Time: Tue Dec 16 16:37:51 1997
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: ANTI-IRS Stuff Questioned
Bcc: jamoon@hgo.net

My position on all of these points
is well documentd in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF;  and, to defend that
position, I have now formally applied for
intervention in his appeal, on behalf
of the People of the United States
of America (NOT the People of the 
United States, who are clearly a 
different class of People).  See the
Guarantee Clause for authority that the
United States and the United States of America
are NOT one and the same.  Under the Tenth
Amendment, they CAN'T be one and the same!

Think about that!!

I am already the Private Attorney General
of record in People v. United States et al.,
filed in Billings, and also in west Texas state.
Confer at "Attorney General, Private Attorney
General" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth 
Edition, for authority.  I am now an announced
candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Take a close look at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B),
then read "Karma and the Federal Courts,"
and then tell me what YOU think.  Do you, 
or do you not, believe that the cases cited 
in that essay support my finding that there
are two (2) classes of federal courts?  

The full citations are in the OPENING BRIEF.

The federal judge in the grand jury case 
ruled that the USDC was not the proper forum
to bring a request under the FOIA!!!  That can
only mean one thing, then:  the DCUS is the
proper forum, and the USDC is NOT the proper

I know what Ralph thinks.  Unfortunately
for him, the Alabama Supreme Court has
already held that there are two (2)
classes of citizenship, and the Philippine
Supreme Court has held that citizenship,
as such, is a term of municipal law.
That court also held that one can be in
one class, and not the other!  Read it!!
Ralph's crony, Larry Becraft, has an office in
Huntsville, and once wrote that the income
tax was imposed on "aliens here and citizens
abroad."  WHICH citizens?  Such garbage!!

The rest of the story is in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, and all the various 
appendices which were incorporated in
that BRIEF.  Let's debate the merits,
shall we, instead of citing federal cases which
never had jurisdiction, and opinions which were
issued by judges who had an obvious, adverse
conflict of interest, because of their
"contracts" with the IRS, in violation
of Article III, Evans v. Gore, and Lord v.

If you like, I can tell you some things,
but privately, about Becraft and the
Save-A-Patriot fellowship, which might
make your hair stand on end.  It did make
mine stand on end, for quite some time.

Hint:  Becraft told the New Life Health
Center officers that the company no longer
had a right to a jury trial in the grand
jury subpoena case I litigated.  Upon hearing
that he had done so, I simply recited FRCP Rule 38
to the client, and he agreed with me that the
language is rather clear:  "preserved inviolate."

Those pleadings are now published, in detail,
in the Supreme Law Library.  Please help yourself;
be your own judge;  and please also tell all your
friends about this wonderful resource, which has
been brought to you at great personal sacrifice
by everyone involved.

Last but not least, don't believe me!  
Please contact Bill Medina in Sunnyvale, 
California, for another professional opinion.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 09:28 AM 12/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Ralph @ Teaminfinity has just released a comprehensive list of "bogus
>arguments" concerning the many and varied attempts to show that the IRC
>and the IRS have no basis in positive law, that State Citizens are not
>federal citizens, and so on and so on.  Many of the points have ten to
>twenty cases cited, and it is his conclusion that the "non-resident"
>arguments won't hold up and folks will go to jail.
>Also, his cites indicate that having failed to enact Positive Law does
>not invalidate the rest of the IRC ... and he addresses the question of
>is the Sec. of the Treasury actually a foreign agent (of the IMF).
>He says we are all lost in the tall grass, essentially.  Also, he
>indicates that the use of all capital letters in court cases goes all
>the way back to the origins of the Supreme Court and is not a post-1933
>invention.  I.e., the "nom de guerre" argument is thus fallacious and
>cannot be used as defensive move.  Boy, I am really confused now.
>Haven't you established, by the failure of the I.R.S. to respond to your
>questions about their "Attorneys" that this Positive Law issue is valid
>and not fraudulent?

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail