Time: Sat Mar 29 05:42:51 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA19532; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:02:05 -0700 (MST) id XAA04950; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:53:40 -0500 (EST) id XAA04945; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:53:38 -0500 (EST) id AA16185; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:53:37 -0500 by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26315; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:52:27 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:38:57 -0800 To: snetnews@world.std.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SNET: SLS: Is the IRC Constitutional? -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List Not one U.S. Supreme Court case cited here! Moreover, you have failed to cite People v. Boxer. The Federal Register contains statements admitting that the 16th Amendment is Treasury's constitutional authority. Under the Federal Register Act, Americans can rely upon such statements; in fact, they HAVE to, because the FR is the publication medium for federal Legal Notices. The only other way to get actual notice from the federal government, is if they actually serve a notice upon your Person, physically, with a process server! /s/ Paul Mitchell At 08:57 PM 3/28/97 -0600, you wrote: > >-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List > >On Thu Mar 27 14:57:59 1997 Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] wrote: > >> Objection: the 16th amendment >> was never lawfully ratified. >> >> The IRC is void for vagueness, >> in violation of the Sixth Amendment. >> >> See several discussions of the >> "void for vagueness" doctrine >> in "The Federal Zone." >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Overruled.. Not by the U.S. Supreme Court, sitting in an Article III capacity. Furthermore, the "void for vagueness" attack against the IRC has yet to be properly adjudicated, because if it were, it would demonstrate that the vagueness is intentional, and that is FRAUD!! Intentional deception in a law is FRAUD, and that nullifies it, from its inception (ab initio). Unconstitutionality dates from the moment of its enactment, not from the decision so branding it. The Federal Zone contains plenty of historical evidence proving that the vagueness and ambiguities in the IRC were intentional. In fact, a D.C. judge admitted as much, before the D.C. Historical Society around the turn of the century. There is your smoking gun. We are the bodies. The motive was money. The crime is solved! The bankers committed the crime. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >That may very well be. However, check my link to the "Tax Protester >Hall of Fame" <http://www.future.net/~thetruth/>. > >Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988) and >United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) and >United States v. House, 617 F.Supp 237 (W.D.Mich. 1985) All of these cases began in the USDC, which have no criminal jurisdiction. Moreover, the judges sitting on these cases were paying taxes on their pay, so they were disqualified per force, pursuant to Article III, Section 1, and the holding in Evans v. Gore. So, I throw them all out, particularly the 9th Circuit case, because the 9th Circuit has been notoriously rogue when the subject matter is taxes or the monetary system. See _In re Becraft_, for a good (bad?) taste of their demonstrable bias. They are at it again right now, as we speak, because the C.J. in San Francisco refuses to rule on my judicial complaint against a Tucson federal judge who obstructed a mountain of evidence against the IRS, including their organizational genealogy. We can't let the public see the truth about this organization, now can we? So, the federal judge STRUCK all the pleadings -- YES, STRUCK THEM -- so, they don't exist any longer. Yes, just like that! They don't exist. Well, I'll tell you something else -- they DO exist, because I personally flew a complete set of those documents to the Ninth Circuit, and filed them with the Clerk of that Court, so the C.J. now has a little problem on his hands, because that set was NOT stricken. How about that!! That complete set is also lodged with the FBI in Phoenix. Do you want to see your real federal government in action? What do you want to bet that the USDC set has been conveniently destroyed? Does anybody want to bet? /s/ Paul Mitchell >argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally >ratified, and here's what the courts said: > >With Miller they sanctioned him $1500 for costs and attorneys' >fees under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and >also enjoined him from filing such claims in the future without >first obtaining leave of court because of his "persistence in >pursuing meritless constitutional claims through the use of the >judicial review mechanism for penalty assessments under the >frivolous tax return provision of 26 U.S.C. s 6702" Garbage holding. "Leave of the court." GARBAGE! The federal courts were set up specifically to adjudicate constitutional questions, and Citizens have a fundamental Right, under the due process clause, to do just that. Here, the court is saying you can only do that, if THEY give you THEIR permission. They are wrong, again! Deprivations of fundamental Rights are felonies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. How many readers here have even read this criminal statute? I am sorry. This is the kind of sick illogic I have come to expect from these judicial jerks. They should be put out on the street pushing shopping carts up and down the sidewalk, and eating hand-outs at charity kitchens. If a ratified 16th amendment had effect X, then a failed 16th amendment proves that X did not happen. What is X? Now, that can't be all that difficult, particularly when X has already been published and adjudicated over and over ad nauseam. So, I did it for them, in Chapter 13 of The Federal Zone, and no one has been able to refute that summary chapter. No one! The 16th Amendment was never ratified, and the failed ratification has enormous implications, which have been documented to the hilt over the past 12 years since the evidence against it first surfaced. It's time to move on, and abolish this stupid tax. It only serves the enrich foreign banks and their cronies in the Congress, White House, and judiciary. All that money belongs to the People, and they should immediately stop voluntary withholding from their pay checks. It is a colossal crime, if you ask me, and it needs to stop. Not one dime goes to pay for ANY federal government services. Not one!! I rest my case. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >With Stahl they said, "We conclude that the Secretary of State's >certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth >amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states >and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the >courts." This is a bogus argument. The Constitution defines when an amendment becomes law, not the Secretary of State. When 3/4th's of the Union states vote YES, THEN it becomes law. If the Secretary of State had been required, the Constitution would have had to say so. See the 9th Amendment, which is the general rule of construction. I have seen this argument before, and this notion that the Secretary's opinion is somehow "conclusive," when a vote of less than 3/4th's is NOT conclusive, just shows how far the federal courts have abdicated their integrity. That's all it shows. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >And with House, they sumarized, "The sixteenth amendment and the >tax laws passed pursuant to it have been followed by the courts >for over half a century. They represent the recognized law of >the land." Tiring, boring, and wrong. There are cases which say that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution. I have already posted those here (I think). It is NOT the "law of the land," because that term is borrowed from the Supremacy Clause, which refers to the Supreme Law, namely, the Constitution itself. So, we are back, full circle. The federal courts are good at that -- full circles, 0ver and 0ver and 0ver and 0ver (spelled with zeroes, 4 zeroes for lots of big zeroes). /s/ Paul Mitchell > >While I don't necessarily agree with the court quotations and >decisions, there's the case law to pursuade someone that your >arguement that the 16th amendment was never lawfully ratified >is likely to be rejected as frivolous by the courts. On the contrary, the Full Faith and Credit Clause MANDATES that government employees give full faith and credit to cases like People v. Boxer, and that provision binds them to give credit to the documents filed in that case. If they want to resort to this obnoxious "frivolous" garbage, then they are calling the Constitution "frivolous," which is perjury of oath. They pull out "frivolous" when they have lost; that is the pattern I have observed. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >In freedom, > >Tony Sgarlatti -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com -> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail