Time: Fri Dec 12 13:13:08 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA13482
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:10:25 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03642;
	Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:06:16 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd003530; Fri Dec 12 13:05:53 1997
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:00:57 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest" [sic] (fwd)

>Hi Brad and fellow patriots,
>I feel strongly compelled to respond to this posting, in particular this
>excerpt from Louis' posting. I'll address my first comments directly at
>Louis, though you have at this point, as you indicate later in your
>response, deliberately concealed Louis' address. Feel free, as you have
>my permission, to forward my reply directly to him should you deem it
>appropriate. I have sent this reply to my own collection of names and
>>>> The law review article I mentioned in an earlier note is entitled "The
>>>> Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar Whatever His
>>>> It
>>>> was written by Christopher S. Jackson, who is, according to the
>>>> "[c]andidate for the degree of LL.M. in Taxation, Southern Methodist
>>>> University School of Law, 1997; J.D. Gonzaga University School of Law,
>>>> The article can be found at 32 Gonz.L.Rev. 291 (1996-1997), and is
>>>> worth your time is you intend to pursue this journey.  You should be able
>>>> locate the article in any law school library.
>>Another "Caesar" apologist. Sad. 
>>Before I completely jump in here and attack this gross misconstruction of
>>fact ( i.e. Render unto Caesar...) I must state in fairness to Louis that
>>not totally sure on what side of the fence he sits on here. At best he
may be
>>simply sending information for educational purposes, or, at worst, he is
>>attempting to discredit this movement. I'll assume for the sake of
>>and as a basis for making my following points, that Louis is attempting to
>>discredit this movement under the false justification of: Render unto Caesar
>>that which is his. Therefore I'll respond to Louis as an adversary.
>>Louis, it greatly saddens me that you, as well as a significant majority of
>>this nation, are completely, and in some cases willfully ignorant of our
>>heritage. Which in turns breeds ignorance and misconception of many, if not
>>all, of our basic constitutional principles; especially the "tax" system as
>>witnessed by the RUC ( Render Unto Caesar ) justification. Before you read
>>this any further, I implore you to go to a dictionary and look up the word
>>sovereign and then look in the mirror. Do you see the face of a sovereign
>>looking back at you? Do you get that proud feeling of sovereignty when you
>>look at your paycheck? I didn't think so, I know I certainly don't. Now that
>>you have hopefully looked up the word sovereign, let's place it into
>>meaningful perspective as it applies to the RUC complex. 
>>We, as in "We the People" are the sovereigns, Louis. Think about that
>>carefully. WE _ ARE _ THE _ SOVEREIGNS. Repeat as many times as necessary
>>till you realize this and come then to the inevitable logical conclusion
>>that, and this is where the RUC complex crashes to the ground: *WE*, Louis,
>>are the Caesar's! Not the defacto "leaders" we have who pretend, and have
>>most duped into believing otherwise. They are *OUR* servant's and
>>representatives, they really can't even be considered leaders, in the
>>strictest sense of the word. And that, my dear friend, is, in a nut shell,
>>the very reason this once great country is decaying into a third world
>>nation, a nation of men instead of law.
>>Having made the above point, I could stop right hear as nothing more
needs to
>>said. However, for some reason, chalk it up to the spirit of giving in this
>>season, I shall continue...
>>If we were to back up here and disregard the point I just made and pretend
>>for he moment that we live under the authority of a  "Caesar", ( even the
>>thought of pretending we have a Caesar for this example wretches my
stomach )
>>I must then ask a few questions of you about Caesar's power.
>>First, does Caesar have unlimited powers?
>>If no, then what are Caesar's limits?
>>Does Caesar have the rightful power to take from one, by force, and give it
>>to another?
>>( Note: I use the term rightful power, as Caesar my very well have the
>>physical power at this point to do whatever the hell he damn well wishes.
>>But, rightful power??? )
>>Does "Caesar have the rightful power to put you and me, as well as our
>>children into debt?
>>Are you beginning to see the real picture here, Louis?
>>"Caesar's" rightful powers even in the context of this hypothetical thought
>>example are in fact quite limited. Until you understand the limits, and more
>>importantly *WHY* those limits were created, then neither you or the
>>of this nation will ever understand the value or meaning of liberty. I'm
>>talking the kind of liberty that men pledge their sacred honor, their
>>property, and if need be their lives to defending. Certainly not the
>>rhetorical kind spewed forth from our present "Caesar(s)".
>>So Louis, I'll now take leave of my direct reply to you and leave you
this to
>>1. We didn't elect Caesar.
>>2. The constitution prohibits Caesar ( government ) from enforcing a
>>direct tax without apportionment.
>>3. The constitution prohibits Caesar from waving our rights unless we
>>do so voluntarily.
>>4. Finally, Caesar is destroying his country with massive loads of debt not
>>authorized in the constitution. He ran one country into the ground,
>>you'd think we'd learn from history.
>>Death to Caesar!!!
>>Just one last thing Louis, if by some chance your thinking has been
>>to the point that you believe Caesar has unlimited rightful power to tax (
>>destroy ) then I must challenge you with this: Are you willing to put *YOUR*
>>life on the line to defend your beliefs? I'm am prepared to defend my
>>with my life. And I say this with the clearest of conscience.
>>> The reference in the title to the movement as "inane" may be true based
>>> the mountains of case law based on totally erroneous arguments.
However, I
>>> take exception to the "tax protest" label.  How can it be against the law
>>> this land to protest a tax code which is purposefully vague?
>>Louis doesn't realize that this great nation was started by a tax protest.
>>I'm sure that the Louis's of the day at that time were all saying the very
>>same things to them damn revolutionaries. 
>>In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, 
>>and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, 
>>for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
>>Mark Twain -- Notebook, 1904
>>> I am blind copying my internal list on this, so that everyone can go and
>>> for themselves.  They are entitled to see what they are up against.  
>>Thanks Brad, though I'm sure, as I know I am, fully what we're up against.
>>> Your address has been obscured to protect your identity.
>>You may freely use my address, I have nothing to fear or be ashamed of.
>>> As a personal note to the rest of the list, I would offer that I have
>>> received several emails which disparage Louis based solely on his
>>> profession.  He does not deserve this.  I want Louis to know that I
>>> personally believe that the original 13th Amendment was properly ratified,
>>> but will not hold it against him.  We can all learn from each other, and I
>>> thank him kindly for his efforts.
>>Since you have only partially quoted Louis's mailing, I can only guess at
>>what profession Louis is engaged in. I would tend to conclude that since you
>>were discussing the real 13th amendment, that Louis carries a title of
>>nobility, perhaps barrister?
>>> I got a DEMAND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS against a Willful Failure to File
>>> from a friend, and would be pleased to pass it along to anyone who
>>> it. Be advised that it is HUGE. It shows the arguments on which we base
>>> issue and defense, and demands a point by point response from the federal
>>> prosecutor, under penalty of perjury, so that we can understand the cause
>>> and nature of the offense, and so be able to enter a plea.
>>Please do, Brad.
>>I'll be on vacation till the new year.
>>Send all e-mail to me from my web page link below my name. If you do a
>>reply to this mail, it will come to me at work, so I wouldn't be able to
>>or respond to it till next year.
>>For those of you who don't have web access:
>>Best wishes to all! ... even you barrister(?) Louis.
>>Bill Watts
>>The jury has a right to judge both the 
>>law as well as the fact in controversy.
>>John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. 
>>Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 
>>To consider the judges as the 
>>ultimate arbiters of all constitutional 
>>questions is a very dangerous 
>>doctrine indeed, and one which 
>>would place us under the despotism 
>>of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson 
>>If we can prevent the government from 
>>wasting the labors of the people under 
>>the pretense of caring for them, the 
>>people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
>>The Libertarian Party:

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