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