Subject:

Estoppel Activated against IRS and U.S. Department of the Treasury

there is no liability statute for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A

 

Date: March 27, 2007 A.D.

 

 

INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT; AND,

SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Tenth Circuit #07-2017):

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

 

See item (7).

 

This pleading was mailed yesterday (see PROOF OF SERVICE).

 

A second such NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT

was mailed today (3/27/2007):

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad07.htm

 

 

PASS IT ON, PLEASE!

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

Subject:

RIP: The Federal Income Tax Officially DIED today (3/27/2007)

at 13:53:58 PDT

 

 

My Fellow Americans:

 

We bring you tidings of great joy.

 

That was the date and time stamp on our Sales Receipt

from the U.S. Postal Service at downtown San Diego,

California, USA, at the very moment we posted this

NOTICE OF DEFAULT:

 

INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT; AND,

SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Tenth Circuit #07-2017) here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

 

 

FINALLY, the federal income tax is officially dead.

 

 

Not only is the U.S. Department of the Treasury legally estopped.

 

U.S. DOJ attempted to appear on behalf of a Delaware corporation

which has been revoked. Therefore, the U.S. Department

of Justice is also legally estopped from enforcing IRC subtitle A

and from attempting to rebut the AFFIDAVIT above, because

the Relator in that appeal preempted DOJ the moment Relator

appeared on behalf of the United States ex rel:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/intervention.htm

 

It is now the official position of the United States (federal government)

that there is no federal Statute at Large which creates a specific liability

for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

For standing high Court authority, see Commissioner v. Acker:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm (see Am Jur abstract!)

 

Moreover, U.S. DOJ cannot now attempt to appear on behalf

of the United States (federal government), because

the United States is already legally represented in that appeal:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

 

 

IT'S OVER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN -- FINALLY!

 

 

PLEASE TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THIS GOOD NEWS:

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX OFFICIALLY DIED TODAY (3/27/2007)

AT 1:53 P.M. PACIFIC DAYLIGHT TIME.

 

 

Praise God for all of His many blessings during the past 17 years.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

> What is the significance of all of this in regards to the IRS???

 

> I'm not sure what is going on, but it sounds pretty big

> what is happening in regards to these people not answering you.

 

> I have some other communication about a Chuck Conces

> who is having some troubles and wonder if this might be of import

> to what is happening to him.

 

 

Yes: this news is significant for all 300 million Americans,

particularly as the annual April 15 tax deadline approaches.

 

There is no liability STATUTE for taxes imposed by subtitle A

of the Internal Revenue Code: IRS tried to create that liability

with regulations instead, but it's not legal for IRS to do that:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

 

An administrative regulation is NOT an "Act of Congress":

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html (defines "Act of Congress")

 

Regulations are written and promulgated by Executive Branch agencies,

NOT by the Congress of the United States i.e. the Legislative Branch.

Only the Congress can "make federal laws":

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1

 

EVEN IF IRS were a de jure service or bureau within

the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are not),

they would STILL not have any authority to create a tax liability

by means of regulations published in the Federal Register.

 

So, in point of fact, IRS has been impersonating the Congress

and impersonating the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

These are violations of 18 USC 912 and 31 USC 333,

respectively:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/912.html (felony federal offense)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/333.html (civil and criminal penalties)

 

And, since Treasury fell silent in response to a proper and lawful

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, they were legally estopped

the moment we filed a NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT

at the Tenth Circuit today. Service of LEGAL MAIL is effected

on the day it's posted.


"Estoppel" basically means that they cannot come

forward any longer, because they had their chance,

for several years, and they couldn't produce a STATUTE.

 

So, now it's O-V-E-R for them.

 

EVEN IF they produced a liability STATUTE tomorrow,

that STATUTE (which doesn't exist, by the way)

can be stricken from evidence at the Tenth Circuit

on the basis of legal estoppel. In simple language,

they cannot change their minds to the detriment

of their opposing party(s):

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

 

 

For the rest of the story, study up on the topic

of "estoppel" in any good law dictionary

e.g. "equitable estoppel" and "collateral estoppel".

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

> Mr. Mitchell are you telling me that there is no more income tax?

 

 

Yes: pursuant to this NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT,

the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS are now

legally estopped, because they fell silent in response to a lawful

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE for a proper liability statute:

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm (PAST DUE & IN DEFAULT)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

 

 

There is no LIABILITY STATUTE for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.

 

 

For high Court authority on this point, see Commissioner v. Acker,

cited in this Am Jur abstract:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

 

 

"In a nutshell" here's a very brief summary:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

 

 

The communists who have infiltrated our State and federal governments

are coming unglued by the NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT above.

 

Too bad for them! They're trying to enforce a Plank in the

Communist Manifesto, contrary to the Law in America.

 

They went to sea in a sieve, and now it's sinking fast.

 

We are a Republic by Law, not a communist country.

 

 

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.

 

 

Bcc: The Internet

 


Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:13:02 -0700 (PDT)

From: Supreme Law Firm < paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>

Subject: Help w/ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker

 

 

> I am studying closely your APPELLANTS' INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

> in the Williamson case and trying to understand the language referenced i.e.

> "[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or

> any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority,

> especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee."

 

> but I am not able to see this

> when reading Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

 

> What am I missing here? Will you help me understand this?

 

 

Hi Tharon,

 

Good question!

 

Start here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

 

And derive three (3) key points from that Am Jur citation

("3" is my lucky number, remember? :)

 

(1) the power of an administrative agency to make rules

does not extend to the power to make legislation;

 

(2) a regulation which is beyond the power of the agency to make is invalid; and,

 

(3) an administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability

not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, and specifically a liability for a tax

or inspection fee.

 

 

Now, click on the link to Commissioner v. Acker, and study this paragraph:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87


[begin excerpt]

 

The fact that the section contains no basis or means for the computation

of any addition to the tax in a case where no declaration has been filed

would seem to settle the point beyond all controversy.

 

If the section had in any appropriate words conveyed the thought expressed

by the regulation it would thereby have clearly authorized the Commissioner

to treat the taxpayer's failure to file a declaration as the equivalent of a declaration

estimating his tax at zero and, hence, as constituting a "substantial underestimate" of his tax.

 

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore,

to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold

that it may be imposed by regulation,

which, of course, the law does not permit.

United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359;

Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447;

Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134.

...

The questioned regulation must therefore be regarded "as no more than

an attempted addition to the statute of something which is not there."

United States v. Calamaro, supra, 354 U.S., at 359.

 

[end excerpt]

 

 

Now, apply what you just learned about such "over-reaching" regulations

to the specific regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b):

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#b

 

That regulation attempted to create a specific liability

for federal citizens and resident aliens to pay income

taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.

 

To paraphrase Commissioner v. Acker now:

"IRC section 1 contains nothing like the specific liability

provision which Congress enacted for subtitle C

at IRC section 3403."

 

In other words, there is no corresponding Act of Congress

which created a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.

The PROOF is in the silence which the former Secretary of the

Treasury exhibited in reply to this lawful SUBPOENA:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm


"Silence activates estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen

"Silence can be equated with fraud." U.S. v. Tweel

 

Therefore, the regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1 is void

for attempting to create a specific liability

without a corresponding Act of Congress:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

> Paul, this involves civil, not criminal;

> how does that differ as far as the income tax goes?

> Thanks Gene

 

 

No difference, really. The USDC has no criminal jurisdiction

whatsoever, in point of law; this is explained further here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

(e.g. the federal Jury Selection and Service Act is unconstitutional,

thus invalidating all federal grand jury INDICTMENTS and

all federal trial jury VERDICTS against State Citizens;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a defunct

Delaware Corporation; etc. ad nauseam)

 

Statutes conferring original jurisdiction upon federal district courts

must be STRICTLY construed. In this context, see 18 USC 3231:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html

 

More importantly, the constitutionality of IRC subtitles A and F

has now been formally challenged at the Tenth Circuit

by the United States appearing ex rel.:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/

(the United States agrees with the Williamson Appellants!)

 

Subtitle F contains ALL the enforcement provisions, e.g.

criminal penalties for tax evasion, etc.

 

See further discussion of 18 USC 3231 here, in the

Williamson Appellants' INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

 

3231 supra confers original criminal jurisdiction upon the

Article III District Courts of the United States ("DCUS"),

NOT upon the Article IV United States District Courts ("USDC").

 

 

Summarizing: It's now O-V-E-R for the IRS! The End

 

 

Bcc: The Internet (widely)


 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

> You demanded the U.S. Government to show by Judicial Process

> that there is a Law demanding the people to pay income tax.

> I believe the Grace period you gave the U.S. Government to respond was 60 days.

 

 

Greetings Patrick:

 

Not exactly. Here's a somewhat detailed history:

 

A blank SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE was issued

by the Clerk of the Article III District Court of the United States

in Santa Ana, California, on behalf of a client of the

Supreme Law Firm. That was the District Clerks' practice back then,

if a plaintiff or defendant requested such a blank civil SUBPOENA.

 

Because our client had no immediate use for that blank

SUBPOENA, she gave it to me and, much later,

I completed that SUBPOENA on 9/14/2002 and served it

on Paul H. O'Neill, who was the Secretary of the Treasury

at that time. The deadline for his answer, as stated

on that SUBPOENA, was November 1, 2002:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm

 

About 2 months after it was served, Paul H. O'Neill was fired

by George W. Bush and, ever since then, we have been

looking and hoping for the best opportunity to introduce

that SUBPOENA into evidence, with the requisite

NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT.

 

You will note, on the list of recipients of that original SUBPOENA,

that a significant diversity of different litigants was to receive

certified copies of the requested Statute at Large:

that diversity was intended to create qualified federal witnesses

out of all those litigants, in the event that O'Neill either fell silent,

or complied with the SUBPOENA.

 

For example, we can now use formal discovery to confirm

whether or not those itemized dockets show any record

of a written reply to that SUBPOENA from O'Neill's office.


The Williamson appeal provided my office with a unique

opportunity for the United States to intervene "ex rel." --

which I have now done as the "Relator" legally representing

the United States (federal government). Having legally

perfected that intervention, we followed with several

supporting documents, the most recent of which included this

INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT; AND,

SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

 

The SUBPOENA in question, PROOF OF SERVICE and

related documents were attached to the latter

NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT. See item (7)

and this Press Release:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

 

Therefore the amount of time which the Department of the Treasury

has now allowed to pass, withOUT producing the required liability STATUTE,

extends from September 14, 2002 to March 27, 2007 -- a period spanning

approximately 4 1/2 YEARS.

 

We are quite confident, then, to argue that estoppel has now been activated,

pursuant to the holding in Carmine v. Bowen (silence activates estoppel).

 

I hope this helps.

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

Subject: PASS IT ON: POWERS OF 10 x CONFIRMATION

 

> Paul,

> Thank You for your reply. Ray

 

 

You're very welcome, Ray.

 

We were asked how we intend to broadcast this good news.

 

Because the major media have given us the deaf ear

-- for at least 17 years now, having started in 1990 --

and because the Most High has gifted us with this

marvelous Internet, we merely ask that you forward

this good news to ten (10) other contacts of yours,

via email, and ask them to do likewise.

 

It only takes six (6) powers of ten to reach a million,

and only eight (8) powers of ten to reach 100 million!

 

So, DO PASS IT ON, PLEASE:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm

 

 

And, the legal eagles out there will SURELY enjoy this

INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF, just filed by the Williamson

Appellants at the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

(HTML version is now hyperlinked: please report any link errors to the Supreme Law Firm)

 

John and Nancy Williamson are shipping autographed copies

of this astounding document for only $20.00 prepaid in cash.

 

These purchases will no doubt help them a LOT

with their ongoing legal expenses.

 

Their mailing location is:

 

Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson

1277 Historic Route 66 East

Tijeras 87059

NEW MEXICO, USA

 


Priority U.S. Mail with Delivery Confirmation

is recommended, to permit tracking via the

USPS tracking database on the Internet

at http://www.usps.com .

 

 

Thanks very much!

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

> How do you intend to make this public so millions of Americans know?

> Most of the people reading this probably knew about this being illegal.

> How would you get this info to millions of Americans who have no idea?

> There are entities which have beaten the system in the past

> but were not made common public knowledge

> so the system goes on and

> whether this is legal or not is irrelevant if the masses do not know.

 

 

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm:

 

Our clients did not retain me to develop a Public Relations program

or an advertising campaign.

 

This is LITIGATION, ok?

 

If you want to conduct an advertising campaign, GO FOR IT!!!

 

I think that's an excellent idea, but I don't have control of the

funds it will require to do a serious and professional job.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

 


 

> Has anyone represented to you that he has ever accomplished anything

> in any case other than to see those who believed in him be mercilessly crucified -

> over, and over, and over again? [written by Mr. Branscum]

 

 

Well, this is arguably one of his MOST SERIOUS errors, among others

that I can show to you.

 

Perhaps this is as good a time, as any other, to itemize some of the

wins in which I have been involved, here goes:

 

 

(1) In People v. Boxer, we petitioned the California Supreme Court

for a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to compel Senator-Elect Barbara Boxer

to witness the evidence impugning the ratification of the so-called

16th Amendment; at that time, my procedural knowledge was

minimal. When the California Supreme Court referred that case

to the California Court of Appeals, the latter summarily "denied"

our PETITION, but I failed to appeal back up to the California

Supreme Court in time. So, the clerks closed that case.

Barbara Boxer, however, never responded, so her silence

Rendered our AFFIDAVITS the "truth of that case".

 

Summary: a Mexican Standoff (if you will):

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/

 

Note that we also petitioned the Superior Court first,

but that judge ruled that his court did not have jurisdiction.

 

 

(2) In USA v. Vroman, I offered my research abilities to Vroman,

and he took me under his wing, and shared several dinners

with me at his ranch north of Santa Rosa, California.

He also game me a few firearms lessons, in exchange for my labor.

To summarize, together we developed a defense strategy

which acquitted him of the felony tax evasion charge,

but he was convicted of misdemeanor failure to file:

he asked the jurors why they convicted him, and they

replied that he had admitted on the witness stand

that "he did not file." Vroman is now the duly elected

District Attorney for the County of Mendocino, California.

I personally prepared the Visual Aides which can be

found here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/vroman/

 


(3) It wasn't until I migrated to Tucson, Arizona, that

I had more opportunities to litigate: a trust there

invited me to help them prepare a defense against

a federal grand jury SUBPOENA for the trust's

books and records. When that trust's manager

appointed me to the office of Vice President

for Legal Affairs, federal judge John M. Roll recognized

that appointment and authorized me to represent

the trust, and to litigate its defense. The net result

was that we routed 1 federal judge, 2 U.S. Attorneys,

and 1 IRS agent, who were all charged with a very

large number of felony federal offenses. Perhaps I should

add that the trust's manager confessed to me that

he was guilty; nevertheless, my work did succeed

in defeating a federal grand jury INDICTMENT of him,

despite his private confession to me and 3 others:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nlhc/

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/roll/

 

 

(4) In my own 2 IRS "summons" enforcement cases,

I prevailed BOTH TIMES, once before U.S. District Judge

Vaughn Walker in downtown San Francisco, and once

before a "pro tem" appointment whose name I have forgotten.

The winning brief that we filed in Walker's court is here,

with names changed to protect the privacy of families

involved:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/oppososc.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/ (case quietly DISMISSED by Walker)

 

In the second such case, I didn't file anything, because

I had become disgusted with federal "judges"; instead,

I argued with that pro tem for 40 minutes, and during that

hearing I formally moved that USDC four (4) different times

for an ORDER to the Assistant U.S. Attorney to disclose

the statute which created a specific liability for taxes

imposed by subtitle A. That pro tem would not rule on

any of my 4 motions, and the AUSA sat down and put his

head in hands, saying nothing. I have memorialized

that amazing hearing in the latest Preface to

"The Federal Zone" here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

 

See Preface to the Eighth Edition here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/preface.htm#preface8

 


(5) In USA v. Gilbertson, this OPENING BRIEF

incorporated at least 7 YEARS of research up to that time:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm

 

Even though the Eighth Circuit knew who wrote that BRIEF,

they never served me with their erroneous "summary ruling"

that the IRC is "not vague". That summary ruling was also

UNPUBLISHED. Then, 3 years later, a 3-judge panel on

that same Eighth Circuit ruled that UNPUBLISHED

Circuit Court decisions are unconstitutional:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/anastasoff/  (CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?? I DO!!)

 

You may recall that we have introduced the decision in Anastasoff

in pleadings now filed in your appeal to the Tenth Circuit,

because it contains a beautiful history of "judicial precedent".

 

To keep Gilbertson's appeal alive, I applied for

intervention on behalf of the People of the USA:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/

because I had later confirmed two (2) Acts of

Congress which expressly extended the

U.S. Constitution into D.C. and into

all federal Territories, even future Territories.

However, that Eighth Circuit never ruled on the

People's APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION,

not even a summary "denial". Nothing ever since then!

 

 

(6) I have been retained by numerous other clients

who have experienced very similar abominations

issuing from the federal judiciary.  In Spokane,

Washington State, I helped defeat another

act of outright aggression against a chiropractor

and his wife here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/macdonald/

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#DWA

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/vansickle.fred/nad.missing.credentials.2.htm

 

Feel free to telephone Dr. Russell MacDonald, because he has been

a silent subscriber to the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive

for several YEARS now, and I regard him as a personal friend and

trusted colleague: by that I mean that I would trust him with my life.

 


I could go on and on, John and Nancy, but what's the point?

 

You can easily confirm all of these cases, either by reviewing

the documentation which we have painstakingly assembled & uploaded

to the Internet, and/or contacting the parties and government

personnel involved. Vaugh Walker is still a U.S. District Judge

in San Francisco, and he has all 4 credentials:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/walker.vaughn/

 

And, yes I did change my name, when I went under cover

in Tucson to locate 2,500 children who disappeared

into Child Protective Services there:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kidnaps.htm

 

I have to laugh when anyone tries to make a BIG DEAL

about my name change. You should know that I was

in the same UCLA graduating class as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

 

Of course, when we were fellow students at UCLA, his

name then was Lew Alcindor. Everybody who knew him

liked him: he gave the entire campus an extraordinary set

of unforgettable basketball memories, which I too

witnessed after we would rush to finish dinner at Dykstra Hall

and find mid-court seats in Pauley Pavilion, for one amazing

experience after another.

 

WHAT A THRILL! Kareem is one of my long-standing heroes.

And, look at what he did after graduating from UCLA!

He has to be one of America's most famous athletes,

no contest.

 

I think Mr. Brain Scum should also telephone Kareem

and excoriate Kareem also for changing his name to

a Muslim-sounding name. You know what Kareem

will probably say to that jerk, if I know Kareem?

He'll either hang up on him, or tell him to go

stick his f**king head in a toilet and flush it.

 

 

I apologize for my outburst, but enough is enough.

 

 

P.S. If you want to know details about more of our "wins" here,

just ask. I'll be happy to share the details with you, privately.

 

 

Have a nice evening, John and Nancy.

 


Cc: Dr. Russell MacDonald, D.C., Spokane, Washington State

Bcc: The Internet (widely)

 

 

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm