Time: Wed Dec 17 08:01:43 1997 To: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: SNET: I WROTE IT! Cc: Bcc: References: Because I am the author, you stupid idiot. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 08:39 AM 12/17/97, you wrote: > >-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List > >It is posted to the Internet, and you are going to SUE me for copyright >violation(s)??? >Goodluck pal!!!! > >Question Mitch, Paul or who ever you are....why did you post the original >to SNET as 'Paul Andrew Mitchel' as the 'Author' of the MEMO and the one in >the Book (that you wrote) as "Mitch Modeleski"??? ODD...don't ya' think???? >Pen Name my A**!!! > > > >At 05:59 AM 12/17/97 -0800, you wrote: >> >>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List >> >>TO: <han-wi@pop.ri.ultranet.com> >> >>One last thing: YOU are in violation >>of the copyright restrictions stated >>in the Preface. >> >>You have now been lawfully notified. >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >>Candidate for Congress >>http://supremelaw.com >> >> >>At 07:35 AM 12/17/97, you wrote: >>> >>>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List >>> >>>Paul Andrew Mitchel posted this memo as the AUTHOR, yet in the book (The >>>Federal Zone) the Memo is from Mitch Modeleski to S-A-P. So PAUL which is >>>it??? And why did Mitch give you NO credit as the author of the MEMO???? >>>Have you sued ??? >>> >>>Anyone who wishes to verify this can go to >>http://www.deoxy.org/fz/fedzone.htm >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>---- >>><Paul Andrew Mitchel's Post> >>> >>>MEMO >>> >>>TO: Edward A. Ellison, Jr., J.D. >>> John William Kurowski >>> >>>FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Author >>> "The Federal Zone" >>> >>>DATE: March 24, 1992 >>> >>>SUBJECT: "Direct Taxation and the 1990 Census" >>> your essay in Reasonable Action newsletter, >>> Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, July/August 1991 >>> >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>><From the book!!!!> >>> >>>Appendix W: Memos on Downes vs Bidwell >>> >>> >>>MEMO >>>TO: Edward A. Ellison, Jr., J.D. >>> John William Kurowski >>>FROM: Mitch Modeleski, Founder >>> Account for Better Citizenship >>>DATE: March 24, 1992 >>>SUBJECT: "Direct Taxation and the 1990 Census" >>> your essay in Reasonable Action newsletter, >>> Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, July/August 1991 >>> >>> >>> >>>I was very gratified to see such a thorough and authoritative treatment >>>of "direct taxation" in the July/August 1991 issue of the Reasonable >>>Action newsletter. My research continues to convince me of the extreme >>>constitutional importance of the apportionment rule for direct taxes >>>levied by Congress within the 50 States of the Union. I am writing this >>>memo to share with you some of my thoughts on the subject, and to offer >>>my challenge to a few points which are not necessarily beyond dispute. >>>Please understand that I am in general agreement with most, but not all >>>of your essay. Permit me to play "devil's advocate" as I focus on some >>>issues which deserve greater elaboration and substantiation. >>>The so-called 16th Amendment remains highly relevant to this subject, >>>for a number of important reasons. First of all, since 1913, several >>>federal courts have attempted to isolate the precise effects of a >>>ratified 16th Amendment. Unfortunately for us, when all of these cases >>>are assembled side-by-side, the rulings are not consistent. We are >>>forced to admit the existence of separate groups of court decisions that >>>flatly contradict each other. One group puts income taxes into the class >>>of indirect, excise taxes. Another group puts income taxes into the >>>class of direct taxes. One group argues that a ratified 16th Amendment >>>did not change or repeal any other clause of the Constitution. Another >>>group argues that a ratified 16th Amendment relieved income taxes from >>>the apportionment rule. Even experts disagree. To illustrate the range >>>of disagreement on such fundamental constitutional issues, consider the >>>conclusion of legal scholar Vern Holland: >>> >>> >>> ... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment did not amend the >>> Constitution. The United States Supreme Court by unanimous >>> decisions determined that the amendment did not grant any >>> new powers of taxation; that a direct tax cannot be >>> relieved from the constitutional mandate of apportionment; >>> and the only effect of the amendment was to overturn the >>> theory advanced in the Pollock case which held that a tax on >>> income, was in legal effect, a tax on the sources of the >>> income. >>> [The Law That Always, page 220] >>> >>> >>> >>>Now consider the opposing view of another competent scholar. After much >>>research and much litigation, author and attorney Jeffrey A. Dickstein >>>offers the following concise clarification: >>> >>> >>> A tax imposed on all of a person's annual gross receipts is >>> a direct tax on personal property that must be apportioned. >>> A tax imposed on the "income" derived from those gross >>> receipts is also a direct tax on property, but as a result >>> of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress no longer has to enact >>> legislation calling for the apportionment of a tax on that >>> income. >>> [Judicial Income and Your Income Tax, pages 60-61] >>> >>> >>> >>>The following Appellate ruling is unique among all the relevant federal >>>cases for its clarity and conciseness on this question: >>> >>> >>> The constitutional limitation upon direct taxation was >>> modified by the Sixteenth Amendment insofar as taxation of >>> income was concerned, but the amendment was restricted to >>> income, leaving in effect the limitation upon direct >>> taxation of principal. >>> [Richardson vs United States, 294 F.2d 593 (1961)] >>> [emphasis added] >>> >>> >>> >>>Granted, this is not a decision by the Supreme Court, but the decision >>>is useful because it is so clear and concise, and also because it is >>>very representative of that group of rulings which found that a ratified >>>16th Amendment relieved income taxes from the apportionment rule. By >>>inference, if income taxes were controlled by the apportionment rule >>>prior to the 16th Amendment, then they must be direct taxes (according >>>to one group of rulings). >>> >>>Recall now that 17,000 State-certified documents have been assembled to >>>prove that the 16th Amendment was never ratified. Congress has already >>>been served with several official complaints documenting the evidence >>>against the 16th Amendment, pursuant to the First Amendment guarantee >>>for redress of grievances. Congress has now fallen silent. I am the >>>author of one of these complaints (see The Federal Zone, Appendix J). >>>Relying on one group of rulings, the Pollock, Peck, Eisner and Shaffer >>>decisions leave absolutely no doubt about the consequences of the failed >>>ratification: the necessity still exists for an apportionment among the >>>50 States of all direct taxes, and income taxes are direct taxes. >>> >>>Federal courts did not hesitate to identify the effects of a ratified >>>16th Amendment. Now that the evidence against its ratification is so >>>overwhelming and incontrovertible, the federal courts are unwilling to >>>identify the effects of the failed ratification. These courts have opted >>>to call it a "political" question, even though it wasn't a "political" >>>question in the years immedNow that the evidence against its >>>ratification is so overwhelming and incontrovertible, the federal courts >>>are unwilling to identify the effects of the failed ratification. These >>>courts have opted to call it a "political" question, even though it >>>wasn't a "political" question in the years immediately after Philander >>>C. Knox declared it ratified. I personally find it hard to believe that >>>the federal courts are incapable of exercising the logic required to >>>isolate the legal effects of the failed ratification. Quite simply, if a >>>ratified 16th Amendment had effect X, then a failed ratification proves >>>that X did not happen. What is X? Their "political" unwillingness to >>>exercise basic logic means that the federal courts have abdicated their >>>main responsibility -- to uphold the constitution -- >>> >>>Let me begin my answer to that question by first quoting from your >>>essay, in the section entitled "Documenting the Truth": >>> >>> >>> The Constitution still grants to the Congress the power of >>> laying an "apportioned" direct tax but notwithstanding the >>> advent of the 16th Amendment all "direct" taxes must be >>> apportioned. There is no exception to this rule. >>> [emphasis added] >>> >>> >>> >>>In a strictly normative sense, I would certainly agree that this is the >>>way it should be. But, in a practical and empirical sense, is this >>>really the way it is? I say no. In exercising its exclusive authority >>>over the federal zone, Congress is not subject to the same >>>constitutional limitations that exist inside the 50 States. For this >>>reason, the areas that are inside and outside the federal zone are >>>heterogeneous with respect to each other. This difference results in a >>>principle of territorial heterogeneity: the areas within (or inside) the >>>federal zone are subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or >>>outside) the federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. The >>>Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 States. The >>>Congress rules inside the zone and outside the 50 States. The 50 States >>>are, therefore, in one general class, because all constitutional >>>restraints upon Congress are in force throughout the 50 States, without >>>prejudice to any one State. The areas within the federal zone are in a >>>different general class, because these same constitutional restraints >>>simply do not limit Congress inside that zone (see The Federal Zone, >>>chapters 12 and 13). >>> >>>I would never ask you to accept this principle of territorial >>>heterogeneity simply on faith. There is solid case law to substantiate >>>it. You may recall, it is the Hooven case which officially defined the >>>three separate and distinct meanings of the term "United States". This >>>same definition can also be found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth >>>Edition. The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time >>>it would address official definitions of the term "United States". >>>Therefore, this ruling must be judicially noticed by the entire American >>>legal (and paralegal) community. In my opinion, the most significant >>>holding in Hooven has to do with territorial heterogeneity, as follows: >>> >>> >>> ... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest >>> or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the >>> power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of >>> the Constitution .... >>> In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the >>> same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating >>> for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties >>> [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon >>> the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted >>> for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as >>> Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over >>> territory belonging to the United States**, has made those >>> guarantees applicable. >>> [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] >>> [emphasis added] >>> >>> >>> >>>I have taken the liberty of adding asterisks ("**","***") to the above, >>>in order to identify which meaning of "United States" is being used in >>>each occurrence of the term. Computer users prefer the term "stars" over >>>"asterisks" because it has fewer syllables. >>> >>>Return now to your statement that "there is no exception to this rule" >>>that all direct taxes must be apportioned. Using the Hooven case and >>>others as our guide, it is more accurate to say that all direct taxes >>>must be apportioned whenever they are levied inside the 50 States of the >>>Union. On the other hand, direct taxes need NOT be apportioned whenever >>>they are levied outside the 50 States of the Union, and inside the areas >>>of land over which Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. The >>>authorities for this exclusive legislative jurisdiction are 1:8:17 and >>>4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution. You may disagree with this >>>interpretation of the term "exclusive", and that is your right, but in >>>doing so you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court. Evidently, this was >>>not the first, nor the last time the high Court has differed with the >>>Framers of the Constitution. >>> >>>As it turns out, the pivotal case law on this question predates Hooven >>>by 44 years, and predates the so-called 16th Amendment by 12 years. In >>>Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), the issue was a discriminatory >>>tariff which Congress had levied on goods imported from Puerto Rico (or >>>"Porto Rico" as it was spelled then). Congress had recently obtained >>>exclusive legislative jurisdiction over this territory by and predates >>>the so-called 16th Amendment by 12 years. In Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. >>>244 (1901), the issue was a discriminatory tariff which Congress had >>>levied on goods imported from Puerto Rico (or "Porto Rico" as it was >>>spelled then). Congress had recently obtained exclusive legislative >>>jurisdiction over this territory by virtue of the treaty of peace with >>>Spain. The import duty was obviously not uniform, as required by 1:8:1 >>>in the U.S. Constitution, since it was levied specifically against goods >>> >>> >>>The controversy that surrounded Downes vs Bidwell was intense, as >>>evidenced by the flurry of articles that were published in the Harvard >>>Law Review on the subject of "The Insular Cases" as they were called. >>>Perhaps the most lucid criticism of the Downes majority can be found in >>>Justice Harlan's dissent: >>> >>> >>> The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression >>> in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country >>> substantially or practically two national governments; one, >>> to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its >>> restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress >>> outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising >>> such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to >>> exercise. >>> [Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)] >>> [emphasis added] >>> >>> >>> >>>To appreciate how alarmed Justice Harlan had become as a result of this >>>new "theory", consider the following from his dissent: >>> >>> >>> I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced >>> should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this >>> court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of >>> government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass >>> from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected >>> by a written constitution into an era of legislative >>> absolutism. ... >>> It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of >>> a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds >>> lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher >>> duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority >>> to prevent all violation of the principles of the >>> Constitution. >>> [Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)] >>> [emphasis added] >>> >>> >>> >>>This theory has been documented by patriot John Knox as follows: >>> >>> >>> This theory of a government operating outside the >>> Constitution over its own territory with citizens of the >>> United States belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, >>> Clause 2 of the Constitution was further confirmed in 1922 >>> by the Supreme Court in Balzac vs Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 300 >>> (EXHIBIT #4) where that Court affirmed that the Constitution >>> does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the >>> Union at page 305 quoting Downes, supra and De Lima, supra. >>> That under Article IV, section 3 the "United States" was >>> given exclusive power over the territories and their >>> citizens of the "United States" residing therein. >>> >>> >>> >>>This quote is from an unpublished brief entitled "Memorandum in Support >>>of Request for the District Court to Consider the T.R.O. and Injunction >>>by the Magistrate" by John Knox, Knox vs U.S., United States District >>>Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Case No. >>>SA-89-CA-1308. >>> >>>People will not fully appreciate a central thesis of The Federal Zone if >>>they believe that I agree with the minimal majority by which Downes was >>>decided. I don't agree with the majority; I agree with Harlan. I have >>>simply tried to describe, in lucid language, how Congress is now able to >>>pass legislation which is not restrained by the U.S. Constitution as we >>>know it. This type of legislation is also known as "municipal" law, >>>because Congress is the municipal authority inside the federal zone. >>>When I visited the District of Columbia during my senior year at UCLA as >>>a summer intern in political science, I asked a Capitol guard where I >>>could find city hall. We were standing on the Capitol lawn when he >>>pointed to the Capitol Building and said, "That is City Hall!" >>> >>>The Downes decision sent many shock waves through the American legal >>>community, as evidenced by the deep concern that is expressed by author >>>Littlefield in "The Insular Cases", 15 Harvard Law Review 169, 281. He >>>points out how the dissenting minority were of a single mind, while the >>>assenting majority exploited a multiplicity of conflicting and mutually >>>incompatible themes. Just one vote turned the tide. Littlefield's words >>>jump off the page like grease popping off a sizzling griddle. >>> >>>Accordingly, I now believe that we must go back further than 1913 to >>>isolate the major turn in the tide of American constitutional integrity >>>and continuity. Medina in The Silver Bulletin traces the fork to the >>>tragic American Civil War -- the counter revolution -- when Lincoln was >>>murdered by a Rothschild agent, clearing the stage for resurrecting the >>>federalists' heartthrob -- a central bank. For example, in the context >>>of everything we now know about territorial heterogeneity, to the extent >>>that it was a "municipal" statute for the federal zone, the Federal >>>Reserve Act was constitutional under the rubric of the Downes doctrine. >>> >>>The consequences of this doctrine have been profound and far-reaching, >>>just as Harlan predicted. One of Lyndon Johnson's first official acts >>>was to rescind JFK's executive order authorizing the circulation of $4.5 >>>billion in interest-free "United States Notes" instead of >>>interest-bearing "Federal Reserve Notes". It is a shame that Oliver >>>Stone did not cover this motive in his movie JFK. All we need to do is >>>connect the dots, and the picture will emerge, clear as day. >>> >>>Specifically, Title 26 is a municipal statute and, as such, it is not >>>subject to the apportionment rule. The territorial scope of Title 26 is >>>the federal zone; the political scope of Title 26 is the set of >>>"persons" who are either citizens and/or residents of that zone: "U.S.** >>>citizens" and "U.S.** residents". The term "U.S.**" in this context >>>refers to the second of the three Hooven definitions, namely, the >>>territory over which the sovereignty of Congress extends, i.e., the >>>federal zone. Incidentally, the flat tax provisions in Title 26 do >>>conform to the uniformity rule because the tax rate is uniform across >>>the 50 States (see A Ticket To Liberty, by Lori Jacques). >>> >>>Since involuntary servitude is now forbidden everywhere in this land, it >>>is possible under law to acquire citizenship in the federal zone at will >>>via naturalization, even if one is a natural born Sovereign State >>>Citizen by birth. It is also possible to abandon citizenship in the >>>federal zone at will, via expatriation. In this context, it is revealing >>>that the Internal Revenue Code has provisions for dealing with "U.S.** >>>citizens" who expatriate to avoid the tax. Similarly, Americans are free >>>to reside wherever they want, under the law. If you choose to reside in >>>the federal zone, you are liable for the income tax, by definition (see >>>26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A) and 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(b)). Finally, if you are a >>>"nonresident alien" with respect to the "United States**" as those terms >>>are defined in Title 26 and in Title 42, you are only liable for taxes >>>on income which is effectively connected with a U.S.** trade or >>>business, and on income which derives from U.S.** sources. All other >>>income for nonresident aliens is excluded from the computation of "gross >>>income" as defined (see 26 U.S.C. 872(a)). >>> >>>I hope this discussion has provided you with some valuable feedback >>>concerning the 16th Amendment, direct taxes, the apportionment rule, >>>Title 26 and The Federal Zone. You have, no doubt, heard several >>>references to the "secret jurisdiction" under which the IRS has been >>>operating. I now believe that this jurisdiction is no longer totally a >>>secret; it issues from 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the Constitution. Contrary to >>>the statement quoted above from your essay, there are exceptions to the >>>apportionment rule for direct taxes, and there are exceptions to the >>>uniformity rule for indirect taxes. Inside the federal zone, Congress is >>>free to do pretty much whatever it wants, per the Downes doctrine. >>>Inside the federal zone, it is a legislative democracy, with majority >>>rule. If you want to change the rules, then change the majority. Our >>>best hope for changing those rules rests, therefore, in changing the >>>membership in the House and Senate. As a Sovereign State Citizen, >>>however, I am not subject to those rules, primarily and most importantly >>>because the Constitution created the legislature and We Sovereigns >>>created the Constitution. A Sovereign is never subject to his own >>>creation, unless he volunteers himself into that status, for whatever >>>reason (e.g., the security of socialism a/k/a Social Security). >>> >>>For your edification, the following is a list of Harvard Law Review >>>articles which discuss the insular cases in some detail: >>> >>> >>> Langdell, "The Status of Our New Territories" >>> 12 Harvard Law Review, 365, 371 >>> Thayer, "Our New Possessions" >>> 12 Harvard Law Review, 464 >>> Thayer, "The Insular Tariff Cases in the Supreme Court" >>> 15 Harvard Law Review 164 >>> Littlefield, "The Insular Cases" >>> 15 Harvard Law Review, 169, 281 >>> >>>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >>>-> Posted by: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com >>> >>> >>> >> >>=========================================================================== >>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 >> >>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >>-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >> >> >> > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail