Time: Wed Feb 05 19:55:20 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04086; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:21:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:52:30 -0800 To: "Leslie Ernst, Rohde" <lesrohde@teleport.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: DCUS v. USDC Leslie, I got your phone message today. I prefer to stay off the telephone. Have you seen the essay "The Lawless Rehnquist"? Rehnquist has said that Evans v. Gore has been overturned. The case to which he refers is VERY weak, because it says that Congress can tax federal judges in their capacity as "citizens" [sic]. There is otherwise little if any scholarship in that decision. Now, that opens Pandora's Box with respect to the two classes of citizenship, because the case in question presumes only one class of citizens, when the vast preponderance of legal evidence now proves that there are two (2) classes of citizens, not one. See the many cases cited in "The Federal Zone," for example, particularly Chapter 11 and Appendix Y (both are brimming with citations supporting two classes of citizenship). I maintain that Congress can only tax federal citizens (as opposed to state Citizens) under the Downes Doctrine, i.e. the Constitution of the United States as such does not extend beyond the limits of the states which are united by and under it. This doctrine was extended by the Hooven case, in which the SC ruled that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable. Hooven also defined the term "United States" three different ways. This takes Congress off the hook as far as USDC judges are concerned, because they can claim protection from Downes v. Bidwell and its progeny. But, the DCUS judges do enjoy the immunity at Article III, Section 1, and state Citizens can claim that immunity as a fundamental Right, since it is expressed in the Constitution, and the Downes Doctrine does concede that the Constitution does operate within the confines of the several States of the Union, and Hooven does concede that the Constitution does guarantee certain fundamental Rights. Evans v. Gore is controlling, therefore, given that it was "overturned" by a case which was predicated upon false premises, namely, only one class of citizenship, and it was "overturned" by a case which has barely enough "scholarship" to fill a thimble. So, we have Congress and the Executive cornered here, and the federal judges know it. They are just not willing to admit it, except one rather oblique ORDER which I got from a federal judge late last spring, in which he ruled that the USDC is "not the proper forum to bring a request under the Freedom of Information Act" [sic]. This is a rather pivotal ORDER, in my opinion. The "only" problem here is that this very same judge has committed 112 felonies to date in that case, and an argument can be made that he ousted himself of jurisdiction, the moment he committed the first felony on the bench (mail fraud). Go figure! Also, Lord v. Kelley makes it very clear that judges are subject to the undue influence of the "IRS" if their compensation is being diminished by federal income taxes. We have developed a series of briefs to force these questions out into the open. But, to get access to them, you must first enroll in the Supreme Law School (maximum tuition is $10/month, sliding downwards by pre-paying for more months up front). I will append enrollment information at the end of this message. We need a source of funds to pay for our research, because I was stiffed for more than $35,000 in legal fees during calendar 1996, due to vicious lies which my clients were persuaded to believe. If you read the "credit" system carefully, you will discover that your tuition can be paid back to you by others you sponsor into the school. This is not a "pyramid"; just a way to encourage clients to attract others to the school. Let me know what you think. /s/ Paul Mitchell Supreme Law School information now follows. After that is the essay "The Lawless Rehnquist". ----------------------------cut here----------------------------- [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release December 27, 1996 Supreme Law Firm Announces Internet-based Supreme Law School by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (December 1996) Payson, Arizona. The founder of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- today announced the start of their Supreme Law School, an electronic curriculum of recent developments in American constitutional law, and its applications to current state and federal court cases. Paul Andrew Mitchell, a computer systems consultant for 25 years and now Counselor at Law, will soon enter his eighth year of intensive research and developments in renewed systems of law, based upon the Constitution for the United States of America and its lawful amendments ("U.S. Constitution"). The curriculum of the Supreme Law School will pivot upon the Supremacy Clause, a provision in the U.S. Constitution which renders all federal laws, treaties, and the Constitution itself, the supreme Law of the Land. This supreme law is so important, that the various constitutions of the several states of the Union all recognize the U.S. Constitution as the superior guiding principle to guarantee freedom to Americans, forever. Membership in the Supreme Law School requires an Internet computer and pre-paid subscriptions on a discounted schedule. A pre-paid subscription for 1 month is $10; 3 months is $25; 6 months is $45; 12 months is $85. Current subscribers earn a one dollar credit for each subscriber-month they sponsor in the Supreme Law School. If a current subscriber joins, and then sponsors 25 other subscribers who pre-pay for one month, the sponsor can either apply the $25 credit to future subscriptions, or receive a cash rebate, paid in blank U.S. Postal Money Orders, to any mailing location on the planet. The Supreme Law School has chosen to do all of its business with the U.S. Postal Service, since the USPS is rooted in supreme law authority. Subscribers are required to have an Internet computer with electronic mail ("email") software compatible with the Eudora email package, published by the Eudora Division of QUALCOMM Incorporated, 6455 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, California state. Information Week magazine wrote that "Eudora Pro 3.0 ... sets a new standard for e-mail client flexibility and ease of use." Network Computing magazine wrote that "Eudora Pro 3.0 will continue to dominate the mail client niche of network computing." Email software is compatible with Eudora if it can detect file transmit codes automatically (BinHex, MIME, Uuencode). Users can visit the Eudora Web site at http://www.eudora.com/pcw612 to download Eudora Pro 3.0 and use it FREE for 30 days. Email inquiries should be directed to <eudora-salespcw612@eudora.com>, or just call telephone 1-800-2-EUDORA, extension 86090, and ask for sales or tech support. URL: http://www.supremelaw.com is the Web site address for the Supreme Law Firm, Library, and Seminars. ----------------------------cut here----------------------------- [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Registration Form Supreme Law School: Internet Group Name: ___________________________________________________________ USPS address c/o ________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Email address: ________________________________________________ Tel/Fax Numbers: ________________________________________________ Comments etc. ________________________________________________ (use reverse side if necessary) Subscription Period (check one with "X"): 1 month [ ] @ $10.00 (sponsor credit: $1) 3 months [ ] @ $25.00 (sponsor credit: $3) 6 months [ ] @ $45.00 (sponsor credit: $6) 12 months [ ] @ $85.00 (sponsor credit: $12) Sponsor's name: _________________________________________________ (leave blanks if NONE) Sponsor's email address: ________________________________________ Subscriber Agreement The Undersigned ("Subscriber") honors all copy rights and hereby agrees to refrain at all times from making, or forwarding, electronic copies of Supreme Law School email to any other computer users, unless those users are already current subscribers to the Supreme Law School: Internet Group. The sole exception applies to this press release and subscription form. Subscriber agrees to pay renewal fees without notice, and consents to automatic expiration, if renewal fees are not paid in advance of the current expiration date. Subscriber agrees to pay all subscription fees in blank U.S. Postal Money Orders, and a 50% handling penalty for submitting all other forms of payment. Subscriber agrees to direct all payments, insured as needed, to: Supreme Law School: Internet Group Attention: Subscriber Services c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776 Tucson, Arizona state Postal Zone 85719/tdc until further notice. We will see you on the Internet! mm dd yy Signature: __________________________________ Date:____/____/____ ----------------------------cut here----------------------------- [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release January 2, 1997 Supreme Law Firm Announces Habeas Project for Political Prisoners by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (January 1997) Payson, Arizona. The founder of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- today announced a new project to bring their Supreme Law School into federal prisons, for the benefit of all political prisoners. The Habeas Project, founder Paul Mitchell's brain child, will leverage the growing enrollment of the School to identify sponsors who will forward study materials to prisoners, on a one-on-one basis, and act as mentors and counselors. "The incarceration rate in this country is a national scandal of immense proportions," Mitchell stressed. "The silver lining is that most political prisoners now have more reading and study time than ever before. We intend to restore freedom to each and every one of these prisoners, by teaching them the Supreme Law of the Land." Paul Mitchell points to former inmate Alan Stang, who found time in federal prison to write the ground- breaking book Tax Scam. Stang was jailed for a "tax crime." Mitchell recently launched the Supreme Law School, an Internet-based advanced curriculum for students and advocates of new developments in American Constitutional Law, as applied to current state and federal cases. Enrollment in the School is pre-paid in increments of one month, with a sponsor credit system for students who enlist others to enroll as well. Students can "drop-in" or "drop-out" as often as they want. Credits can be converted to cash or assigned to other projects of the Supreme Law Firm. For example, credits can be assigned to purchase postage for prisoners, who always need help with the simple expenses of answering mail and filing legal papers. "We are looking for generous and conscientious Americans who will enroll in the Supreme Law School, and then sponsor one or more political prisoners, whose special needs they will address," added Mitchell. "We want the Freedom Movement in America to remember those who were swept under the rug by a cruel and unusual regime of star chambers, entrapment, lies, extortion, and pseudo authorities. This regime is fast approaching a fascist dictatorship, and education in Law is a necessary ingredient to restoring the constitutional Republic which America was always designed to be, and to remain." More information about the Supreme Law Firm, and the Supreme Law School, can be obtained by directing electronic mail ("email") to [address in tool bar], or writing to: Supreme Law School: Internet Group Attention: Habeas Project c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson, Arizona Republic Postal Zone 85719/tdc # # # ----------------------------cut here----------------------------- [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] "The Lawless Rehnquist" by John E. Trumane January 28, 1997 All Rights Reserved William H. Rehnquist is a lawless man. In a lecture today at the University of Arizona's Law School, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that federal judges should be punished for serious crimes, like tax evasion. A student then drew his attention to the Supreme Court's decision in 1920 which immunized those judges from income taxes. The U.S. Constitution specifically guarantees that their pay shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Rehnquist then replied, "There has been a change in doctrine." The class has now been barred from discussing any contemporary issues, on orders from the Law School's Dean of Academic Affairs. What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes. The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious. In his discussion of John Marshall's immense contribution to the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice made an important point of discussing the role of dissenting opinions by other members of the high Court. When queried about contemporary practices, however, the Chief Justice deferred the matter to the end of the class. It was then that the Dean of Academic Affairs explained that contemporary practices would be off-limits, on orders from Rehnquist. Is the Chief Justice becoming a bit sensitive about dissent, particularly when those dissenters sit beside him, and decide to oppose him? Consider, for a moment, the words of Justice Harlan, whose brilliant dissent in Downes v. Bidwell has already earned him a permanent place of well deserved honor in American history. Listen to Harlan explain why the slim 5-to-4 majority in that case was wrong, flat wrong. Quoting now: "The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of 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. "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." See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. And so, against these immensely moving words, we judge the Chief Justice to be a lawless radical, bent on destroying the very constitution which he is sworn to uphold. When presented with clear authority that federal judges cannot be taxed, including a seminal decision in 1920 which upheld the immunity, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, Rehnquist glibly states that there has been a "change in doctrine" [sic]. How wonderful! What he is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court has aggrandized to itself the baseless power to invent doctrines according as the wind should blow, not according to the wishes of the very People who ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America, the People whom he should serve. The net result is low fascism, and it is high time we faced the terrible truth about our lawless government leaders. For fascism arrives without fanfare, like tooth decay or dry rot, behind closed walls, until the very foundation is washed away, forever. This author received today proof that federal judges are now being blackmailed. In the 1930's, newly appointed federal judges were forced to sign contracts agreeing to the income tax, or they simply were not appointed. Despite the clear and established immunity against taxation of their pay, federal judges are now being presented with the following criminal choice: either agree in writing to waive your fundamental immunity, or forget about serving as a federal judge. Forget about integrity; forget about judicial independence; forget about justice. You may attain the lofty title of Justice, but you will enjoy that title in name only. It is no wonder that well in excess of 80% of the American People are now disgusted with government, and all of its agents. Our Chief Justice is clearly a criminal if he continues to advocate taxation of federal judges, in the face of supreme laws which maintain the contrary. Federal judges are also heavy investors in the United States Prison Industries, now the fifth largest enterprise of the whole American economy. Need we say any more? Yes, we need to say more, because the incarceration rate in the land of the free is now the highest in the world, by wide margins. You can thank William H. Rehnquist for that honorable distinction. None will dare to call it treason. # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail