Time: Sat Jul 05 12:53:25 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17364;
Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:33:01 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:32:44 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: SAP National Conference Call (fwd)
The U.S. Constitution only operates upon me
in the event that I might be summoned to
testify, pursuant to the "compulsory process"
clause in the Sixth Amendment. ALL the rest of it
is intended to govern the conduct of federal and state
employees who are obligated to take a solemn
oath to support it. Citizens of the several states
are not so obligated. An official 1990 publication
of INS states that American Citizens are no longer
subjects of a government. Read that last sentence
again.
THAT'S RIGHT!! For once, the feds told the truth,
but it was a rare event, which you probably did
not notice, unless you have purchased a copy of
the book entitled "The Federal Zone," quotes that
passage verbatim.
The cases are filled with authority for holdings
which say that Citizens of the several states
became Sovereigns without subjects. See, e.g.
Chisholm v. Georgia, for starters. We have two
classes of citizenship, and we also have the Right
to join one, the other, both, or neithers. Congress
recognizes the right of expatriation, and did so
THE DAY BEFORE the so-called 14th amendment was
declared ratified.
WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE!!!
I feel sorry for the vast numbers of Internet
users who do not realize that ad hominem arguments
are regarded as inferior argumentation. In
contemporary parlance, they are really nothing
more than a "last gasp."
Under the Tenth Amendment, I assert the Right to
be a Citizen of Arizona state who has elected
NOT to be a citizen of the United States, as
defined by a bogus 14th amendment [sic]. As such,
I am a "Citizen of ONE OF the States united,"
which is the construction given to the
Qualifications Clauses by Pablo De La Guerra,
a California judge who signed the California
Constitution of 1849 and explained their meaning
in People v. De La Guerra, a California Supreme
Court case in which that court agreed with him.
You cannot serve in the House, Senate, or White
House unless you are a Citizen of ONE OF the
States united; those clauses have never been
amended.
So, I do hesitate to say this, but after sharing
so much of the essential legal history of this
argument on the Internet here, the writer below
really doesn't know what he is talking about.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you have not read the cases.
As the Hon. Norman L. Vroman once said to me,
"Read the cases. Then read them again!"
I took his advice, and am happy that I did.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 08:29 AM 7/4/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Paul Paul Silly Paul who does not even consider himself a US Citizen, and
>then as such is NOT protected by the US Constitution. Need I say any more ?
>In your world, you have thrown out the US Constitution. Should I join you
>in such folly ? I dare say not. And your invective below speaks for
>itself. I will try to address each point individually for you and all you
>are misleading as you put it so aptly. This first pass will not address all
>the points, I need to really look at what you may or may not be saying, so
>to help me if you could be very precise in telling me what you think SAP
>thinks, with actual quoted text from SAP material that can be verified, and
>how and why you think SAP's statements on same are wrong, and what you think
>the right way to think about same is. Then we can see where you and SAP
>agree and disagree, kind of like STIPULATIONS in TAX COURT (a court of fact
>not law).
>
>BTW,
>
>>
>> Dear SAP et al.,
>>
>> Please explain Treasury Decision 2313, then.
>> Mr. Brushaber was the stockholder. The
>> Brushaber decision says so, in the very
>> first sentence. So, please don't try to
>> tell us he was a fiduciary for some other
>> stockholder. That assertion assumes facts
>> not in evidence.
>>
>> Have you read the decision?
>>
>> The Union Pacific Railroad Co. was the domestic
>> corporation to which the Treasury Decision
>> refers. UPRR was chartered by Congress;
>> "The Federal Zone" cites the Act of Congress
>> which did so. So, the ONLY other party to
>> which the T.D. refers is the stockholder --
>> Frank Brushaber -- non-resident alien!!
>>
>> Brushaber was a Citizen of New York state,
>> and a resident of Brooklyn, in the City of
>> New York.
>
> Brooklyn is a City in the STATE of NEW YORK
> not the "city" of new york to the best of my
> knowledge.
>
> He stated his status in his
>> original pleadings. To say anything else
>> about his status, again, assumes facts which
>> were not in evidence.
>
> To bolster your arguments please include the
> ACTUAL words, not your rendition.
>
>>
>> Have you read his original pleading in which
>> he proclaims his status, clearly?
>
> Please quote it always.
> Let the facts speak for themselves
> by simply QUOTING them.
>
>>
>> SAP does not understand the implications
>> of municipal law. The IRC is a municipal code.
>>
>
> Of which municipality ? As opposed to what ?
> What are you saying those implications are Paul ?
> I wish to hear your full exposition of your
> beliefs.
>
>> It's either a case of "not invented here,"
>> or you are deliberately misleading people,
>> for reasons I do not entirely understand,
>> and certainly cannot approve, in all honesty.
>
> Please explain your invective.
>>
>> There are two classes of citizenship in
>> America. This you refuse to admit.
>
>
> Says who and WHERE in the Constitution and US Code pursuant thereof
> do you find such claim buttressed ?
>
>
>> Your literature makes the same serious error,
>> over and over.
>
> STATE IT (chapter and LITERAL verse) in writing. Paul Paul, come on
> we need QUOTES, not your opinion.
>
>>
>> This approach was successful in the John Knox
>> case in San Antonio; it was the late John Knox
>> who first introduced me to this amazing reality.
>
> WHICH APPROACH ? Very vague my friend.
>
>> I was the ONLY one who would listen to him
>> at the Tax and Monetary Conference in Denver,
>> in the fall of 1991. I am so very glad I did.
>>
>> If SAP persists in telling people false
>> statements about the Brushaber decision
>> and T.D. 2313, then I will have to go
>> very public in my criticisms of your
>> errors, and your organization. What you
>> see here is only the beginning.
>>
>
> STATE EXACTLY what you THINK SAP is
> falsely Stating and USE SAP's words
> IN CONTEXT to support YOUR Claim
> that SAP is stately ANYTHING falsely.
> Just because you may not understand
> does not make the statements of others
> false.
>
>> If you have licensed attorneys on your staff,
>
> Which SAP does not to my knowledge for
> the simple fact that members of the bar
> are easily coerced by Judges and the Bar
> itself to act in ways counter to the truth
> with the threat of disbarrment real and present.
>
>> they are aliens, pursuant to the original
>> 13th amendment. They owe their allegiance
>> ultimately to a foreign power. They have
>> forfeited their citizenship (either class),
>> and they are barred from serving in any
>> public office, including officer of the court.
>>
>
> I tend to agree that this is what the ORIGINAL Amendment said and
> think it still should say, HOWEVER until it does again, or until
> that fraud is sorted it out it does NOT say that no matter how much
> I wish it did. We must deal with the law AS WRITTEN. If what is
> written is not just, then we need to move to have it changed, but
> until is has changed, for argument sake it has NOT CHANGED. The law
> as written is all we have to debate, when talking about the LAW AS
> WRITTEN! Please let me know when you are talking about something
> ELSE.
>
>> Please do not try fear tactics with me.
>
> What are you afraid of ?
>
>>
>> They don't work!
>
> Work towards WHAT ?
>
>>
>>
>> I am waiting (still waiting) for answers
>> from your organization.
>
> Then I suggest you ask DIRECT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS in writing, I will
> be sure to pass them along to SAP. If you would like I can see if
> you can attend our ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS Seminar at SAP HQ in August
> where we highlight the many falacious theories floating around out
> there getting many into trouble or otherwise gumming up the works. I
> am sure you could share many of your thoughts there and the panel
> could discuss them and see if they add up. Maybe you could even be
> a panelist, let me know if you are interested and I will check into
> it. As long as you are interested in the truth you have nothing to
> be afraid of Paul. So far you have not made any direct assertions
> about what SAP has stated in the past, only vague assertions, which
> is really disingenuous and obtuse to say the least. I really want
> to help you see the proverbial light, so if you can refine your
> assertions to be SPECIFIC, and quote ACTUAL text from specific in
> context statements we may be able to shine light on that which you
> desire to know.
>
> From what I know, As far as Citizenship of the US is concerned you
> are either a US Citizen or you are NOT. Apparently you do not
> consider yourself a US Citizen and as such are NOT afforded the
> protection of the US Constitution, unless you consider yourself and
> ARE a RESIDENT ALIEN.
>
> NON-RESIDENT ALIENS do NOT have the protection of the US
> Constitution, their activies are governed by TREATY LAW between
> their country and ours. They do not have rights in the US, only
> priviledges.
>
>
>>
>> Please stop lying at me.
>
> lying at me ? What does that mean ?
> Please be EXTREMELY SPECIFIC.
>
>>
>> That doesn't work either.
>
> Doesnt work towards WHAT ?
>
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>
>
>More comments in your letter below.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 11:14 PM 7/3/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> >SAP often alerts people to such erroneous arguments. SAP pays them the
>> >attention they deserve in that they highlight the fact that they are
>> >erroneous and show how such arguments can cause you to be laughed at in
>> >court on your way your jail cell.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The following essay never received any response
>> >> whatsoever from the people who received it at
>> >> the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.
>> >>
>> >> This is Appendix W from "The Federal Zone,"
>> >> for your information.
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean to tarnish SAP's otherwise excellent
>> >> reputation. However, I DO think that the issues of
>> >> law, as discussed in this Appendix, at least deserve
>> >> an open and healthy debate, in honor of the
>> >> First Amendment and the Fourth of July, if nothing else.
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> http://www.supremelaw.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> MEMO
>> >>
>> >> TO: Edward A. Ellison, Jr., J.D.
>> >> John William Kurowski
>> >>
>> >> FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Author
>> >> "The Federal Zone"
>> >>
>> >> DATE: March 24, 1992
>> >>
>> >> SUBJECT: "Direct Taxation and the 1990 Census"
>> >> your essay in Reasonable Action newsletter,
>> >> Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, July/August 1991
>> >>
>> >> I was very gratified to see such a thorough and
>> >> authoritative treatment of "direct taxation" in the July/August
>> >> 1991 issue of the Reasonable Action newsletter. My research
>> >> continues to convince me of the extreme constitutional importance
>> >> of the apportionment rule for direct taxes levied by Congress
>> >> within the 50 States of the Union. I am writing this memo to
>> >> share with you some of my thoughts on the subject, and to offer
>> >> my challenge to a few points which are not necessarily beyond
>> >> dispute. Please understand that I am in general agreement with
>> >> most, but not all of your essay. Permit me to play "devil's
>> >> advocate" as I focus on some issues which deserve greater
>> >> elaboration and substantiation.
>> >>
>> >> The so-called 16th Amendment remains highly relevant to this
>> >> subject, for a number of important reasons. First of all, since
>> >> 1913, several federal courts have attempted to isolate the
>> >> precise effects of a ratified 16th Amendment. Unfortunately for
>> >> us, when all of these cases are assembled side-by-side, the
>> >> rulings are not consistent. We are forced to admit the existence
>> >> of separate groups of court decisions that flatly contradict each
>> >> other. One group puts income taxes into the class of indirect,
>> >> excise taxes. Another group puts income taxes into the class of
>> >> direct taxes. One group argues that a ratified 16th Amendment
>> >> did not change or repeal any other clause of the Constitution.
>> >> Another group argues that a ratified 16th Amendment relieved
>> >> income taxes from the apportionment rule. Even experts disagree.
>> >> To illustrate the range of disagreement on such fundamental
>> >> constitutional issues, consider the conclusion of legal scholar
>> >> Vern Holland:
>> >>
>> >> ... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment did not amend the
>> >> Constitution. The United States Supreme Court by unanimous
>> >> decisions determined that the amendment did not grant any
>> >> new powers of taxation; that a direct tax cannot be
>> >> relieved from the constitutional mandate of apportionment;
>> >> and the only effect of the amendment was to overturn the
>> >> theory advanced in the Pollock case which held that a tax on
>> >> income, was in legal effect, a tax on the sources of the
>> >> income.
>> >> [The Law That Always, page 220]
>> >>
>> >> Now consider the opposing view of another competent scholar.
>> >> After much research and much litigation, author and attorney
>> >> Jeffrey A. Dickstein offers the following concise clarification:
>> >>
>> >> A tax imposed on all of a person's annual gross receipts is
>> >> a direct tax on personal property that must be apportioned.
>> >> A tax imposed on the "income" derived from those gross
>> >> receipts is also a direct tax on property, but as a result
>> >> of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress no longer has to enact
>> >> legislation calling for the apportionment of a tax on that
>> >> income.
>> >> [Judicial Income and Your Income Tax, pages 60-61]
>> >>
>> >> The following Appellate ruling is unique among all the relevant
>> >> federal cases for its clarity and conciseness on this question:
>> >>
>> >> The constitutional limitation upon direct taxation was
>> >> modified by the Sixteenth Amendment insofar as taxation of
>> >> income was concerned, but the amendment was restricted to
>> >> income, leaving in effect the limitation upon direct
>> >> taxation of principal.
>> >>
>> >> [Richardson v. United States, 294 F.2d 593 (1961)]
>> >> [emphasis added]
>> >>
>> >> Granted, this is not a decision by the Supreme Court, but the
>> >> decision is useful because it is so clear and concise, and also
>> >> because it is very representative of that group of rulings which
>> >> found that a ratified 16th Amendment relieved income taxes from
>> >> the apportionment rule. By inference, if income taxes were
>> >> controlled by the apportionment rule prior to the 16th Amendment,
>> >> then they must be direct taxes (according to one group of
>> >> rulings).
>> >>
>> >> Recall now that 17,000 State-certified documents have been
>> >> assembled to prove that the 16th Amendment was never ratified.
>> >> Congress has already been served with several official complaints
>> >> documenting the evidence against the 16th Amendment, pursuant to
>> >> the First Amendment guarantee for redress of grievances.
>> >> Congress has now fallen silent. I am the author of one of these
>> >> complaints (see The Federal Zone, Appendix J). Relying on one
>> >> group of rulings, the Pollock, Peck, Eisner and Shaffer decisions
>> >> leave absolutely no doubt about the consequences of the failed
>> >> ratification: the necessity still exists for an apportionment
>> >> among the 50 States of all direct taxes, and income taxes are
>> >> direct taxes.
>> >>
>> >> Federal courts did not hesitate to identify the effects of a
>> >> ratified 16th Amendment. Now that the evidence against its
>> >> ratification is so overwhelming and incontrovertible, the federal
>> >> courts are unwilling to identify the effects of the failed
>> >> ratification. These courts have opted to call it a "political"
>> >> question, even though it wasn't a "political" question in the
>> >> years immediately after Philander C. Knox declared it ratified.
>> >> I personally find it hard to believe that the federal courts are
>> >> incapable of exercising the logic required to isolate the legal
>> >> effects of the failed ratification. Quite simply, if a ratified
>> >> 16th Amendment had effect X, then a failed ratification proves
>> >> that X did not happen. What is X? Their "political"
>> >> unwillingness to exercise basic logic means that the federal
>> >> courts have abdicated their main responsibility -- to uphold the
>> >> constitution -- and that we must now do it for them instead.
>> >> That is just one of the many reasons why I wrote and published
>> >> The Federal Zone in the first place. I believe I have succeeded
>> >> in accurately situating the issue of the 16th Amendment inside a
>> >> much broader context. What is that much broader context?
>> >>
>> >> Let me begin my answer to that question by first quoting
>> >> from your essay, in the section entitled "Documenting the Truth":
>> >>
>> >> The Constitution still grants to the Congress the power of
>> >> laying an "apportioned" direct tax but notwithstanding the
>> >> advent of the 16th Amendment all "direct" taxes must be
>> >> apportioned. There is no exception to this rule.
>> >>
>> >> [emphasis added]
>> >>
>
>
> It is assumed that everything in the Constitution affects
> ONLY US Citizens and RESIDENT ALIENS in the US (50 states of the
> Union) ANY QUESTIONS Paul ? When I say assumed I mean it
> is a given to us and just as we do not argue about whether
> the sun is a source of light we do not argue over the fundamentals
> of the Consitution, but will remind others who may not have known
> that the Constitution pertains ONLY to US Citizens and RESIDENT
> Aliens, and only in the US (50 states of the Union), there
> really is NOTHING else to discuss on this matter. Agreed ?
> I have read and commented on the rest of your material below
> but I must say that one need not really read any further at this
> point on this matter unless they just feel like it. ralph
>
>> >> In a strictly normative sense, I would certainly agree that
>> >> this is the way it should be. But, in a practical and empirical
>> >> sense, is this really the way it is? I say no. In exercising
>> >> its exclusive authority over the federal zone, Congress is not
>> >> subject to the same constitutional limitations that exist inside
>> >> the 50 States. For this reason, the areas that are inside and
>> >> outside the federal zone are heterogeneous with respect to each
>> >> other. This difference results in a principle of territorial
>> >> heterogeneity: the areas within (or inside) the federal zone are
>> >> subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside) the
>> >> federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. The
>> >> Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 States.
>> >> The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the 50 States.
>> >> The 50 States are, therefore, in one general class, because all
>> >> constitutional restraints upon Congress are in force throughout
>> >> the 50 States, without prejudice to any one State. The areas
>> >> within the federal zone are in a different general class, because
>> >> these same constitutional restraints simply do not limit Congress
>> >> inside that zone (see The Federal Zone, chapters 12 and 13).
>> >>
>> >> I would never ask you to accept this principle of
>> >> territorial heterogeneity simply on faith. There is solid case
>> >> law to substantiate it. You may recall, it is the Hooven case
>> >> which officially defined the three separate and distinct meanings
>> >> of the term "United States". This same definition can also be
>> >> found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The Supreme
>> >> Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would
>> >> address official definitions of the term "United States".
>> >> Therefore, this ruling must be judicially noticed by the entire
>> >> American legal (and paralegal) community. In my opinion, the
>> >> most significant holding in Hooven has to do with territorial
>> >> heterogeneity, as follows:
>> >>
>> >> ... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest
>> >> or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the
>> >> power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of
>> >> the Constitution ....
>> >>
>> >> In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the
>> >> same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating
>> >> for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties
>> >> [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon
>> >> the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted
>> >> for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as
>> >> Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over
>> >> territory belonging to the United States**, has made those
>> >> guarantees applicable.
>> >>
>> >> [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
>> >> [emphasis added]
>> >>
>> >> I have taken the liberty of adding asterisks ("**","***") to the
>> >> above, in order to identify which meaning of "United States" is
>> >> being used in each occurrence of the term. Computer users prefer
>> >> the term "stars" over "asterisks" because it has fewer syllables.
>> >>
>> >> Return now to your statement that "there is no exception to
>> >> this rule" that all direct taxes must be apportioned. Using the
>> >> Hooven case and others as our guide, it is more accurate to say
>> >> that all direct taxes must be apportioned whenever they are
>> >> levied inside the 50 States of the Union.
>
>
> BUT OF COURSE. The US Constitution protects you WHILE you are in
> the US which is the 50 states of the Union. See that only
> took two sentences to say. What is you point ? This we
> agree on and is assumed when discussing the US Constitution
> as a premise. When did you ever assume we assumed otherwise ?
>
>
>
> On the other hand,
>> >> direct taxes need NOT be apportioned whenever they are levied
>> >> outside the 50 States of the Union, and inside the areas of land
>> >> over which Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. The
>> >> authorities for this exclusive legislative jurisdiction are
>> >> 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution. You may disagree with
>> >> this interpretation of the term "exclusive", and that is your
>> >> right, but in doing so you are disagreeing with the Supreme
>> >> Court. Evidently, this was not the first, nor the last time the
>> >> high Court has differed with the Framers of the Constitution.
>> >>
>> >> As it turns out, the pivotal case law
>
>
> CASE LAW ? Did I hear CASE LAW ? Where do you see
> in the REAL LAW any valid BINDING reference to CASE LAW ?
> CASE LAW is NOT LAW !!!! Please explain if you think otherwise.
>
>
>
> on this question
>> >> predates Hooven by 44 years, and predates the so-called 16th
>> >> Amendment by 12 years. In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
>> >> (1901), the issue was a discriminatory tariff which Congress had
>> >> levied on goods imported from Puerto Rico (or "Porto Rico" as it
>> >> was spelled then). Congress had recently obtained exclusive
>> >> legislative jurisdiction over this territory by virtue of the
>> >> treaty of peace with Spain. The import duty was obviously not
>> >> uniform, as required by 1:8:1 in the U.S. Constitution, since it
>> >> was levied specifically against goods originating in Puerto Rico.
>> >> In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the import duty,
>> >> even though it was not uniform, on the principle that the
>> >> uniformity rule applied only to the 48 States and not to the
>> >> areas of land, i.e., enclaves, territories and possessions, over
>> >> which Congress has exclusive legislative authority.
>> >>
>> >> The controversy that surrounded Downes v. Bidwell was
>> >> intense, as evidenced by the flurry of articles that were
>> >> published in the Harvard Law Review on the subject of "The
>> >> Insular Cases" as they were called. Perhaps the most lucid
>> >> criticism of the Downes majority can be found in Justice Harlan's
>> >> dissent:
>> >>
>> >> The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression
>> >> in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country
>> >> substantially or practically two national governments; one,
>> >> to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its
>> >> restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress
>> >> outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising
>> >> such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to
>> >> exercise.
>> >> [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
>> >> [emphasis added]
>> >>
>> >> To appreciate how alarmed Justice Harlan had become as a result
>> >> of this new "theory", consider the following from his dissent:
>> >>
>> >> I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced
>> >> should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this
>> >> court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of
>> >> government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass
>> >> from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected
>> >> by a written constitution into an era of legislative
>> >> absolutism. ...
>> >>
>> >> It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of
>> >> a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds
>> >> lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher
>> >> duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority
>> >> to prevent all violation of the principles of the
>> >> Constitution.
>> >> [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
>> >> [emphasis added]
>> >>
>> >> This theory has been documented by patriot John Knox as follows:
>> >>
>> >> This theory of a government operating outside the
>> >> Constitution over its own territory with citizens of the
>> >> United States belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3,
>> >> Clause 2 of the Constitution was further confirmed in 1922
>> >> by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 300
>> >> (EXHIBIT #4) where that Court affirmed that the Constitution
>> >> does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the
>> >> Union at page 305 quoting Downes, supra and De Lima, supra.
>> >> That under Article IV, section 3 the "United States" was
>> >> given exclusive power over the territories and their
>> >> citizens of the "United States" residing therein.
>> >>
>> >> This quote is from an unpublished brief entitled "Memorandum in
>> >> Support of Request for the District Court to Consider the T.R.O.
>> >> and Injunction by the Magistrate" by John Knox, Knox v. U.S.,
>> >> United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
>> >> San Antonio, Texas, Case #SA-89-CA-1308 (see Appendix A supra).
>> >>
>> >> People will not fully appreciate a central thesis of The
>> >> Federal Zone if they believe that I agree with the minimal
>> >> majority by which Downes was decided. I don't agree with the
>> >> majority; I agree with Harlan. I have simply tried to describe,
>> >> in lucid language, how Congress is now able to pass legislation
>> >> which is not restrained by the U.S. Constitution as we know it.
>
> WHERE are you saying they can do this ?
> Of course they can OUTSIDE of the US (50 states of the union).
> Are you making a mountain out of a mole hill here ?
>
>
>> >> This type of legislation is also known as "municipal" law,
>> >> because Congress is the municipal authority inside the federal
>> >> zone. When I visited the District of Columbia during my senior
>> >> year at UCLA as a summer intern in political science, I asked a
>> >> Capitol guard where I could find city hall. We were standing on
>> >> the Capitol lawn when he pointed to the Capitol Building and
>> >> said, "THAT is City Hall!"
>
> He was wrong, are you using folk talk to prove something ?
>
>> >>
>> >> The Downes decision sent many shock waves through the
>> >> American legal community, as evidenced by the deep concern that
>> >> is expressed by author Littlefield in "The Insular Cases", 15
>> >> Harvard Law Review 169, 281. He points out how the dissenting
>> >> minority were of a single mind, while the assenting majority
>> >> exploited a multiplicity of conflicting and mutually incompatible
>> >> themes. Just one vote turned the tide. Littlefield's words jump
>> >> off the page like grease popping off a sizzling griddle.
>> >>
>> >> Accordingly, I now believe that we must go back further than
>> >> 1913 to isolate the major turn in the tide of American
>> >> constitutional integrity and continuity. Medina in The Silver
>> >> Bulletin traces the fork to the tragic American Civil War --
>> >> the counter revolution -- when Lincoln was murdered by a
>> >> Rothschild agent, clearing the stage for resurrecting the
>> >> federalists' heartthrob -- a central bank. For example, in the
>> >> context of everything we now know about territorial
>> >> heterogeneity, to the extent that it was a "municipal" statute
>> >> for the federal zone, the Federal Reserve Act was constitutional
>> >> under the rubric of the Downes doctrine.
>> >>
>> >> The consequences of this doctrine have been profound and
>> >> far-reaching, just as Harlan predicted. One of Lyndon Johnson's
>> >> first official acts was to rescind JFK's executive order
>> >> authorizing the circulation of $4.5 billion in interest-free
>> >> "United States Notes" instead of interest-bearing "Federal
>> >> Reserve Notes". It is a shame that Oliver Stone did not cover
>> >> this motive in his movie JFK. All we need to do is connect the
>> >> dots, and the picture will emerge, clear as day.
>> >>
>> >> Specifically, Title 26 is a municipal statute and, as such,
>> >> it is not subject to the apportionment rule.
>
>
> Whoah nilly. Title 26 covers alot of Ground, including INDIRECT
> EXCISE TAXES, what you are saying is apples and oranges. You are
> making things far too complicated for yourself.
>
>
>
> The territorial
>> >> scope of Title 26 is the federal zone; the political scope of
>> >> Title 26 is the set of "persons" who are either citizens and/or
>> >> residents of that zone: "U.S.** citizens" and "U.S.** residents".
>> >> The term "U.S.**" in this context refers to the second of the
>> >> three Hooven definitions, namely, the territory over which the
>> >> sovereignty of Congress extends, i.e., the federal zone.
>> >> Incidentally, the flat tax provisions in Title 26 do conform to
>> >> the uniformity rule because the tax rate is uniform across the 50
>> >> States (see A Ticket To Liberty, by Lori Jacques).
>
> "flat tax" provisions ? please explain what you are saying here.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Since involuntary servitude is now forbidden everywhere in
>> >> this land,
>
> Not for properly convicted convicts is it prohibited.
>
>
>it is possible under law to acquire citizenship in the
>> >> federal zone at will via naturalization, even if one is a natural
>> >> born Sovereign State Citizen by birth. It is also possible to
>> >> abandon citizenship in the federal zone at will, via
>> >> expatriation. In this context, it is revealing that the Internal
>> >> Revenue Code has provisions for dealing with "U.S.** citizens"
>> >> who expatriate to avoid the tax. Similarly, Americans are free
>> >> to reside wherever they want, under the law. If you choose to
>> >> reside in the federal zone, you are liable for the income tax, by
>> >> definition (see 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A) and 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(b)).
>> >> Finally, if you are a "nonresident alien" with respect to the
>> >> "United States**" as those terms are defined in Title 26 and in
>> >> Title 42, you are only liable for taxes on income which is
>> >> effectively connected with a U.S.** trade or business, and on
>> >> income which derives from U.S.** sources. All other income for
>> >> nonresident aliens is excluded from the computation of "gross
>> >> income" as defined (see 26 U.S.C. 872(a)).
>> >>
>> >> I hope this discussion has provided you with some valuable
>> >> feedback concerning the 16th Amendment, direct taxes, the
>> >> apportionment rule, Title 26 and The Federal Zone. You have, no
>> >> doubt, heard several references to the "secret jurisdiction"
>> >> under which the IRS has been operating. I now believe that this
>> >> jurisdiction is no longer totally a secret; it issues from
>> >> 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the Constitution. Contrary to the statement
>> >> quoted above from your essay, there are exceptions to the
>> >> apportionment rule for direct taxes, and there are exceptions to
>> >> the uniformity rule for indirect taxes. Inside the federal zone,
>> >> Congress is free to do pretty much whatever it wants, per the
>> >> Downes doctrine. Inside the federal zone, it is a legislative
>> >> democracy, with majority rule. If you want to change the rules,
>> >> then change the majority. Our best hope for changing those rules
>> >> rests, therefore, in changing the membership in the House and
>> >> Senate. As a Sovereign State Citizen, however, I am not subject
>> >> to those rules, primarily and most importantly because the
>> >> Constitution created the legislature and We Sovereigns created
>> >> the Constitution. A Sovereign is never subject to his own
>> >> creation, unless he volunteers himself into that status, for
>> >> whatever reason (e.g., the security of socialism a/k/a Social
>> >> Security).
>> >>
>> >> For your edification, the following is a list of Harvard Law
>> >> Review articles which discuss the insular cases in some detail:
>> >>
>> >> Langdell, "The Status of Our New Territories"
>> >> 12 Harvard Law Review, 365, 371
>> >>
>> >> Thayer, "Our New Possessions"
>> >> 12 Harvard Law Review, 464
>> >>
>> >> Thayer, "The Insular Tariff Cases in the Supreme Court"
>> >> 15 Harvard Law Review 164
>> >>
>> >> Littlefield, "The Insular Cases"
>> >> 15 Harvard Law Review, 169, 281
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> # # #
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ========================================================================
>> >> 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.]
>> >>
>> >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> >> Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>> >> "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>> >> Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>> >>
>> >
>> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>> >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>> >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.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.]
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>> "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>> Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.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 3.0.3 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