Time: Sat Mar 29 23:03:49 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA05982;
	Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:53:21 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07479;
	Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:52:18 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:48:58 -0800
To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Colorado IRS challenge

Colorado state is also one of the many Union states
that require voters to declare, under penalty of 
perjury, that they are federal citizens.  This
requirement violates the Guarantee Clause, because
federal citizens are members of a government which is
not Republican in form;  the District of Columbia
never joined the Union, and the Constitution only
requires that the United States (federal government)
will guarantee a Republican form of government to 
the several States, not to itself.  Acting in its 
municipal capacity, Congress is not so bound.
  
This is a loophole which must be closed, before we 
can begin to restore the Constitution. 

So, federal citizens are exercising a franchise;  
they are not exercising Sovereign state Citizenship. 
 
The qualifications for serving in the House, Senate, 
and White House all have one thing in common: 
the candidate MUST be a Citizen of a Union state.  
The "Citizen"  mentioned in those qualifications has been 
there from the beginning of the nation;  federal citizenship
first came into existence under authority of the
1866 Civil Rights Act.  See Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300,
for proof.  In that decision, the California Supreme
Court held that there was no such thing as a "citizen
of the United States" [sic].  They were correct;  there
was no such class of citizens at that time in America.

The class of people on whom the federal income tax is
imposed, by virtue of regs, embraces federal citizens and
resident aliens;  see 26 CFR 1.1-1.  Colorado needs to 
wake up to this well documented reality;  it could help
reverse the Kriho conviction, because those juries are
likely being convened from voter registration lists, and
those voters all registered as "federal citizens."

Confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary.
Unfortunately, Black's Law Dictionary neglected to define
state Citizenship.

/s/ Paul Mitchell, Citizen of Arizona state
http://www.supremelaw.com



At 11:20 AM 3/29/97 PST, you wrote:
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: Devvy.Kidd@ix.netcom.com
>To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
>Subject: Re: Devvy on:  "Individual" & IRC Void for Vagueness
>Date: March 29, 1997
>Message-ID: <199703290320.VAA20217@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com>
>
>Dear Rusty:
>
>No, I'm not saying there is no remedy, I just would like people to 
>know, having been down the road to Hell myself, that the courts have 
>made a number of rulings that many people are not aware of.  They go to 
>use these various arguments as a defense and find themselves in very 
>serious trouble. 
>
>I am waiting to hear from Senator Rizzuto [Colordo State Legislature] 
>about the hearing I requested on the IRS and the Colorado Dept of 
>Revenue.  Senator Rizzuto told me March 24, 1997 that he didn't see any 
>reason why I could not have a hearing to bring forth expert witnesses, 
>including a retired District Judge, who will testify that:
>
>(1)  Filing a federal 1040, except for a very limited category of 
>individuals, is voluntary
>(2)  Since filing at the state level is predicated upon filing at the 
>federal level, then that too, is volutnary, and that the Colorado 
>Department of Revenue is violating existing law
>(3)  The Colorado State Legislature is violating the Fifth Amendment 
>rights of the sovereign citizens of this state by forcing them to sign 
>these returns.
>
>I submitted a full package and two bills to more than 25 state senators 
>and six representatives.  They now have the truth, we'll see what 
>they're going to do about it.  I am trying to do this through all 
>available legal channels, although, Rusty, there is none in the court 
>system as you know.  If I am granted the hearing, it will be 
>videotaped.  
>
>I know many people who have successfully withdrawn their social 
>security number [or never had one to begin with], who have no contact 
>with the petty thieves at the IRS, but they are far and few inbetween.  
>The courts do not recognize most legal instruments and lately, jury 
>decisions.  Steffen Bertsch is an attorney in Washington State.  
>Earlier this month, a jury voted 11-1 that the IRS acted illegally in 
>seizing his client's home and selling it.  Knowing the impact this 
>would have on the IRS and their ability to outright steal our assets, 
>the judge vacated the jury ruling, dismissed the case and now Steffen 
>is waiting for the IRS to re-file against his client.  
>
>The cards are definitely stacked against us, but I am praying to 
>Almighty God that we get a break with the state legislature.  Thank you 
>for writing to me.
>
>
>You wrote: 
>>
>>
>>Dear Devvy,
>>
>>Is what you are really saying here is that there is no remedy?
>>
>>
>>IRC 7851 and 7852, which the IRS is allowed to use against
>>us continually, concerns the issue of other precent case law,
>>and how each case must stand on its own merrits, (other than
>>U.S. Supreme Court rulings).  Please allow me to expound a little
>>on where I'm coming from on this with an excerpt from an old pleading:
>>______________________________
>>
>>7852:
>>
>>SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
>>
>>     Petitioner has read and understands 26 USC 7852(a) wherein it
>>states "If any provision of this title, or the application thereof to
>>any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the
>>title, and the application of such provision to other persons or
>>circumstances, shall not be affected thereby."  
>>
>>     Petitioner hereby and herewith serves ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE 
>NOTICE
>>upon this Article 1 legislative tribunal and the Respondent that the
>>Doctrine of Stare Decisis utilizing lower court decisions, will NOT be
>>tolerated, and any attempt to introduce any "case law" into this 
>action
>>for the purpose of making a quasi-judicial decision, outside of United
>>States Supreme Court decisions, will be viewed and prosecuted as a
>>denial of due process and a violation of Constitutional
>>rights under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution 
>for
>>the United States of America.  
>>
>>     Respondent has repeatedly published in Internal Revenue Service
>>publications, including but not limited to, Publication 17, older
>>Publication 1470 (Enrolled agents guide), that the Internal Revenue
>>Service is not subject to any court in a "general" sense, save the
>>United States Supreme Court, which is a correct position, inlight of 
>the
>>statute found at 26 USC 7852(a).  Documents published in the Federal
>>Register explain the Commissioners ability/authority to acquiesce or
>>not, to judicial decisions, and the many letter rulings dealing with 
>the
>>"case by case" nature of the tax law further establish same.  All 
>prior
>>decisions of any and/or all courts except the United States Supreme
>>Court are prohibited upon this notice from being introduced into this
>>action, since any decisions less than Supreme Court decisions are only
>>binding upon the Respondent for that taxpayer for that tax period and
>>are prohibited by statute from establishing "precedent/stare decisis"
>>over an issue and serve only one, bad faith, purpose and that is to
>>prejudice the court against the Petitioner.
>>
>>     26 USC 7852(a) is obviously in the statutes for the purpose of
>>protection of the federal/state tax scheme(s).  Anything less would 
>avail
>>the American People of the ability to stop the fraudulent
>>administration of the tax scheme(s) by simply winning one case.
>>_________________________________
>>
>>7851:
>>
>>Isn't it true that Title 26 USC 7851(a)(6)(A) states that the use of
>>Subtitle F is only
>>  allowed/authorized if and when the code itself, i.e. Title 26 USC, 
>has
>>been enacted into law separate from the Satutes at Large and or 
>Revised
>>Statutes, such as Title 1 USC and Title 4 USC?
>>___________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>Devvy, now please allow me to throw in one additional thing:
>>
>>
>> I think one thing we may all be missing in our thought process is 
>that
>>> the IRS DOES actually operate as a "court".  Is it not true that 
>when
>>> the IRS writes to you (at some point in their process) the wording 
>will
>>> go something like this:
>>> 
>>> Dear Taxpayer:
>>> 
>>>         We have determined ...........  [whatever].
>>> 
>>> The administrative "judge" has made a (quasi-judicial) 
>determination.
>>> Doesn't their code state [ see 7852(e) and the rules for their 
>"court"
>>[
>>> see 26 CFR Parts 601.101 (General Procedural Rules) and 601.201 
>>>(Rulings and Other Specific Matters) ] that their  
>>>"determination"(s) cannot be challenged?  
>>
>>>In other words, aren't they alleging that a default by you has 
>occurred,
>>and that it >cannot be challenged because the matter is res judicata 
>???
>>> 
>>> We could go back and forth on this forever, but there is plenty of
>>evidence in my >opinion (for what it's worth) that the courts cannot 
>hear our
>>> pleadings, regardless of what they are - because the "case" has 
>already
>>> been "heard".  Almost no tax case that I am aware of has ever been
>>decided upon the MERITS - the court cannot hear them.  The courts are
>>just
>>not
>>> telling us what is going on or WHY we are losing.  They don't have 
>to.
>>> The matter or "case" is already Res judicata.
>>> 
>>> Lastly, (for now) can you not APPEAL an IRS "determination"?  Aren't
>>> appeals made from one court to another court?  Now, Take a look at 
>26
>>CFR >601.106 (appellate functions) and also see FRAP 15 and 16.  It is
>>my
>>> belief that one may be able to file an ORIGINAL action under these 
>Rules
>>> with the Federal Court of Appeals to challenge the IRS's
>>"determination".
>>>  The basis of your case would not be upon the determination, but 
>rather
>>> that the INFORMATION UPON WHICH THE AGENCY RELIED in reaching its
>>> determination was erroneous and fraudulent.  This would PROVE 
>without
>>> any doubt they IRS operates as a court (and changes its character 
>from
>>> that of an executive agency to that of a quasi-judicial one inside 
>the
>>agency).
>>> 
>>> P.S. P.S. LASTLY again ......  Look at 31 CFR Part 10 et seq. 
>(Practice
>>Before The >IRS).  Where do you find the terms encompassed by these
>>> sections [ i.e. 10.54 Institution of Proceeding;  10.55 Conferences;
>>> 10.56 Complaint;  10.57 Service;  10.58 Answer; 10.60 Reply to 
>Answer;
>>> 10.62 MOTIONS;  10.64 Administrative law JUDGE [i.e. traffic court] 
>;
>>> 10.65 Hearings;  10.66 Evidence;  10.67 Depositions;  10.69 Findings
>>and
>>> Conclusions;  10.71 Appeal etc. etc. etc. .....   
>>
>>>In other words, If it LOOKS like a duck...........
>>> 
>>> If the courts are treating IRS matters AS THOUGH THEIR 
>DETERMINATIONS
>>act
>>> as "judgements" \ "trials", then perhaps that's the way they are
>>getting
>>> around the constitutional prohibitions.
>>
>>> Just food for thought.
>>> 
>>>  Maybe I'm entirely wrong on this, but it seems
>>> at least somewhat logical.  Perhaps even the Lonsdale 
>>>case was not decided upon the MERRITS - but rather, 
>>>upon the FACT that Lonsdale's case was res judicata -
>>>It was dead in the water before he started.  Yes, the courts
>>>make it appear AS THOUGH cases are decided upon the
>>>merrits, but are they REALLY?  Or is the court just not
>>>telling us what's REALLY going on?
>>
>>>Would like to discuss it further with you as time allows.
>>> PLEASE COMMENT !!!!
>>> 
>>> Am-Her
>>> 
>>
>>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>>From: Devvy.Kidd@ix.netcom.com
>>To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
>>Subject: Re: Def. of "Individual" & IRC Void for Vagueness
>>
>>Re the title of message:  IRC Void for Vagueness, let me again quote 
>>what the court cited in the Lonsdale case that is NOT a defense:
>>
>>Individuals, free born, white, preable, sovereign, natural, individual 
>
>>common law de jure citizens of a stte are not persons subject to 
>>taxation under the iRC.  Can't use that as a defense.
>>
>>No statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on 
>>individuals.  Can't use that as a defense.
>>
>>I bring this up because I have had literally hundreds and hundreds of 
>>phone calls the past few years from people who have un-taxed and 
>>de-taxed and are now homeless or in serious trouble with the IRS, 
>their 
>>wages are being garnished, etc., because they all tried to use the 
>>defense arguments in the Lonsdale case and lost their ass[ets].  My 
>>only advice to people is:  Do Your Homework - not just what the law 
>>says, because the courts don't care about the law.  Do your homework 
>on 
>>existing court decisions that the IRS will lay you away with.
>>
>>You wrote: 
>>>
>>>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>>>To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
>>>
>>>>Rusty, 
>>>
>>>>A couple of comments on these two messages you sent.  
>>>>When the word "individual" is used in the definition of "person", 
>>>>that does not constitute a definition of "individual". Okay, so 
>>"person"
>>>
>>>>includes an "individual" -- but WHAT IS AN "individual".  Where in 
>>the 
>>>>Code do we find the language, "'Individual' means ... " 
>>>>or "An 'individual' is ..."???
>>>
>>>It is defined in Black's Law Dictionary.
>>>The definition should come as no surprise
>>>to anyone.  The IRC cannot define EVERY
>>>word it uses;  that would be impossible.
>>>The absence of a definition for "individual"
>>>has no great consequence.  The definition
>>>of "person" does have great consequence, 
>>>however.
>>>
>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>
>>>
>>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>>
>>--AAC25161.859355351/x6.boston.juno.com--
>>
>>
>>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>>
>
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
>

========================================================================
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