Time: Sun Jun 29 14:46:14 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA26392; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:46:04 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14734; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:45:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:44:05 -0700 To: fwolist@sportsmen.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Evans v. Gore mentioned in some posts (fwd) O'Malley v. Woodrough began in the United States District Court, not the District Court of the United States. They are not one and the same forums. Gilbertson v. U.S. et al. began in the DCUS, where a guarantee like those found in Article III can be enforced. Unconstitutionality dates from enactment, not from the decision so branding it. The high Court cannot change the Constitution, any more than Congress can. The Public Salary Tax Act is unconstitutional for being deceptive by intent: namely, to funnel massive quantities of money into foreign banks. O'Malley accomplished nothing except more of this same old, ugly ruse. Rehnquist claims to have the power to "change doctrine". He is just full of himself (and a few other things not worth mentioning here). When I confronted him at the University of Arizona, he had to draw a long breath, because he was wrong about the Constitution: it grants no authority to the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. C.J. Marshall usurped that power, for better or for worse. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 11:56 AM 6/29/97 -0700, you wrote: >================[ Distributed Message ]================ > ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order) > Type: Not Moderated > Distributed on: 29-JUN-97, 11:56:22 >Original Written by: IN:noborders@worldnet.att.net. >======================================================= > > >: >JUDGES, salaries of, not taxable as income. >: >Evans v. Gore (1920), 253 U. S. 245, ref Amend,Art.16,Cl.2 >: >: Salaries of judges are not taxable NOTWITHSTANDING >: (despite) the so-called 16th amendment. >: >But they are nevertheless presently TAXED. ... in violation of two international human rights treaties which guarantee courts of competent jurisdiction, with presiding judges who are qualified. When Rehnquist admitted that they are all being taxed, in that one statement he also admitted that there are presently no federal judges who are qualified to preside on the District Court of the United States. This means that state Citizens now have authority to remove ALL federal cases into their state courts, which do have original jurisdiction, under an explicit grant to "localities" which Congress attached to its enactment of these two treaties. America is just now beginning to awaken to the immense power which has been reserved for them by their Congress (one of the few good things which Congress has ever done, imho). /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com >: > >: >Foregoing case overruled. >: >O'Malley v. Woodrough (1939), 307 U.S. 277, ref Art.3,Sect.1,Cl.2, ref >: >Amend,Art.16,Cl.2 >: >: Objection: the Sixteenth Amendment >: was proven to be a fraud in >: People v. Boxer, California Supreme >: Court, case number S-030016, Dec. 1992. >: Therefore, it is not an Amendment. >: >: O'Malley v. Woodrough was based on two false and >: rebuttable presumptions: >: >: 1. That there is only one class of citizenship >: in America (there are two); >: >: 2. That judges are citizens >: (no law requires judges to be citizens >: of either class). >: >: Lord v. Kelley admitted openly that federal judges >: are subject to the undue influence of the IRS, >: if they are taxpayers. >: >: For more details, read "The Lawless Rehnquist" >: in the Supreme Law Library at URL: >: >: http://www.supremela.wcom >: >: For these reasons, O'Malley has been challenged >: formally before the 8th Circuit as we speak, >: for violating Article III, Section 1 -- the >: Supreme Law of the Land, pursuant to the >: Supremacy Clause. > >But until the lawless Rehnquist & Associates At Law overturn it O'Malley v. Woodrough (1939) is still the law. Objection. They are not proceeding At Law when they arbitrarily "change doctrine." This is a crime, not discretion. Cases can now be removed into state courts, if Rehnquist tries any more of this nonsense. O'Malley is pure nonsense; that is all there is to it! Rehnquist may not like it, but these treaties are supreme Law, the dicta from the Chief Justice are not supreme Law. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail