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?
Cc:
Bcc:
References: <3.0.3.16.19971217060910.3ba7b096@pop.primenet.com> <3.0.3.16.19971217073552.3ac77c98@pop.ri.ultranet.com>
Not a single Internet copy of
"The Federal Zone" was ever
authorized by the author.
NOT ONE!!
The HTML changes violate the
explicit copyright restrictions
which are stated in the Preface:
NO CHANGES TO THE CHARACTER STREAM!!!
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.
CEASE AND DESIST IMMEDIATELY!
/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com
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
>>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