Time: Mon Nov 25 18:53:46 1996
To: kalliste@delphi.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: request for telephone appointment
Cc:
Bcc:
I failed to give you my telephone
number, in case you don't already
have it:
(520) 320-1513
URL http://www.supremelaw.com
Many thanks!
Dear Mr. Grabbe,
Would you please call me at your
earliest convenience, so that we
can schedule a longer telephone
appointment?
Thank you very much for your
consideration.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Press Releases follow:
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
For Immediate Release November 4, 1996
The Kick-Back Racket:
Performance Management and
Recognition System
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
All Rights Reserved
(October 1996)
It is becoming increasing apparent, in large part because of
a conspiracy of silence which has descended upon the District of
Columbia in recent months, that President Clinton has a lot of
explaining to do, in quite a few executive departments. One of
the best suppressed stories of his administration thus far is
evidence of White House kick-backs from the Internal Revenue
Service ("IRS") for each and every indictment issued by federal
grand juries against "illegal tax protestors," whatever they are.
The term itself is an oxymoron, because protest has never
been illegal in America. Protest is even recognized by the
federal government's precious Uniform Commercial Code for
repudiating presentments in a lawful manner. So, for the phrase
"illegal tax protestor" to withstand the obvious constitutional
challenge (yes, the First Amendment is still the supreme Law in
America), the adjective "illegal" must modify the noun "tax."
This is a telling admission on the part of our vaulted Congress
of what many Americans have known for a long time, namely, the
federal income tax is a total and utter fraud, from stem to
stern. Our Ship of State is a sieve at sea that's riddled with
loop-holes and sinking fast.
What makes this term even more obnoxious is the way in which
the IRS now attacks American "rebels" who dare to learn and speak
the truth. A key page from the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM")
clearly shows that the President routinely receives $35,000 from
the Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"). We
have a political prisoner in federal custody right now who is
prepared to testify that the President receives this sum each and
every time a federal grand jury issues an indictment against any
illegal tax protestor ("ITP"). U.S. Attorneys receive a mere
$25,000 per indictment of ITP's.
Now, if the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has a secret task
force in place to attack ITP's who've become organized, like the
former Pilot Connection Society which has been reported to have
over 5,000 members, the President stands to rake in a tidy sum if
his hench-persons in the DOJ succeed in bringing grand jury
indictments against all 5,000. Let's see, 5,000 times $35,000
equals $175,000,000. The bad news for President Clinton is that
the IRM provides absolutely no authority for these "performance
recognition rewards" (read "kick-backs"). Courts have
consistently ruled that the IRM has no more authority than a
pizza recipe, when it comes to authorizing salaries and other
The Kick-Back Racket: Page 1 of 3
compensation for federal government employees. Federal employee
salaries must be determined by Acts of Congress, and the IRM is a
far cry from that high standard of law.
Furthermore, the Constitution forbids the President from
receiving any other "emoluments" during his term of office. See
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: "... he shall not receive within
that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of
them." A FOIA request by this author for all PMRS records
produced an admission, on Treasury Department letterhead, that
some records do not exist because the rewards were paid in cash.
This is bad enough. But, when you couple these kick-backs with
the perjury racket now rampant within the Department of Just US,
and with a grand jury system which badly needs either complete
overhaul or abolition, you quickly find that the indictments
issuing from federal grand juries, for alleged violations of the
Internal Revenue Code, are really threats, engineered by the
biggest extortion racket this planet has ever seen. Jury
tampering, perjury, and obstruction of justice are terms which do
a far better job of describing what is really going on.
In one recent grand jury case, involving a subpoena for
certain books and records, a federal judge in Arizona conspired
with the Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") to commit 27 counts of
mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of obstruction
of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the
above. When a formal request was submitted to that grand jury to
investigate probable violations of federal law by the AUSA, the
judge intercepted this certified request, and all subsequent
pleadings which were then directed to the grand jury by Counsel
in order to keep them informed of what was really going on.
These pleadings contained crucial evidence -- you guessed it --
of the PMRS kick-back racket, and of a pattern of pathological
lying by the AUSA dating back to a $4,797 fine imposed on him for
repeatedly lying to a federal court in Phoenix. This was
unprecedented for federal courts who almost never eat their own.
Last but not least, the evidence is now overwhelming that
the law which Congress enacted to qualify and convene all juries,
both grand and trial, is horribly defective for exhibiting
obvious class bias against state Citizens who are not also
federal citizens. The courts have consistently ruled that
Americans can be state Citizens without also being federal
citizens, whether or not the federal government's precious
Fourteenth Amendment was properly approved and adopted (and we
now know that it was not). Unfortunately for Congress, this
class discrimination in the Jury Selection and Service Act, Title
28 United States Code Sections 1861 thru 1865, invalidates each
and every federal grand jury indictment, and each and every
federal trial jury verdict, ever since the end of the Civil War.
The United States is now in very deep trouble for putting so
many Americans in federal prisons, with absolutely no lawful
authority whatsoever to do so. Couple that with the fact that
the U.S. incarceration rate is twice as high as it is in South
Africa, which is second world-wide in prisoners per capita.
The Kick-Back Racket: Page 2 of 3
Do you think maybe that the federal government may be
running an extortion racket here, just for money? I think so. I
know so. I can prove it. I am appalled.
Common Law Copyright
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
November 4, 1996
# # #
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
For Immediate Release November 2, 1996
"Karma and the Federal Courts"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
All Rights Reserved
(November 1996)
The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around.
When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your
house.
And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of
the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal
"District Courts" in the federal court system.
One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for
the state zone.
Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction,
"inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase
"District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts
for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District
Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone.
We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the
United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance
Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic].
Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of
statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are
assigned to them expressly by statutes.
When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling
statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231.
This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District
Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the
United States District Courts (USDC)!
How about them apples?
Remember this carefully:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ).
Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English).
Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be
inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in
Black's Law Dictionary, any edition).
So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has
permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and
Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 1 of 3
into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction
whatsoever.
This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but
now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without
bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by
the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own
corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of
judicial tyranny.)
By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been
invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the
United States by moving their talents state-side. They should
return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on
available supplies of soap and water.
Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too
far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which
surround the federal zone.
This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its
limited Honors and tarnished glory.
Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18
U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to
issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by
18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to
issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants
civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both
refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO
(Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities.
So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did
Congress need to enact two separate statutes?
The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the
DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really,
when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which
penetrates the deception.
Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to
prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal
government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been
prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War;
furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction
whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from
Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive
law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive
law. See Title 1 for details.
What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when
any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such
things as any regulations which have been published in the
Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18
U.S.C. 3231.
Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 2 of 3
It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the
credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case
in any way.
Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18
U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to
produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with
silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal
deadline has run, you are in court.
But which court? Guess ...
... the answer is the District Court of the United States.
What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge
in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States
District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a
request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests
must be litigated in the District Court of the United States
(DCUS).
Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum
for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum
for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then
the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of
Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C.
552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231!
Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it.
It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this
writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt
some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by
Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been
intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was
intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of
the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is
called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head-
on, collision.
Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ...
... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!!
Love it.
Common Law Copyright
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
November 2, 1996
# # #
Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 3 of 3
The Kick-Back Racket: Page 3 of 3
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail