Time: Tue Oct 29 23:31:33 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Research point
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 11:26 PM 10/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 05:28 PM 10/29/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 05:49 PM 10/29/96 -0600, you wrote:
>>>Tuesday, 29Oct96 @ 17:48 Hours CST
>>>
>>>TO: Paul Mitchell
>>>From: Dale Robertson
>>>Subject: Research Point
>>>
>>>Re-post to your at your request, as follows:
>><snip>
>>>Monday, 28Oct96 @ 14:37 Hours CST
>>>
>>>TO: Counselors - all
>>>From: Joseph Dale Robertson
>>>Subject: What is "United States" & Who is required to file a return?
>>>
>>>
>>>At this time, there is an active pending case in the USDC and Bankruptcy
>>>in which there is an opportunity (as well as necessity) to adjudicate
>>>the the following issues:
>>>
>>>1. As it pertains to "income" as defined under Title 26 of the United
>>>States Code, are individuals within the various 50 states within the
>>>definition of "United States"?
>
>Dear Paul,
>        I may have already told you this, but
>I saw that "State" definition somewhere too.  
>I believe its an old FDA statute, or maybe
>something to do with importation.   Will look
>for it when this brief is finished.
>        How do I get on Alta Vista?  I'm having
>a lot of trouble using the Webb and I'd really
>like to read your book.
>       
>Nancy

Hi Nancy,

Using your web browser, use the
search function, and scroll
until you reach a list of choices.
Alta Vista should be among them.
If you can't find it, call your
service provider, and ask for
help navigating.  When you find
it, make a bookmark (or a favorite).
Then, have some fun, because 
Alta Vista is fast Fast FAST.

I can email you a copy of my book.
What encodings can you handle?
I can send in MIME, BinHex, and
Uuencode.  You have been able
to read the ones I have sent you
so far, correct?  Chapter 11 is
a good one, but you have probably
already seen that chapter in the
jury challenge I prepared.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>>
>>You are already stepping with
>>the wrong foot forward.  Title
>>26, as such, has never been
>>enacted into law, so it is, at best,
>>rebuttable evidence of the law(s)
>>in question.
>>
>>As for the IRC, the Kennelly letter
>>is important evidence that the 
>>definition of "State" at IRC 
>>3121(e) embraces ONLY the named
>>territories and possessions, and
>>the District of Columbia.
>>Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
>>
>>Rep. Kennelly should be subpoened
>>to testify about the evidence she
>>received from the Legislative Counsel
>>and the Congressional Research Service.
>>She is from Connecticut.  Go get her.
>>
>>Finally, "income" is not defined as
>>such in the IRC.  See U.S. v. Ballard, 
>>which rendered this question res
>>judicata.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>2. Who is required to file a return?
>>
>>Anybody made liable.
>>
>>As for the income tax,
>>as opposed to the other
>>taxes discussed in the IRC,
>>the only persons made liable
>>are "withholding agents".
>>Cf. in the definitions,
>>IRC 7701(a) et seq.
>>
>>You can confirm this by
>>submitting a FOIA request
>>for all IRC statutes, 
>>other than those listed
>>in the defintion of
>>withholding agents, which
>>impose a liability.  The
>>government will then be
>>required to admit, on record,
>>that there are no other
>>liability statutes.
>>
>>Be aware that a FOIA request
>>will thrust you into the 
>>District Court of the United States,
>>where you belong anyway.  Have
>>you considered a removal action?
>>
>>>
>>>I am presently compiling a compendium respecting especially the first
>>>and tangentially the second issue stated above.
>>
>>You need Kennelly's letter,
>>and her testimony, under oath.
>>Ask her why she never answered
>>Paul Mitchell's letters.  Or,
>>get leave of the court to depose 
>>her.  Her letter is earth-shaking
>>(see Press Release infra).
>>
>>>
>>>Should any counselor have comment, experience, interest, expertise, or
>>>briefs respecting the above issues your response will be most sincerely
>>>appreciated. Significant work has been done, and I have done some
>>>interesting research on this point, but there is no compendium to which
>>>I am aware which amalgamates the sum of argument(s) in one compendium.
>>
>>See "The Federal Zone" available
>>on the Internet via the Alta Vista
>>search engine.
>>
>>
>>>Any counselor who makes make a submission will receive the end product
>>>compendium and will be advised of developments as this issue proceeds
>>>through the bowels of the USDC and the Bankruptcy forums.
>>
>>You know you are in the wrong
>>court for any criminal prosecutions,
>>don't you?
>>
>>
>> (Hey, I have
>>>to provide an incentive of some type - don't I?) Thanks and 
>>>
>>>Constitutionally,
>>>
>>>Jospeh Dale Robertson
>>>joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.tx.us
>>>
>>>
>>
>>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             August 28, 1996
>>
>>
>>          Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion
>>
>>
>>Payson, Arizona.   Paul  Mitchell, a Counselor at Law and Citizen
>>of Arizona  state, today  challenged U.S.  Representative Barbara
>>Kennelly to  stop evading  the big  question about federal income
>>taxes:   Does the  term "State"  at Internal Revenue Code 3121(e)
>>include only the named federal territories and possessions of the
>>District of  Columbia, Puerto  Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and
>>American Samoa?  Can this be income tax evasion?  Read on.
>>
>>     In a  letter to  Mr. John  Randall of San Diego last January
>>24, Kennelly  responded to  a written request from Randall asking
>>her if  the word  "State" in  26 U.S.  Code 3121(e)  and in other
>>pending legislation  were the  same.   Rep. Kennelly,  a Democrat
>>from Connecticut,  first checked with the Legislative Counsel and
>>with the  Congressional Research  Service about  the  definition.
>>"According to  these  legal  experts,"  answered  Kennelly,  "the
>>definitions are  not the  same.   The term  state in 26 U.S. Code
>>3121 (e)  specifically includes  only the  named U.S. territories
>>and possessions."   Her  letter to  Randall, on official House of
>>Representatives stationery, was dated January 24, 1996.
>>
>>     This admission is earth-shaking, according to Paul Mitchell,
>>who has  conducted an  in-depth investigation of federal laws and
>>the U.S.  Constitution for  seven years  now.   If  the  Internal
>>Revenue Code  was deliberately  written to  confuse the  American
>>people  into   believing  that   "State"   means   "Arizona"   or
>>"California," when  it does  not, then  the Congress has a lot of
>>explaining to  do.   Mitchell has  since challenged  Kennelly  to
>>produce copies  of  the  correspondence  she  received  from  the
>>Legislative Counsel  and Congressional  Research Service, but she
>>has now  fallen  silent  and  refuses  to  answer  any  follow-up
>>letters.   Congress, incidentally,  exempted themselves  from the
>>disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>>     Writing under  several pen  names, Paul  Mitchell's work has
>>reached all  the way  into the  U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted
>>"the federal  zone" as  a household  word in  their sweeping 1995
>>decision in  U.S. v.  Lopez.  His book entitled The Federal Zone:
>>Cracking the  Code of  Internal Revenue,  was first  published in
>>1992, and  became an  instant underground  success for  its lucid
>>language  and   indisputable  legal  authority.    The  book  was
>>originally written  in electronic  form, which  made it  easy  to
>>disseminate through  the Internet.   The  fourth edition  can  be
>>viewed with  the Alta  Vista search  engine, developed by Digital
>>Equipment Corporation.   The  Internet version  does not preserve
>>any bold,  underline, or  italics, however.   Mitchell  has  used
>>special  character  formats  to  highlight  important  words  and
>>phrases in  federal statutes  and case  laws, easing the reader's
>>burden of deciphering an otherwise unintelligible code.
>>
>>
>>  Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly:  Page 1 of 2
>>
>>     It is  clear, there  is a  huge difference  between the area
>>covered by  the federal  zone, and  the area  covered by  the  50
>>States.   "Money is  a powerful motivation for all of us," writes
>>Mitchell in  a chapter  from the  book.   "Congress had literally
>>trillions of  dollars to  gain by  convincing most Americans they
>>were inside  its revenue  base when, in fact, most Americans were
>>outside its revenue base, and remain outside even today.  This is
>>deception on  a grand  scale, and  the proof of this deception is
>>found in  the statute  itself."  Indeed, the proof is now leaking
>>out on official Congressional stationery.
>>
>>     Mitchell goes  on to  argue, it  is  no  wonder  why  public
>>relations "officials"  of the  IRS cringe  in fear when dedicated
>>Patriots admit,  out loud  and in person, that they have read the
>>law.   It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted definitions
>>of "United States" do appear to unlock a statute that is horribly
>>complex and  deliberately so.   As  fate  would  have  it,  these
>>carefully crafted  definitions also  expose perhaps  the greatest
>>fiscal fraud  that has  ever been  perpetrated upon any people at
>>any time in the history of the world.  It is now time for a shift
>>in  the   wind.    That  shift  is  being  driven  by  a  growing
>>understanding of  personal status  and its relation to government
>>territorial jurisdiction.
>>
>>     The vivid  pattern that  has now  painfully emerged  is that
>>"citizens of  the United  States", as defined in federal tax law,
>>are the  intended victims  of a modern statutory slavery that was
>>predicted by  the infamous  Hazard Circular  soon after the Civil
>>War began.   This  circular admitted  that  chattel  slavery  was
>>doomed, so  the bankers  needed to  invent a  new kind of slaves.
>>These "statutory"  slaves are  now burdened  with a bogus federal
>>debt which  is spiralling out of control.  The White House budget
>>office recently  invented a new kind of "generational accounting"
>>so as  to project  a tax  load of  seventy-one percent  on future
>>generations of  these "citizens of the United States".  The final
>>version of  that report  upped the  projection to eighty percent.
>>"It is  our duty  to ensure  that this  statutory slavery is soon
>>gone  with   the  wind,   just  like  its  grisly  and  ill-fated
>>predecessor," concludes Paul Mitchell.
>>
>>     The fifth  anniversary edition  of The  Federal Zone will be
>>available before  the end  of the  year.   Copies  of  Mitchell's
>>correspondence with  U.S. Representative Kennelly can be obtained
>>by sending email to pmitch@primenet.com, Mitchell's email address
>>on the Internet.
>>
>>
>>                             #  #  #
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly:  Page 2 of 2
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.:  pmitch@primenet.com                  
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>>===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail