Time: Wed Dec 17 08:23:46 1997
To: Bud Riggs
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FYI: SNET: I WROTE IT!
Cc:
Bcc:
References:
Caught another one!
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:00:55 -0800
>To: snetnews@world.std.com
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Re: SNET: I WROTE IT!
>
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>===========================================================================
>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]
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail