Time: Fri Oct 03 19:48:36 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA24390;
	Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:48:49 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:48:37 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLF: The Municipal Revenue Code  [corrected]

Dear Friends,

This is a rather elaborate summary of
our progress to date in decoding the 
Internal Revenue Code.  

Please forward freely and widely.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Mitchell

>Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:43:14 -0700
>To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
>Subject: The Municipal Revenue Code  [corrected]
>Cc: pmitch@primenet.com
>>I take it, then, that your argument is that the Internal Revenue Code
>>is not enacted, and therefore subtitle F has not gone into effect, and
>>therefore the Secretary of the Treasury's creation of the IRS is
>>If so, again the basis for this argument has been rejected by the courts.
>>The ruling in _Young vs. IRS et al_ (1984, again another plaintiff-sues-IRS
>>case), states in part
>>  Although Congress did not pass the Code as a title, it did
>>  enact the Internal Revenue Code as a separate Code, 
>>  see Act of August 16, 1954, 68A Stat. 1, which was then
>>  denominated as Title 26 by the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to
>>  1 U.S.C. s 202(a).
>Okay, I see where one of the problems is:
>(setting aside ALL of the problems I have discussed previously):
>#1: the case admits that Title 26 has not been enacted as a title;
>#2: they are playing with words by saying that IRC is
>    a "Code" and, therefore, it can be cited as 26 U.S.C. (wrong);
>#3: they have not dealt with 7851(a)(6)(A), particularly
>    as regards the meaning of "this title", which is
>    clearly ambiguous in this all-important context.
>Please note that the Speaker of the House has admitted,
>in the Federal Register, that Title 26 has NOT been
>enacted into positive law;  therefore, it is NOT 
>conclusive evidence of the laws in question.  We must
>look to the Statutes at Large to find conclusive
>evidence of the law(s) in question.  By convention,
>we use the term IRC to embrace all enacted Statutes
>at Large which comprise the internal revenue laws.
>Remember, we are attacking the IRC and 26 U.S.C. for being
>void for vagueness.  There are hundreds of reasons why
>these statutes are void for vagueness, the most important
>of which is their deliberate vagueness with respect to their
>territorial application within the federal zone.  The term
>"this title" is very consistently used in Title 28 to refer
>to a Title of the United States Code.  The term "Code" and
>the term "Title" are not one and the same.  Some people
>have argued that "this title" in 7851 refers to the name,
>or commonplace description of the Act(s) in question.
>I argue that the usage in Title 28 controls, and that
>usage refers to an enacted Title of the United States Code.
>These two interpretations are obviously discrepant, and
>this understandable disagreement satisfies the rule that
>laws should be clear enough to nullify laws over which
>men of common intelligence must guess as to their meaning,
>and differ as to their application.  
>This debate has raged for years now, and I maintain that 
>the territorial application of the IRC is municipal, per force, 
>if nothing else due to the failed ratification of the 16th:
>there are NO APPORTIONMENT STATUTES anywhere in the IRC,
>and this is definitely NOT the only reason why it is a
>municipal code (small "c").  
>The bottom line is that the absence of clear liability statutes
> -- which do exist in the case of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, 
>and petroleum -- means that the entire IRC is "private law", 
>which is enforceable in equity;  when you hire into federal 
>employment, they treat the entire IRC as a contract in equity, 
>even if you are working and living within one of the several states.
>That is the main reason why proving federal employment,
>via a valid and duly executed Appointment Affidavit, 
>IN EQUITY.  Ask yourself this:  can the federal government
>FORCE one of their employees to complete a W-4?  I say no,
>because the U.S. Constitution protects federal employees too!
>Notice that Clarke has NOT attempted to prove that YOU are
>a federal employee;  THIS IS  VERY IMPORTANT IN YOUR CASE,
>because they MUST establish that a Citizen of Pennsylvania
>is necessarily SUBJECT TO the rules which govern federal
>employees, and you are OBVIOUSLY NOT one of them!!  Nor
>has Clarke even attempt to imply, or create any presumption,
>that you are a federal employee, by putting a SSN into
>Now, THERE is the crux of the matter, because this whole
>debate hinges on the real INTENT of the income tax, 
>which is to skim money back INTO the "treasury" that 
>would otherwise be kept by federal employees who are
>receiving it directly FROM the "treasury."  If you want,
>I can provide you with lots of reasons why the Public
>Salary Tax Act is unconstitutional, because its real
>intent is fraudulent:  the skimming is being done for
>the benefit of foreign banks and their principals.
>The money is being collected by IRS [sic] and then
>laundered via Trust #62 into the hands of foreign 
>(read "alien") bankers and their families, mostly
>European.  Howard Freeman has proven this, by showing
>what really happened when the federal government
>went bankrupt, secretly, in 1933.  So, this whole issue
>of Code v. Title v. Act v. IRC v. 26 U.S.C. actually
>shrouds the REAL INTENT:  the income tax "laws" [sic]
>are a deceptive elaboration of a kick-back scheme
>which was imposed upon all federal employees in 1939,
>via the Public Salary Tax Act, and the true territorial
>extent of the law, as regards non-federal employees,
>is the federal zone.  The admission by Rep. Barbara
>Kennelly makes that shockingly and abundantly clear:
>"State" embraces ONLY the named territories and
>possessions of the United States at IRC 3121(e),
>What we are doing our very best to demonstrate with our
>argument in 7851(a)(6)(A) is to show this statute
>as just one, albeit excellent, case in point:  there ARE 
>legitimate disagreements among men of common intelligence as to
>the true meaning and intent of key terms like "this title."
>The existence of these legitimate disagreements is proof,
>positive, that the statute(s) in question are void for
>vagueness.  But, 7851 is not the ONLY such statute;
>the whole thing is unconstitutional for violating
>the Sixth Amendment, because territorial application
>is the sine qua non of any good legislation.  
>The IRC is a set of municipal laws, which have no apportionment
>provisions, because the federal zone is exempt from 
>such provisions, pursuant to Downes v. Bidwell.  Now you
>know why we have also attacked Downes v. Bidwell:  direct
>taxes were intended to be spread across the entire nation,
>on a "per capita" basis.  A graduated, progressive, and
>non-apportioned tax on compensation is a blatant
>violation of 1:2:3 and 1:9:4.  It is socialism;  it is
>the Communist Manifesto.  It is null and void, ab initio,
>inside the several states.  See the Guarantee Clause for
>the final, pivotal proof.  If they have any shred of
>authority for treating the two zones differently, it is
>there, in the Guarantee Clause and NOT in Downes v.
>Bidwell.  The latter is  just a stupid, highly
>controversial 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court;
>the Guarantee Clause is SUPREME LAW, and you threw
>the whole debate into its proper perspective by claiming,
>Rightly, to be a Citizen of Pennsylvania state who was
>NOT also a federal citizen, by Right of Election.  This
>means that they cannot touch you with their municipal
>law(s), any more than Arizona state can touch you with
>its municipal laws, any more than Pennsylvania state
>can touch ME with its municipal laws!!!!!!
>So, when push really comes to shove, you will see that
>certain "officials" like Senator Barbara Boxer, have 
>admitted, in public, that the tax is totally voluntary.
>If you want, we can enter all the pleadings in People v.
>Boxer into your case;  I personally think we should!!
>They are about ready to be loaded into SLL.
>When you sign the W-4, you are authorizing withholding
>according to published schedules, and that W-4 authorizes
>the paymaster to be a withholding agent [sic].  This withholding
>agent then becomes the liable party, because s/he is holding
>money which belongs to the United States;  until that money
>is paid, the withholding agent is liable, and can be 
>prosecuted for tax evasion for NOT paying it.  It is really
>all that simple.  Also, when you sign the W-4 and/or when
>you complete a Form 1040, you are consenting to be treated
>as a "taxpayer" meaning that you are agreeing to be governed
>by all the private law which is enacted for the Municipal
>Revenue Code.  
>"Internal" means "municipal".  References available upon request.
>The pertinent citations are all assembled into the electronic
>seventh edition of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of
>Internal Revenue."  When you hear "code" think "Morse Code"!!!
>That Morse Code has now been cracked, and all the king's
>men cannot put the Code back together again, because the 
>deceptions are now established, proven, and unrebuttable.  
>Deception is fraud. 
>I rest my case.
>/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail