Time: Wed Oct 30 12:53:22 1996
To: Electra
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Please forward to Nancy Lord
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:31:36
>To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Re: Research point
>
>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