Time: Fri Nov 14 05:18:22 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA04577
for [address in tool bar]; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:17:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:17:09 -0700
To: butchaz@juno.com (Alfred R Martin)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: SLS: Arizona Department of Revenue
Alfred,
If you submit a FOIA to them,
requesting a certified copy of
their version of the Agreement on
Coordination of Tax Administration
which they have entered with IRS,
they can do 2 things:
1. say FOIA does not apply to them,
because it is federal law; or,
2. answer the FOIA with the requested
document.
In the first case, that will be an
admission that they are not operating
under color of federal municipal law,
and you can proceed on that admission
accordingly, i.e., they are claiming
authority under Arizona organic law.
In the second case, that will be an
admission that they ARE operating under
color of federal municipal law, and you
will then proceed accordingly.
Once you establish your standing as a
bona fide Citizen of Arizona state,
whether or not they are operating
under color of federal municipal law,
you can invoke both the state and the
federal constitutions to govern their
conduct.
This means, as you know, that the
Fifth Amendment fundamental Right
to due process of law invokes 18 U.S.C. 242
and two human Rights treaties to guarantee
due process of law to you. See also
18 U.S.C. 241.
As a Citizen of Arizona state, however,
federal municipal law does NOT apply to you
and cannot be enforced upon you.
The Agreement on Coordination of Tax
Administration can also be demanded via
the applicable administrative practices
statutes, which THEY must obey, because
those statutes are municipal law which
State of Arizona employees must obey,
NOT you!
Got it?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: SLS
At 09:29 PM 11/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Alfred Martin
>c/o General Delivery at:
>17249 North 7 Street # 1004
>Phoenix, Arizona STATE
> Friday,
>April 14, 1997
>Dear Employer:
>
>Enclosed are two more pages of lies from “NO NAME” at the Arizona
>Department of Revenue. As you can see, (from the copy of the letters
>that I sent to the Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Governor Hull and the Attorney
>General Grant Woods), they are going to allow the bitch at the Arizona
>Department of Revenue continue with her fraud. It appears Lucy has
>acquired Judicial Powers (or is impersonating a Judicial Officer).
>
>As you can see from the enclosed Letters of Threat from the Arizona
>Department of Revenue (not a court) I have been notified to pay up
>withinn 10 days or they will levy my wages or state tax lien to satisfy
>the alledged outstanding amount due.
>
>NOTE: I have never refused to pay the alledged amount due. I have
>demanded “Due Process of
>Law” and asked them to send me The court judgment showing that Alfred
>Martin is subject to a tax on his earnings, and showing that Alfred
>Martin is also Liable for such tax. As you can see, these people of the
>State of Arizona (Sheriff, Governor, Attorney General and Legislator) do
>not care how the Citizens of the State are denied “Due Process of Law”
>and defrauded their property.
>
>Here is what they legally have to do to effect a levy or garnishment upon
>my property: Take the
>matter to the Department of Law and the Department fo Law bring an action
>to a Court of
>competent jurisdiction to recover the amount of any taxes, penalties and
>interest. (ARS 42-125).
>
>Alfred Martin will Pay such amounts due and Owing as soon as I receive
>such court judgment.
>There is no reason for anyone to send a Notice of Levy to you CLAIMING
>that I am indebted to
>them. Be aware that the Notice of Levy is not an order for you to seize
>any of my wages and send it to them. A Notice of Levy is not a seizure
>order! Note that any attempt to take money from my check without a court
>order is an unlawful act and you and the Arizona Department of Revenue
>will be a participant in theft of my wages. You are hereby placed on
>notice that I will file a mechanic's lien for every penny you take from
>my check without a Court Judgment, signed by a
>Judge attesting to the facts. There is no doubt that I will prove that
>due process was not
>followed and will recover from you.
>
>Note that if this matter goes to Court, several months may have elapsed.
>By that time you will owe me THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of wages plus costs,
>damages, etc.. In addition, a Court
>Decision will adversely affect your credit rating and you will spend
>money needlessly hiring a
>lawyer to defend a case for which there is NO HOPE of your winning. Can
>you afford to let the NO NAME at the Arizona Department of Revenue put
>you into this position, either now or in the
>future?
>
>To prevent this from happening, I would suggest that you write to the
>Attorney General prior to
>commencement of any garnishment or levy upon my property. You should ask
>him about whether they have proof of performing EACH AND EVERY REQUIRED
>STEP OF DUE PROCESS. Here is a partial list:
>
>1.. Ask them how they got jurisdiction over me in order to impose such a
>tax.
> I assure you that any claimed jurisdiction was obtained through fraud
>and deceit and is not valid.
>
>2. Ask for all records relative to their assessment of these taxes.
>
>3. Ask them for a copy of the Court Decision confirming my liability for
>this tax and a copy of the
>transcript of this hearing.
>
>4. Most importantly, ask them for a GUARANTEE to reimburse you when a
>Court rules that you
>and they have acted illegally to steal my property.
>
>I regret that you are in this position. However, I am not the cause.
>The criminals operating under
>color of law known as the Arizona Department of Revenue, The Governors
>office and the Sheriff
>Office are to blame for both our problems. Note that I enjoy the
>protection of the EEOC in this
>matter. If terminated for asserting my rights to due process, they will
>be filing a suit for damages.
>
>Again, I do not wish to put you in an uncomfortable position. Write the
>Attorney Generals Office
>and TRY to get the answers. If they will give you a GUARANTEE to
>reimburse you WHEN the
>Court orders you to give my money back (plus costs, damages, etc.), then
>you can proceed with the seizure without a court order, knowing that you
>are protected from loss. However, if they refuse or fail to answer the
>above questions within 30 days of your request AS I FULLY EXPECT, you
>should inform them that you are not going to get involved in theft under
>color of law, either now in my case or in any other attempt to take money
>from the wages of other employers absent such answers in the future.
>
>
>All Rights reserved
>
>
>
>
>cc/ Department of Labor
> Supreme Court
>
>
===========================================================================
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 toolbar] : 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 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail