Time: Fri Nov 08 05:37:21 1996
To: pkawaja@dnet.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Congresswoman Suspected of Tax Evasion
Cc:
Bcc:
>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 05:20:05
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Congresswoman Suspected of Tax Evasion
>
>[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
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail