Time: Wed Dec 17 08:19:31 1997
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: WHO WROTE IT?
References: <> <>

Not a single Internet copy of
"The Federal Zone" was ever
authorized by the author.


The HTML changes violate the
explicit copyright restrictions
which are stated in the Preface:


Ignorance of this Notice is no
excuse for blatant violations of
the author's fundamental Rights
over that intellectual property.

Mr. Jay Robbins, you are a thief, 
and you have been caught red-handed,
sad to say.  Furthermore, you are
aiding and abetting further flagrant
violations by America On-Line, Inc.


/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 09:57 AM 12/17/97, you wrote:
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>At 06:09 AM 12/17/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>I hereby lodge My formal complaint against:
>>       <han-wi@ri.ultranet.com>
>>Here are the markings of an Internet thief
>>(see proof below):
>>1.  no name or other identifying information;
>JR>> Jay Robbins
>>2.  admits and shares knowledge about a known
>>    copyright violation;
>JR>> Where, When, And HOW???
>>3.  too stupid to realize the pen name helps
>>    track the stolen copies;
>JR>> DUH...
>>4.  will most likely resort to ad hominems
>>    to weasel out of the obvious liabilities;
>JR>> I do have a ferret, which is in the weasel family....;-)
>>5.  will refuse to reveal a name and address
>>    for lawful service of process (we ARE
>>    enforcing the copyright restrictions);
>JR>> PO Box 672 Woonsocket RI 02895...BRING IT ON!!!
>>6.  does not realize that the HTML version
>>    was stolen and modified, against the
>>    copyright restrictions stated in the Preface;
>JR>> see next line...
>>7.  is conspiring with "Dimitri" and America On-Line,
>>    the latter of which has been formally served
>>    with a demand to cease and desist, and now 
>>    refuses to honor the author's copyrights.
>JR>> If I did or do not realize that the html version was stolen, then how
>can I conspire??? Maybe you should call Oliver Stone as he is in need of a
>new plot for his next movie....;-)
>>Fortunately for the author, AOL has deep pockets.
>>If you want to take sides, please don't let us
>>stop you.
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell,
>>Candidate for Congress
>>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
>>><Paul Andrew Mitchel's Post>
>>>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
>>>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. 
>>>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