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