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