Time: Sat Nov 29 07:26:53 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23202
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:25:41 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16849;
	Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:25:48 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd016819; Sat Nov 29 07:25:33 1997
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:21:45 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Sen. Harkin IRS knowledge (fwd)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>>  Although the IRC is used as the basis for the so called income tax, 
>>  the personal income tax does not derive its authority from the 16th 
>>  Amendment, Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR or any other constitutional 
>>  or federal provision, as those authorities fell with the loss of our 
>>  National money standard in 1933.  Since 1933, the people have formed 
>>  new unincorporated United States in trust by their silence in 
>>  accepting the loss of their ability to pay their debts at law.  In 
>>  other words, the suspension of our National money standard created a 
>>  void in the law, consequently a resulting or implied trust rushed in 
>>  to fill the void.  In a resulting or implied trust, there are no terms 
>>  of how and who is to administer the terms of the trust, therefore you 
>>  cannot put the blame on anyone besides the people for letting the 
>>  trust be established.  "The United States Government may be the 
>>  trustee of a charitable trust."  Russell v. Allen, 107 U.S. 163, 27 L 
>>  Ed 397 and further; "The United States or a state has capacity to take 
>>  and hold property upon a charitable trust, but in the absence of a 
>>  statute otherwise providing, the charitable trust is unenforceable 
>>  against the United States or a state."  In other words, the code does 
>>  not define who is required to file and what the terms are, but when 
>>  you use the IRC as your argument, you admit to conveying your estate 
>>  to the public trust, thus all your arguments have little or no merit.  
>>  It then becomes a constant battle finding niches in the code which the 
>>  IRS eventually overcomes and it comes down to how much you owe and 
>>  when you are going to pay. In the meantime, you cannot own anything 
>>  because they put a lien on it and it is hell getting rid of the lien.  
>>  You must also remember that you are also considered a beneficiary of 
>>  the trust and as such, unjust enrichment comes into play.
>>  Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution states:
>>  New (S)tates may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no 
>>  new (S)tate shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any 
>>  other (S)tate; nor any (S)tate be formed by the Junction of two or 
>>  more (S)tates, or Parts of (S)tates, without the Consent of the 
>>  Legislatures of the (S)tates concerned as well as of the Congress. ( ) 
>>  added.
>>  Article IV § 3 clearly states that in order to establish new 
>>  incorporated (S)tates under the Constitution, the legislatures and 
>>  Congress must follow the Constitutional rules. 
>>  But, being there is no prohibition under Article IV c. 3 or any other 
>>  provisions of the Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an 
>>  association of new unincorporated (s)tates, and being there is no 
>>  charter of incorporation of the new (s)tates and just what its duties 
>>  are, i.e., its intents and purposes, a resulting or implied 
>>  (charitable) trust is formed by operation of law.  As a result of the 
>>  foregoing, when you go into court, the judge constructs a trust 
>>  whereby he takes judicial notice that you are a beneficiary of the 
>>  trust and invokes unjust enrichment on your part, consequently there 
>>  is no Constitutional Law, only the conscience of the masses in the 
>>  trust governed by courts of equity whereby all property, real and 
>>  personal, is held in common to everybody in the trust, i.e., every 
>>  3person² reinsures each others debts and responsibility, in limited 
>>  liability. In other words, by operation of law, the people have formed 
>>  new unincorporated (s)tates that operate outside the Constitution 
>>  under their right to contract to convey their property as gift in 
>>  trust, thereby creating relative rights instead of absolute rights.  
>>  As stated earlier, being there is no charter of incorporation and just 
>>  what its duties and jurisdiction consist of, this public trust of 
>>  unincorporated (s)tates reverts back to the Articles of Confederation 
>>  because, under the Articles, taxation and commerce were and are under 
>>  the control of the (s)tates outside the control of the federal 
>>  Government.  In other words, the IRC is not under control of Congress1 
>>  general powers, but rather its authority lies under local law which is 
>>  (s)tate law under the Erie RR doctrine.  The Articles were in force 
>>  from March 1781 to March 1789. They were never abolished, but 
>>  discredited by 1786, thus not being incorporated into the 
>>  Constitution. Most authorities of that time agree that had it not been 
>>  for the Articles of Confederation, our Constitutional Republic would 
>>  not have survived, but taxation and commerce being under control of 
>>  the states created major problems as we are witnessing today under 
>>  local law.  You must bear in mind that the major reason the Articles 
>>  was disbanded were the Articles would not recognize the law of 
>>  nations, therefore your contract rights were limited to state law or 
>>  what is known today as local law.  Erie held that the law of the 
>>  (s)tate shall apply in the absence of the Constitution or Acts of 
>>  Congress. First, Erie does not say the incorporated (S)tate but the 
>>  unincorporated (s)tate. Secondly, Erie does not differentiate between 
>>  foreign or domestic commerce, nor does it differenate between local or 
>>  general Acts of Congress.
>>  I go ballistic when I hear folks say its the incorporated (S)tates 
>>  that is doing us in. Go to your state constitution and check to see if 
>>  the state boundary lines are there. Oh!, you say they are not there. 
>>  Well then, how can the incorporated (S)tate or (S)tates be doing us in 
>>  when there is no boundary lines drawn between the various 
>>  Constitutional (S)tates incorporated under the Union of (S)tates.
>>  Congress has no general powers over the people and the U.S. Supreme 
>>  Court has stated this many times over. The purpose of the personal 
>>  income tax is to tax those who want government acting under local law 
>>  (public policy) to take care of them, which unfortunately is what most 
>>  of the people want and expect and therein lies the major problem.  
>>  Anyhow, silence is consent, therefore you are required to file tax 
>>  returns and share your wealth with undesirables, that is, unless you 
>>  use the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act at 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611, 
>>  passed in 1976, that restricts government in whatever form from taking 
>>  your property without your consent.  
>>  Congress under its article I powers, passed the FSIA in 1976 in order 
>>  to offer to those who are dissatisfied with public policy, a statutory 
>>  remedy to the Constitution under Article III. Your access to the 
>>  Constitution runs directly through the FSIA in every area in dealing 
>>  with government, federal  state, and local. In short, the FSIA 
>>  codified the era of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1 (1842-1938) whereby a 
>>  jury trial can now be demanded, if desired, in State court on any 
>>  statutory issue covered by the FSIA against federal, state or local 
>>  government. Congress specifically stated that the FSIA must be 
>>  interpreted by State courts consistently with international law.  The 
>>  FSIA guarantees a statutory remedy in an Article III court regardless 
>>  of the citizenship of plaintiff under international law outside the 
>>  realm of equity, Erie, Title 42 and other public policy.  FSIA also, 
>>  waives sovereign immunity for commercial activities of state and 
>>  federal governments which consists of about 90% of government 
>>  activity. 
>>  In summation, arguing the Internal Revenue Code is an effort in 
>>  futility. 
>>  Lee Brobst
>/s/ Terry Anderson
>Renton, Washington state

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