Time: Sat Mar 08 21:11:14 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA13315
	for [address in tool bar]; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:07:02 -0700 (MST)
	id 0w3UC8-0000eo-00; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:02:24 -0700
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA02333;
	Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:01:35 -0700 (MST)
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA10873;
	Sat, 8 Mar 1997 14:59:53 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 19:42:55 -0800
To: roc@mail.xmission.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: 14th amendment is dead
References: <199703071901.OAA08812@cisco.com>

Is the validity of the public debt beyond question?
That is the issue raised by Section 4 of the
so-called 14th amendment [sic].

I think all these alternative tax proposals,
such as a flat tax and/or a national sales tax,
all assume facts not in evidence.  The issue
we now need to address, once and for all, is this:  
do the federal income tax revenues flow
into foreign (European) banks, or not?  If they do, 
then we should all be considering the abolition
of the federal income tax, without doing anything
to replace it, WHATSOEVER. 

It seems to me that the Grace Commission has 
already gone very far in addressing this question.  
Let's subpoena the surviving members of that 
commission.  If I am right about this, Congress
will reap a windfall in excise taxes, if people
are allowed to take home 30% more pay.  Inflation
would be the only other problem to solve, since
prices will rise quickly with a 30% increase in
purchasing power.

Here's twenty bucks to say that the taxes are
flowing into foreign banks, in massive amounts 
which may never be counted, or accounted.

If the debt held by foreign banks cannot
be proved, using the rule of law (read
"due process of law"), then that debt
should be washed.  For authority, see
U.S. v. O'Dell -- levies on bank accounts
require court orders.  PERIOD!

I say those foreign banks acquired U.S. bonds
with money they created out of thin air, in
return for which they obtained a lien on American
collateral equal to the face value of those
bonds, PLUS INTEREST!  As such, there was no
real consideration paid for those bonds, only
a massive leverage (try $107.00/$0.03, 3 cents
to purchase a $100 FRN plus 7% interest).  

You can do the arithmetic yourself!

For an authoritative treatise on this question,
read "Return to Constitutional Money" in the
Supreme Law Library at URL:

  http://www.supremelaw.com

/s/ Paul Mitchell


At 07:31 AM 3/8/97 -0800, you wrote:
>At 14:01 -0500 3/07/97, John Curtis wrote:
>>	Mr. Watson,
>>
>>	Great article.
>	[...]
>>	One other thought:  If we instituted a 15% flat tax,
>	[...]
>
>
>	John,
>
>	while I agree with the intent of your post, the idea of giving the
>FED such a large slice of my and your hard earned (and in the case of some
>others - really hard earned) money, why not just place a Constitutional cap
>on the amount _any_ government entity can take, period.
>	Making the limit Constitutional - in no uncertain terms, would
>really be the way to achieve a so-called 'balance budget', forcing the
>idiots to office to live within their means - as the rest of us do.
>	Not only that, but once we got that achieved, then only the really
>necessary things would receive funding.
>	Think about it, and then compare where we are today, and where we
>could be.
>	Think about all the things 'our' government gets us into, that
>really should be funded by user fees. Think about all _your_ money that is
>spent for a park somewhere that you will never use, that you never wanted,
>and that you will never even see.
>	Such things came about because of 'loose money'.
>	In the land of tight money, fiscal responsibility is everything.
>	Tight money in government means more freedom for the citizen, since
>that money can't be used _against the citizens_. It also means the citizens
>have greater means.
>	In the way of government, less is _always_ more.
>
>ET
>
>
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail