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.

     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  Contact Us,  Paul Mitchell's email address
on the Internet.  (See text below.)

                             #  #  #


TO:       Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly
          Member of Congress

FROM:     Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
          Counselor at Law

DATE:     June 28, 1996

SUBJECT:  Definition of "state" in IRC 3121(e)

I am  a part-time  student of  comparative economic  history, and
your letter  to Mr.  John Randall of San Diego, dated January 24,
1996, just happened across my desk recently (see attached).

I would  be very  interested to  obtain  copies  of  any  written
communications you  received from the Legislative Counsel and the
Congressional Research  Service concerning  the definition of the
term "state" as found in 26 U.S. Code, Section 3121(e).

Would it  be possible  for you to send me copies of their written
communications to you, if any?

These communications  would be very helpful to certain aspects of
my current  research endeavors, in particular, the fallout from a
set of  Supreme Court decisions known as The Insular Cases (circa

Rep. Kennelly, thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law

email:       Contact Us


attachment:  letter to John Randall,
             January 24, 1996

copies:      Legislative Counsel
             Congressional Research Service

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

Published Press Releases