Time: Mon Mar 24 06:09:16 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA16078
for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 05:52:08 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA12878;
Mon, 24 Mar 1997 05:51:44 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 05:55:56 -0800
To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: new job opportunities
Rusty,
Consider enrolling in the Supreme Law School,
and I will be available to teach you some
of the finer points of current computer
technology, as applied to constitutional law.
I have 25+ years of experience in advanced
systems development, on top of 8 years in
American constitutional law. The enrollment
form is at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
/s/ Paul Mitchell
p.s. This is a copy to your friends.
At 12:52 AM 3/24/97 PST, you wrote:
>Harold,
>
>You have no idea of my gratitude towards your efforts and hard work in
>this matter. The fact that you have spent to much time to send me
>information, and then to write a personal letter showing your sincerity
>and heart-felt concern says much about you personally and the attributes
>of your character. If only the majority of our fellow Americans had
>1/10th of your genuine concern for others, our great Nation would not be
>in the mess we are facing now.
>
>The truth is, I need to find a different means of supporting myself and
>my family than working for this company anyway. The work is VERY slow
>and unstable. The reality is that when we work, the jobs only last for
>2-5 weeks (depending on the contract), then there's no work for between
>3 weeks up to 2 months. The jobs pay on a piece-work basis, and even as
>the foreman of the jobs, the pay is still not very good.
>
>I'm looking SERIOUSLY into other things - hopefully working with people
>such as Eddie Kahn doing legal writing and briefs (through and for his-on
staff attorney[s]).
>You've probably heard of Eddie. He runs something called ARL, American
>Rights Litigators, here in Florida, and takes on the IRS on behalf of
>others through a power of attorney (similar to Save-A-Patriot]. For a
>reasonable fee, the attorney with ARL will go with you, or on your
>behalf, to a confrontational meeting with the IRS. I won't waste any more
of your time explaining his program here since you are probably aware of
what ARL does. If you aren't, and would like to know more, I'll be
>happy to send you some of his materials. Eddie is a good and honest
>Man, whose heart is in the right place. I am arranging a meeting with him
soon to discuss the possibility of working with him in order to develop a
more offensive strategy in fighting the IRS officers and agents, by
>suing them in their private capacity in state court (as well as
>employers and banks, etc.).
>
>Sorry I got so off point - back to your E-Mail response. I'll make
>comments within the body of your letter.
>
>
>On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 05:52:26 -0800 Harold Thomas <harold@halcyon.com>
>writes:
>>Rusty, a couple of comments on your letter. Do you have a SPECIFIC
>>strategy in mind here? It appears from much of what you've included
>>in your opening that you are setting the stage for the EEOC type suit --
>
>>no number due to religious beliefs etc. Since that EEOC suit
>>Save-A-Patriot has had a couple of out-of-court settlements with
>>employers ($2000 and $10,000), but the people did not succeed in
>>getting or keeping their jobs as I understand. I am not aware of any
>>successes against employers in which they acquiesced and employment was
>>continued.
>
>Yeah, you got it. I tried to keep as much as possible on the "religious
>grounds" as the main basis of my grievance as possible (just in case I
>decided to go the EEOC route.) There are at least two other alternatives:
>1) IF the company continues to allow me to work (which I seriously doubt
>since the owner is a complacent coward who "just doesn't want to get
>involved") and then cowers to the IRS' coercion by deducting 31% from my
>remuneration for labor,
>I have a certain amount of time under the Florida statutes to file a
>"Notice to Owner" of any job we perform work on. Therefore, if the
>company fails to pay 100% of its legal obligation to me, I can lien the
>job (provided certain other things are also done). This will prevent
>the company I am working for from getting a final release at the end of
>the job. Under Florida law, if the company I work for doesn't pay, then
>I can move forward against the company where the work was performed. Of
course, this process is never very speedy, but I may someday get paid.
>2) As an alternative, or in conjunction with the above, a Waiver of Tort
>could also be effective. With this method, I waive rights to suit
>against my employer, but make certain demands upon him for a claim of
>damage through his failure to pay, and after certain claims and demands
>are made, move for a default judgement and writ of execution for same.
>
>I prefer to stay out of the corrupt "courts" - I know we don't belong in
>their "courts" anyway. Therefore my preference would be to do something
>along the commercial type remedies I just described. However, there is
>also the remote possibility of an E.E.O.C. suit for discrimination based
>upon "religious grounds".
>
>
>>The problem is that virtually no employers, including their CPA's and
>>attorneys, really understand these issues, and, worse, they DO NOT
>>WANT to understand. Moaning and groaning aside, they accept the
>>system for what it is, are going to go by whatever the IRS tells them,
>>and in fact find it impossible to believe that people like you or I
>could
>>have it right and the entire gov't and "professional" establishment have
>
>>it wrong. Put yourself in your employer's shoes, with the IRS
>>threatening to seize and levy what he has already "failed" to withhold,
>>and with you unable to show him any significant number of examples
>>of other employers who are not withholding without being hassled --
>>well, you have to see their side of it. It IS maddening, but remember
>>it's the vast majority that think WE'RE nuts!
>
>Yeah, I know you're right, but I never would have got into this stuff if
>I
>wasn't willing to fight. By the way, the vast majority is probably right
>--
>WE ARE NUTS. Who in the world would ever do all of this crazy
>work beating our heads against the wall - researching, studying, writing,
>spending countless hours at the keyboards, etc., etc -- if we weren't
>COMPLETELY NUTS !!!!! Of course, I'm being satiristic here, but to a
>large extent there's a lot of truth to it. I guess if Our freedom isn't
>worth
>fighting for, or dying for if necessary, then we are no better than those
>who choose to bury their head in the sand and do nothing.
>>
>>Not to dwell on the doom and gloom, I be doing something roughly
>>similar to what you're doing if I were in your shoes. Perhaps the
>>difference in my approach be that I try harder to put
>>myself in your employer's shoes. I hold my nose and try to let him
>>know that I DO understand the awkward, difficult and unusual situation I
>am
>>putting him in, that I appreciate his cooperating in the past etc. I
>> let him know that, as a Constitutionalist and believer in free
>>enterprise and self-sufficiency, I understand that he is under no
>>obligation to provide me with a way to make a living. It is, after
>>all, HIS business, and I do not possess some kind of inherent "right" to
>a
>>job there -- 14th amendment, Equal Protection under the Law and Civil
>>Rights legislation all notwithstanding. (Actually, personally, I
>>subscribe to the philosophy that when a man owns property, including a
>>business, he should retain his right to freedom of association, i.e.,
>>if he only wants to rent to or hire Irish Catholic men who belong to
>>Social Security and play softball on Tuesday nights, that's his right
>and his
>>business.)
>
>No gloom and doom taken. You're probably right about the
>"holding my nose" stuff too, but I wuld need a VERY LARGE clothes
>pin and a VERY LARGE condom to ever kiss this guy BIG ass that much!
>Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one!
>
>I know you're right about everything you said.
>The problem is, if you or I owned his business, we would at least
>pretend to believe WE really owned it, and run it accordingly.
>The problem with this guy is, he may THINK he runs things, but
>when the pressure is put on him by his false mini-gods,
>he caters to their every desire. He is also cheap and greedy -
>so much so, that in reality, its probably the only reason he has not
>withheld funds from my pay over the past year - because he had no
>worker's comp. or employer matching "contributions" to pay in on me.
>
>>I would try to get him to spend some time eyeball to eyeball in as
>>friendly a "meeting of the minds" as possible in which I would
>>painstakingly take him through the evidence which supports not only
>>your "beliefs" but the law as you have outlined it. You might even
>swallow
>>real hard and "apologize" for the circumstances which have place him
>>and you in this potentially adversarial situation. It might still come
>down
>>to his understanding that, even though it's not personal, the fact is
>>that circumstances and your conscience REQUIRE you to pursue the
>>matter in the courts -- for your fellow Americans and your posterity.
>>
>>You see, ultimately what it comes down to is that unless you can
>>convince this "employer" based on his conscience or business sense or
>>both that he's already in this LIKE IT OR NOT, the fact is the IRS has
>>you both right where they want you. The employer has assets (and a
>>business) and the IRS can damn well do with him whatever it pleases.
>>You know that. What's the employer's option? Sue the IRS? That's a
>>joke. The employer would be spending most of the rest of his life
>>fighting a financially devastating and legally hopeless battle. This
>>is REALITY -- not PLEASANT, extremely frustrating, even crazy-making,
>>but it IS REALITY.
>>
>>That's why I feel that, as hard as it is, you have a better chance by
>>making an ally out of this guy rather than an enemy. Of course, it IS
>>true that if you have the time and $$ (I KNOW you have the will.), you
>>can for sure sue this employer for a host of damages. You should know
>>that in that event, YOU will be spending the next SEVERAL years of
>>your life litigating this matter, spending more of your own personal
>time
>>and emotional energy than you can even imagine. Even if the guy offers
>>you a one time out of court settlement, he's still not going to go along
>>without withholding or likely fire you -- this due to the perception
>>and REALITY that the IRS can and likely will destroy him for cooperating
>>with a "tax protester". So then you sue him for that and if you're
>>tenacious, you will squander not only most of your resources but
>>likely those of your ex-employer whom you COULD succeed in ruining due
>to
>>legal expenses and stress. One of the neat side effects of that will be
>to
>>make ENEMIES for the patriot/tax movement out of him, his family and
>>friends and likely most everyone he knows who doesn't already hate
>>him.
>>
>>I suspect this is definitely NOT the type of stuff you want to hear
>>right about now, but I offer these thoughts based upon the direct
>>experiences of many friends and acquaintances.
>>
>>I understand where people are coming from when they take the
>>aggressive approach, and it does get some results. I'm just not sure at
>this
>>point if they are the kind of results that will really help the movement
>in
>>the long run.
>
>This concerns me too. No matter what I do, I want to be sure it is a
>positive
>to the "movement". We know the "courts" will not let a Christian win
>very
>often (because out of necessity, they can't afford to). Whatever I
>decide to do,
>and however I decide to approach this situation, I know I need to handle it
>with love and compassion for my Christian brother(s). Damn, that's a hard
>lesson to learn, isn't it? I also know you and I understand one another
about
>this "Christian" stuff too. But that's a whole other discussion, isn't
>it? Another time.
>In reality, what's going on here is I'm doing the Christian thing - I'm
>confronting my
>"brother" [God, that's a dreadful thought if you only knew this guy] and
informing
>him I believe he is about to break the law and take action to damage me.
>
>After that, I don't think My Bible says I should just walk away & turn
>the other cheek.
>I know there are circumstances where it may be more appropriate to
>just let the Heavenly Father do a job on someone on occasion, but I don't
>think this is the case here.
>
>>You have no idea how BADLY I wish that I had a more encouraging and
>>positive response to offer you, and you should know that I still will
>>be eager to follow your progress and make whatever inputs I have to
>offer
>>that might be of value.
>
>>Harold
>
>Again, I appreciate your sincerity and input. I will keep you updated -
>you can count on it. Your wisdom is invaluable, and I hope to have
>the opportunity to meet you personally sometime in the future so we
>can really get into the nitty-gritty. If only there were somewhere else
>people like us [CRAZYS] could go, I'm sure we'd both be there, along
>with many of our friends of like mind. Unfortunately, it looks like this
>
>battle is gonna have to be fought right here.
>
>I'm honored to share the same side of the battlefield with you, and if
>this
>whole thing ever becomes more than just a paper battle (which I happen
>to believe is just around the corner), perhaps we'll meet; and if not
>personally, I know we'll know one another as friends and allys in spirit.
>
>For Freedom,
>
>Rusty
>
>
========================================================================
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