Time: Thu Oct 09 05:07:20 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA25326;
	Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:47:23 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA00790;
	Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:47:05 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 04:46:23 -0700
To: "Anderson, Toney" <Toney.Anderson@PSS.Boeing.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Daly v. The National Life Insurance Company

Congress can only create a corporation in its
capacity as the legislature for the federal zone; 
Congress cannot create a corporation in its
capacity as the legislature for the whole nation.

See Daly v. The National Life Insurance Company (1878).
These references are detailed in Appendix A of
"The Federal Zone," which you can buy from us,
in its electronic seventh edition, for $25.

Therefore, a corporation chartered by a Union state,
under the Tenth Amendment, cannot lawfully be:

an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, 
or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any
agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing  [sic]

The term "includes" in the definition of "employee" quoted below
is restrictive.  Therefore, you are NOT an "employee" if you
work for a corporation chartered by a Union state.  Furthermore,
if you will review the essay "Congresswoman Suspected of
Income Tax Evasion," in the Supreme Law Library, you will find,
to your great delight, that "State" in the IRC is restricted
to the named territories and possessions of the United States
(federal government).  The ONLY generic definition of "State"
is found at the companion statutes of IRC 7701(a)(9) and (10).
Here, "State" is strictly construed to "include" the District
of Columbia.

The historical background on this fraud can be found in 
the book entitled "The Roosevelt Coup D'Etat."   I gave
to Vern Holland in Tulsa his first copy of this book, and
Vern now sells this book.  He founded the Freeman Education
Association in Tulsa.

How about a donation to help us build the Supreme Law Library?
What I just told you hear is worth about $1 trillion, give or
take a few billion.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 10:41 AM 10/8/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Paul, I would like you to answer my question below ONLY if you think
>such an answer would be of general interest to others in similar
>situations, and would be one that you would want to be generally
>distributed. I am not trying to get a back-door, free legal opinion.


>Should I really need your services in the future, I will be glad to pay
>for them. (If this should be distributed, please strike out the name of
>my employer.)
>This morning I saw, for the first time, Karl Kleinpaste's correspondence
>with his former company, in respect to giving up his SS number. The CFO
>had no objections, at first anyway, but later, probably under pressure
>from the IRS and the company's own attorneys, he recanted. Anyway, I'm
>sure you are aware of all this. In this section of Karl's website he
>digressed into whether he is an "employee" and required to have a SS
>number.  His discussion is below.
>Here is my question, one that might be of interest to other corporation
>employees.  I work for The Boeing Company, which is one of the largest
>Defense contractors in the country, and have for 30 years. Am I, as a
>result of this employment, liable for taxes after all, and required to
>have a SS number?
>While on vacation in early August, I got a response from Lycos' CFO and
>legal counsel (both), which was painful. This has gotten seriously ugly:
>I was shown in exacting detail the Treasury Regulations which stipulate
>the requirement for "employees" to provide, or have provided for them, a
>SS#. In the process of this, if the company has to get it for an
>employee without the employee's help, they must then begin doing
>withholding at a "single, no exemptions" rate, in opposition to my In
>Lieu Of W-4 which placed me outside withholding until now. (I have had
>FICA withholding, but not fed withholding.) 
>See what the US Code says about this question: 
>	(c) Employee 
>	For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
>officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or
>any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any
>agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term
>''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation. 
>This is the only def'n of "employee" anywhere in the US Code. In
>general, an "employee" is someone who works for govt. Interesting, yes?
>Are you an "employee"? Maybe, maybe not. If you don't work for an actual
>state agency of some sort, and weren't elected to office, you may think
>the answer is No. 
>But what's an "agency or instrumentality" of govt? 
>Here's a sick answer, which is nonetheless really quite appropriate, and
>signifies deep, deep trouble out of which we need to crawl, if you ask
>me (or even if you don't): 
>	"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in
>this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the
>latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for
>examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his
>Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his
>private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He
>owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business,
>or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to
>incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives
>nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and
>property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to
>the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due
>process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his
>Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of
>himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of
>law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon
>their rights." 
>	"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the
>state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.
>It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them
>subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its
>rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it
>obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the
>legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has
>exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the
>State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises,
>could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises
>had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the
>production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis
>	--Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75. 
>I've had this citation around for a long time (in the driver brief) and
>I'm disappointed with myself that I didn't read this into it until now.
>Read the important statement again: 
>	"The corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to
>be incorporated for the benefit of the public." 
>A corporation is not private enterprise. A corporation does not operate
>by right. It operates, and has its existence, via a granted privilege.
>That privilege takes the form of its corporate charter. And thus, since
>one works for a govt-instantiated entity, one works for what is in
>effect an "agency or instrumentality" of govt. 
>I was an "employee." So are you, if you work for a corporation. 
>The use of incorporation as a vehicle for business structure is a Bad
>Thing. Once upon a time in this country, trusts were the fundamental
>building block of big business. But that hasn't been the case throughout
>nearly the entirety of this century. We really need to get back to it,
>if we're to avoid this problem in the general case. 
>Thank you, and have a nice day.
>Toney Anderson
>Telephone 425-237-9447
>Mail Stop 75-32
>E-Mail:  Toney.Anderson@Boeing.com


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail