Time: Sun Apr 20 14:42:43 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01410; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:42:07 -0700 (MST) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA02509; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:41:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:29:33 -0700 To: "mikimbrell" <mkimbrell@mail.webtek.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: First Amendment Triumphs (5 of 5) At 01:56 PM 4/21/97 -0500, you wrote: > I suppose >> you believe the militia blew up the federal >> building too, right? Fertilizer truck, right? > >We have the luxury of not having to believe anything until we're presented >with believable evidence. I am VERY HAPPY to hear that, but you didn't answer my questions. It is not a luxury to believe, or not to believe; it is your Right to choose between lies and truth, and it is your Right to make mistakes. Now, I would like you to prove to me the truth of what you just said, by checking out the evidence which is available through the Internet. The trail of evidence begins at Internal Revenue Code Section 7851(a)(6)(A). Read that section, then ask yourself if Title 26 has been enacted into positive law, or not. You may be pleasantly surprised when you find out. See below. We get lots of mail that looks and reads much >like yours, from people who seem to think there's a conspiracy under every >rock. Whenever I use the term "conspiracy," it refers ONLY to the conspiracy which Congress has outlawed at 18 U.S.C. 241. I am not part of the crowd to which you refer. If you want proof, visit the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://www.supremelaw.com and then tell me about any errors you find there. I don't believe there are any. More evidence can be supplied to you later, but you must now prove to me that you are seeking this information in good faith. A good place to start is the essay entitled "Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion." You don't need me to do the follow-up here. I can fax you the original letter which Rep. Kennelly wrote to a American in California, admitting that the meaning of "State" in the Internal Revenue Code is restricted to the federal zone ONLY. Shall we subpoena Kennelly? Better yet, shall we subpoena the staff of the Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service who advised her to say what she wrote in her letter? Now, THAT would be an interesting hearing. For your information, we have left very few stones unturned, and we stay very close to federal laws, as published. Check out Internal Revenue Code section 7851(a)(6)(A): General rule, for a good taste of what I am talking about here. Bye! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== 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