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