Time: Fri Dec 12 13:02:12 1997 To: "Watts, William (HT-EX)" <WWatts@NLvl.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: RE: Law Review Article Cc: Bcc: References: Correction: we are "illegal tax protestors" ... ... because the tax is illegal, not the protest, and certainly not the protestors. /s/ Paul Mitchell, Candidate for Congress http://supremelaw.com At 02:19 PM 12/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >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 >lists. >> >>>> The law review article I mentioned in an earlier note is entitled "The >>>>Inane >>>> Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar Whatever His Demands". >>>> It >>>> was written by Christopher S. Jackson, who is, according to the footnotes, >>>>a >>>> "[c]andidate for the degree of LL.M. in Taxation, Southern Methodist >>>> University School of Law, 1997; J.D. Gonzaga University School of Law, >>>>1996. >>>> The article can be found at 32 Gonz.L.Rev. 291 (1996-1997), and is >>>>definitely >>>> worth your time is you intend to pursue this journey. You should be able >>>>to >>>> 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 I'm >>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 simplicity >>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 majority >>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 >>ponder: >> >>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 perverted >>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 beliefs >>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 >>>upon >>> 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 >>>in >>> 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 >>>see >>> 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 requests >>> it. Be advised that it is HUGE. It shows the arguments on which we base >>>this >>> 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 simple >>reply to this mail, it will come to me at work, so I wouldn't be able to read >>or respond to it till next year. >> >>For those of you who don't have web access: >> >>wwatts@nothinbut.net >> >>Best wishes to all! ... even you barrister(?) Louis. >> >>Bill Watts >>http://www.nothinbut.net/~wwatts/ >> >>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, >>1794:4 >> >>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: >> >>http://www.lp.org/lp/ > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail