  that  I  did  not  enter
knowingly, voluntarily  and intentionally, and reserved all other
Uniform Commercial  Code  and  common  law  remedies.    It  also
indicates that I do not intend to ratify any fraudulently induced
contract  by   continued  acceptance  of  the  benefits  thereof.
Furthermore,  it   notifies  all   administrative   agencies   of
government that  I do  not and  will  not  accept  the  liability
associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract,
commercial agreement or bankruptcy.

     3.   Briefly put,  Domestic Mail  Manual (DMM) Section 111.2
and the  copyrighted (hence,  "private" and  not governmental  at
all) NATIONAL AREA ZIP CODE DIRECTORY, page 11, both identify the
term  "United  States"  by  using  the  third  person,  singular,
personal pronoun "its", which relates only to the "United States"
at the  District of Columbia, its territories and ceded enclaves,
its agents  and its  "citizens".    In  this  context,  the  term
"citizen of  United States"  has a  very restricted definition --
cf.   26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) and 301.6109(g);  42 U.S.C. 1981 & 1982;
26 U.S.C.  3121(e);  26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) & (10);  etc.  It is to
be noted that in DMM 111.2, the term "United States" is used, but
none of the fifty states as the States in the Union is mentioned;
therefore,  the  maxim  expressio  unius  est  exclusio  alterius
(mention of  one thing  implies the  exclusion of others) becomes
applicable.   The 1789 Federal/National Constitution always makes
a distinction  between the  "States in the Union" and the "United
States", the  former always  being referenced  in the plural, and
the latter  sometimes being  so referenced.   The "United States"
has no  venue or  jurisdiction within  unceded territories inside
the "States in the Union" (e.g. see Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44
U.S. (3 How.) 212, 221, 223 (1845);  New Orleans v. U.S., 35 U.S.
(10 Pet.)  662, 737  (1836);   4 U.S.C. 72;  48 U.S.C. Chapters 2
and 3,  "The  Alaska  and  Hawaii  Omnibus  Acts";    18  U.S.C.,
Appendix, FRCrP Rules 1 and 54(c);  etc.) except where a man or a
corporation can  be presumed  to be  a  "citizen  of  the  United
States" (see  26 C.F.R.  1.1-1(a), (b)  and (c)),  or a  "Federal
citizen", or a "National citizen" (see U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252,
102 S.Ct.  1051, 71  L.Ed.2d 127  (1982), stating  that  National
("United   States")    citizenship   mandates   Social   Security
participation, but  the issues of jurisdiction and venue were not
raised  in   that  case,   and  it   was  argued  on  narrow  and
inappropriate statutory  grounds --  cf. the  dissent in Maine v.
Thiboutot, 448  U.S. 1,  65 L.Ed.2d  555, 100  S.Ct. 2502 (1980),
pages 30-31 especially).

     "All legislation is prima facie territorial."

                        [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.]
                                  [213  U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909)]

     "Legislation is  presumptively territorial  and confined  to
     limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction."

                          [New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm]
                                      [268 U.S. 29, 31-32 (1925)]

     ...  [T]he   "canon  of   construction  which  teaches  that
     legislation of  Congress, unless  a contrary intent appears,
     is meant  to apply  only within the territorial jurisdiction
     of the United States ...."

                              [U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222]
                                             [70 S.Ct. 10 (1949)]

     4.   Without getting  into the  several definitions  of  the
term "citizen",  which the  courts generally  construe to  mean a
mere civil status for one who is politically involved, McCafferty
v.  Guyer,  59  Pa.  109,  126-127  (Agnew  dissent),  etc.,  but
sometimes the  term is  limited to  a representative of a city in
Parliament, or  one who  is involved  in the  conduct and  policy
making of  a civil government, the following is certain authority
on the  subject for  those who are in that category.  Persons who
are "citizens  of the  United States" do not necessarily have all
the protections  of  the  first  eight  amendments  to  the  U.S.
Constitution  when   proceeded  against   by  federal  and  state
authorities (e.g., see Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S.Ct. 448
(1900)).  One of the elements that can lead to such presumptions,
by inference,  is the  acceptance of mail with a ZIP code mode of
address.   In Hooven  & Allison  v. Evatt,  324 U.S. 652, 671-672
(1944), the  U.S. supreme  Court has  ruled that  there are three
recognized meanings for the term "United States", to wit:

     The term  "United States"  may be used in any one of several
     senses.   It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying
     the position  analogous to  that of  other sovereigns in the
     family of  nations.   It may  designate the  territory  over
     which the  sovereignty of  the United  States extends, or it
     may be the collective name of the states which are united by
     and under the Constitution.6

     6.   See Langdell,  "The Status  of our New Territories," 12
     Harvard Law  Review 365,  371;   see also  Thayer, "Our  New
     Possessions," 12  Harvard Law  Review  464;    Thayer,  "The
     Insular Tariff  Cases in  the Supreme Court," 15 Harvard Law
     Review 164;   Littlefield,  "The Insular  Cases," 15 Harvard
     Law Review 169, 281.

But, those  three meanings  are simply evidence of the word games
that the  courts, legislatures  and bureaucrats  have played with
the minds  and rights  of the  freemen in this country.  See also
the clear admission in Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855).

     5.   The map  on page 11 of the ZIP CODE DIRECTORY indicates
that ZIP code denominators combine more than one of the States of
the Union,  hence they  define a special venue related to revenue
districts established, for example, by 26 U.S.C. 7621(a) and (b),
and those  are the  only legitimate  purposes for  such a mode of
address.   For instance,  the ZIP  codes that  denominate certain
areas in  the States of New York and Pennsylvania all use a five-
digit ZIP  code, the  first numeral  of which  begins with a "1",
e.g. "19600".   On  page 15,  ibid., a  list is  given  of  state
abbreviations with two capital letters, to be used in conjunction
with ZIP codes.

     6.   Contrary to  popular belief, "citizenship of the United
States" arises  from the  so-called 14th  Amendment, and  did not
exist  before  that  fraudulent  enactment  was  foisted  on  the
unsuspecting free men (see Utah v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975);
Dyett  v.   Turner,  439  P.2d  266,  272  (1968);    Adamson  v.
California, 332 U.S. 46 et seq. (1947);  Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal.
300 (1855);   Van  Valkenberg v.  Brown, 43  Cal. 43,  47 (1872);
U.S. v.  Anthony, 24 Fed. Case No. 14,459 at 830 (1873);  Cory et
al. v.  Carter, 48  Ind. 327,  349-350, 17  Am. Rep.  738 (1874);
Sharon v.  Hill, 26  Fed. Reporter  337 at  343-344;    State  v.
Manuel, 20  N.C. 144,  152;   Arver v. U.S., 245 U.S. 366, 388-89
(1917);   Hague v.  C.I.O., 307  U.S. 496, 509 (1938)).  In fact,
such statutory  provisions  as  42  U.S.C.  1981  and  1982,  now
codified in  the same  title of  the U.S.  Codes  as  the  Social
Security Act  (so  called),  still  clearly  make  a  distinction
between "citizen of the United States" and "white state citizen".
It is  also clear  from various other authorities that there is a
distinction  between   state  citizenship  for  whites  and  14th
Amendment citizenship  of the  United States,  since even  such a
distinction can  be drawn  from the language of the infamous 14th
Amendment itself.   In  Cory v. Carter, supra, quoting and basing
its analysis  on the  opinion in  the Slaughter  House Cases,  16
Wall. 36, the court, with respect to the First Section, said:

     "... [I]t  overturns the  Dred Scott  decision by making all
     persons born  within the  United States  and subject  to its
     jurisdiction citizens  of the  United States.  That its main
     purpose was  to establish  the citizenship  of the negro can
     admit of  no doubt."  ...   It recognizes  and establishes a
     "distinction between  citizenship of  the United  States and
     citizenship of a State."
                                                 [emphasis added]

However, with  reference to  the second clause, that same opinion

     This clause  does not  refer to  citizens of the States.  It
     embraces only  citizens of the United States.  It leaves out
     the words  "citizen of  the State,"  which is  so  carefully
     used, and  used in  contradistinction  to  citizens  of  the
     United States,  in the  preceding sentence.   It  places the
     privileges and  immunities of  citizens of the United States
     under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and leaves
     the privileges  and immunities  of citizens of a State under
     the protection  of the  State constitution.   This  is fully
     shown by  the recent  decision of  the Supreme  Court of the
     United States in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.

                                                 [emphasis added]

     7.   There are  lots of  reasons  to  believe,  e.g.  by  an
examination  of  42  U.S.C.  1982  (which  distinguishes  between
"citizens of the United States" and "white state citizens"), that
Taney's dicta in the Dred Scott case was not really overturned by
the 14th  Amendment, and  lots of authorities to show that it was
never validly  adopted or  ratified and  that, in  fact, the 14th
Amendment  did   not  repeal   any  part  of  the  original  1789
Constitution for the United States of America.

     Therefore, please  state concisely,  with supporting points,
rationale and authority:  What are the underlying presumptions by
which you send me mail using such a mode of address?

                             #  #  #

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