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