Time: Thu Apr 10 11:10:52 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA06007; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:13:42 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA10470; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:13:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:10:14 -0700 To: butchaz@juno.com (Alfred R Martin) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: The Informer Alfred, The Informer made a lot of crucial mistakes in his book, notably his lack of consistency with respect to the meaning of "includes" and "including." I attempted to air these inconsistencies in "The Federal Zone," by way of showing how different authors are coming to different conclusions about basic rules of construction, and their application to the Internal Revenue Code. After I published "The Federal Zone," the Informer seemed to turn towards radicalism, promoting the idea that the Constitution is a scam, and citizenship is an even worse scam. After going through the pertinent citizenship cases with great care, I have come to believe that the following convention is proper, notwithstanding whatever the Informer may have written in his book, which is now obsolete in many places: 1. Citizen of Arizona state (notice use of capital letters) 2. citizen of the United States (notice use of capital letters) The "C"/"c" convention is found in bona fide copies of the U.S. Constitution. See the qualifications for serving in the House, Senate, and White House, and compare with Section 1 of the so-called 14th amendment. I use two quick tests to determine if a copy of the U.S. Constitution is bona fide: (1) the "C" in "Citizen of the United States" at 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5 is a Capital "C", and (2) the Bill of Rights has a Preamble of its own, in addition to the main Preamble. The Federal Zone contains an essay on the mathematical probability that all uses of the term "citizen" would be in lower-case "c" by chance, in the IRC; that probability is zero. The "S"/"s" convention comes out of an obscure regulation which Clinton has ordered removed from federal depository libraries. See if you can still find 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2 on the Internet. Here, the de facto corporate States are use Capital "S"; the de jure state republics use a small "s". Since there are two and only two classes of citizenship in America, there is no other citizenship which is currently recognized in American Law never repealed. (Read that again!) The term "national" and its derivatives all suffer from the fact that they are not grounded (or used) in the Constitution, and thus it is subject to legislative whims. The Constitution, as you know, is not subject to legislative whims, and the meaning of the terms used is perpetual, unless amended pursuant to Article V. Thus, "American National" should be avoided, if at all possible. Let Patriots admit they made a mistake, and move on. We should not be debating how many angels can dance on a pin (that problem has already been solved). If you look in Black's under "Right"/"Constitutional Rights", you will find "Political rights" [sic]. Read what is defined under "Political rights", and you will be delighted to learn that the choice of citizenship is a political right. It is also known as the Right of Election, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. Two classes of citizenship, in light of the Right of Election, combine to create four (4) cases: 1. citizen of the United States, not a Citizen of any state 2. not a citizen of the United States, a Citizen of a state 3. citizen of the United States, a Citizen of a state 4. not a citizen of the United States, not a Citizen of any state Case 2 is the most interesting, because people in this "class" cannot be indicted by federal grand juries or convicted by federal trial juries. For details, read "Juries in Check Around the Nation" in the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com While browsing the stacks there (splendor in the stacks?) check out the essay "State Citizens Cannot Vote" which covers some of the same ground, from a different angle. The bottom line is this: state Citizens cannot vote, they cannot serve on grand juries, and they cannot serve on trial juries. Thus, they are being taxed without representation, which is a clear violation of the Declaration of Independence, which remains organic, fundamental Law in America. Good night. Do keep up the good work. You have distinguished yourself as a unique and valuable scholar, in my opinion. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 08:14 PM 4/10/97 EDT, you wrote: >So, what are you? > >A Citizen of the united States? > >A citizen of the United States? > >A nonresident alien of the U.S.? > >I am a Citizen of the United States like you are a Citizen of China. >Here you have defined yourself as a national from a Nation with >regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a >"Citizen of the United States." This is what everybody thinks the >tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen >and where it is placed. Confused now?, please go back to study basic >English. > >I am a United States citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a >person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, >or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, >which could be in one of the States of the Onion or a foreign >country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States >(Congress) because citizen is small case. Again, if confused, go >back to basic English. This is the "United States" the tax statutes >are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103 (b) >(5). > >I am a Citizen of these United States. Here you have defined >yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the >Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States). >In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United >States domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or >subdivision of corporate governmental entities. >The way to make statement #3 grammatically correct is, "I am a Citizen of >these united States". This would be as it was written in the Declaration >of Independence providing you get a copy of the Original Document. What >is now printed in the books has been changed to a Capital "U" in united, >which changes the word to mean something entirely different. Just like >the "S" has been changed to capital "S" in Supreme Court, thereby >changing the status of the word. One other way #3 can be stated is; I am >a Citizen of the united States, but remember, we are talking at the >National level in ordinary everyday terms, NOT TAX LAW TERMS. you will >see how critical it is to ask the usurpers how they define the term >"United States," and boy are they tricky on their answers. >When you use the term United States, it can be plural or singular. This >phrase: "Every person born or naturalized in the United States and >subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.", defines the United States in >its singular form because of the word "its". Also "jurisdiction" is >singular as it has no "s". You are possessed by or belong to "it" because >citizen is not capitalized. CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATORS, ARE THE UNITED >STATES. Remember that! >THIS IS FOUND IN 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) which is A United States regulation, >THAT CANNOT BE USED ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. See Hamilton Fed. Paper #15 >supra. Citizen with a small "c" denotes an inferior subject to the >capitalized United States, which is a proper Noun. For the United States >to be plural the phrase would have to state, "...and subject to their >jurisdictions..." Notice how nicely the people who write the tax laws use >correct and proper English. It is the syntax that gets you into trouble. >Most Americans don't bother to sit down with Congress' definitions and >find out how the exact words are used in the Taxing Statutes. Hey, if you >can't grasp the correct understanding of the phrase "We the People of the >United States" and the phrase above, how are you ever going to understand >the Tax Laws that apply only to that entity called the United States? >The definitions used in 26 USC or 26 CFR are very clear in defining State >and United States. In every definition that uses the word "include" only >the words that follow are defining the Term. For example: >26 USC 3121 (e) "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, >the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American >Samoa." > >26 USC 7701 (a) (9) "United States. The term "United States" when used in >a >geographical sense includes only the States and the District of >Columbia." >The Government has used these definitions correctly but people assume >they mean the 50 States of the Union (America) when they look at the word >"States" in 26 USC 7701 (a) (9). You cannot apply the common everyday >usage of the word "United States" or "State" when talking about the Tax >Laws and many other laws belonging to the United States. > > > ======================================================================== 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