Time: Tue Dec 16 16:37:51 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: ANTI-IRS Stuff Questioned Cc: Bcc: jamoon@hgo.net References: 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 forum. 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. Kelley. 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 http://supremelaw.com At 09:28 AM 12/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Paul: > >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? > >Richard > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail