Time: Mon Nov 25 07:14:35 1996
To: Antony.Meadley@ubs.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: correspondence with U.S. Representative Kennelly
Cc:
Bcc:
attaching self-extracting archives
in BinHex.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 01:50 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Mitchell,
>
>Please could you send me copies of your correspondence with U.S. Representative
>Kennelly.
>
>Many thanks,
>A. Meadley
[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