Time: Sun Nov 16 16:42:23 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25493;
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:40:22 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02673;
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:39:21 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:39:44 -0800
To: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: liability for the federal income tax [corrected]
If a court does not have original jurisdiction,
the entire exercise is a total waste of time.
If a judge has an adverse conflict of interest,
e.g. an executed W-4, this conflict disqualifies
that judge. For authority, see Lord v. Kelley.
Moreover, even if a court DOES have jurisdiction, and
even if a judge does NOT have a conflict of interest,
the federal and state juries are not legal bodies,
because the jury selection statutes discriminate
against Citizens of the several states who are
not also federal citizens, by Right of Election.
Look at it this way: the Qualifications Clauses
require federal lawmakers to be Citizens of the
several states. Even the President must be from this
class of People. And yet, these very same People --
Citizens of the several states -- are prohibited
from serving on grand and trial juries, and they
are likewise prohibited from voting in any elections.
See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5. The University of
Arizona Law Library in Tucson has the original,
organic U.S. Constitution engraved in brass plates,
right outside the entrance. Four of us confirmed
the precise spelling, just yesterday.
We have isolated a VERY BIG PROBLEM here, no?
This problem exists at both the federal and state
levels, with equally discriminatory effects. In my
own case, I fully briefed the court on the exact
Arizona Revised Statutes which now exhibit the unlawful
discrimination. Mr. Weber ruled that I could only
bring such a challenge in a criminal case, and then
ignored the arguments which I subsequently made to
disprove that ruling. The Seventh Amendment applies
to civil case, and it remains the supreme Law of the
Land, in each and every one of the several states!!
Such an immense travesty does not come along very often! :)
Nor can this blatant contradiction stand for very long,
now that it has been fully documented -- with irrefutable
logic, history, and case law. I believe we have here
the makings of a truly historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling --
on the orders of the Dred Scott decision, and U.S. v. Lopez.
See Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF for proof that is
more than sufficient for our purposes here.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copies: SLS, Friends
p.s. In a word, the cases you will cite are most
probably worthless, specifically for the reasons
which I detail immediately above. The proof is
now loaded in the Supreme Law Library, at the URL
just below my name here.
At 02:26 PM 11/15/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>While the language in law can certainly be viewed as supporting your
>conclusions, the difficulty arises that the courts do not rule as if
>this were the law. In fact, time and again they have ruled against
>this argument.
>
>Thus, what is the point of continuing to make this argumnt as if it
>had "legal" validity, when in fact it loses repeatedly -- not due to
>defect in analysis of the law perhaps, but in the de facto public
>policy being enforced by the courts and law enforcement.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to simply present the language in the law vs.
>the behavior of the courts and appeal to the public at large to wake
>up to the perversion of the law and the oppression of a corrupt and
>dishonest government?
>
>In sum, my concern is that you seem to be recommending a legal
>argument which is academic in the face of a dishonest judiciary and
>gov't generally.
>
>This is not intended in any way as a put down if your sizeable
>efforts and research, I hope you understand, but merely as an
>expression of my honest concerns that they be understood and used
>more effectively by those who now are casting them aside as
>"fruitless".
>
>Thanks for keeping me abreast of things.
>
>Harold
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:31:38 -0800
>> To: "Frank W. Stamos" <stamos@mindsync.com>
>> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> Subject: SLS: liability for the federal income tax
>
>> The several states are "foreign" with respect
>> to each other, as regards their own municipal laws.
>> Thus, the several states are likewise "foreign"
>> with respect to the federal zone.
>>
>> Therefore, federal citizens and aliens, who "reside"
>> in one of the several states, have a foreign address,
>> by definition. The key is to view everything they
>> do from the perspective of municipal law. The IRC
>> is a municipal Code. "Internal" means "municipal";
>> that citation is in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
>> Code of Internal Revenue," electronic seventh edition.
>>
>> The IRC is a Municipal Revenue Code!
>>
>> "Foreign earned income" for federal citizens who
>> reside in one of the several states of the Union,
>> would be declared on Form 2555. Since IRS believes
>> everyone is a federal citizen, pursuant to the
>> so-called 14th amendment, it is no surprise that
>> Form 2555 maps into OMB number 1545-0067!
>>
>> There are two classes of citizenship: federal
>> citizens and state Citizens. Since the former
>> are subjects, the "c" in "citizen" is a lower-case
>> (read "lower class") letter. Since the latter
>> are Sovereigns, the "C" in "Citizen" is upper-case
>> (read "upper class"). The proof is in the original
>> Qualifications Clauses: 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5.
>>
>> These provisions have never been amended, and their
>> meaning remains the same as the day they were first
>> written, circa 1787. This theme is fully developed
>> in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, now loaded into the
>> Supreme Law Library. See also Eisner v. Macomber:
>>
>> "... Congress cannot by legislation alter the
>> Constitution, from which alone it derives its
>> power to legislate, and within whose limitations
>> alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
>>
>> This holding was predicated on the ratification of
>> the 16th amendment [sic], which allegedly introduced
>> the term "income" into the U.S. Constitution for
>> the very first time. The term "income," they
>> reasoned, could not be altered, once it was placed
>> in the U.S. Constitution. That holding can, therefore,
>> be applied to every OTHER term in the Constitution,
>> e.g. "Citizen"!!
>>
>> Confer also at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law
>> Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:13 PM 11/14/97 -0600, you wrote:
>> >Hello Mitch,
>> >
>> >Hi, if you still have a copy of my "Internal Revenue Service Trickery &
>> >Deception Exposed" you will find within documentation that CFR 1.1-1 was
>> >assigned number 1545-0067 by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), this
>> >number is on IRS form 2555 which is relative only to United States
Citizens
>> >(with foreign addresses) and Resident Aliens Only. DOJ attorney, Gary R.
>> >Allen, erroneously argued that Section 1 of 26 USC imposes an income
tax on
>> >the taxable income of every individual who is a resident or citizen of the
>> >United States. He then refered to the regulation in question. This was
>> >Case Number 88-15273 in the 9th Circuit, Stamos v. U.S. of A. (1988). Was
>> >not published! Then as now, the courts did not want to be confused with
>> >the facts and the law as it is written and published in every law library.
>> >
>> >This was nine years ago, I'm surprised they still make the claim. DOJ
>> >Allen then made the claim "imposes" and now they use the term "liable".
>> >The terms are obviously different.
>> >
>> >Take care and God Bless.
>> >
>> >Frank
>> >
>> >----------
>> >> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> >> To: libnw@circuit.com
>> >> Subject: SLS: liability for the federal income tax
>> >> Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 8:24 PM
>> >>
>> >> The liability for citizens of the United States [sic]
>> >> is imposed by the regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b),
>> >> and by Section 4 of the so-called 14th Amendment.
>> >> Notice the nearly identical language in Section 1
>> >> of that so-called amendment, and the definitions
>> >> in the regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1(c).
>> >>
>> >> The U.S. Constitution does not extend beyond the
>> >> limits of the states which are united by and
>> >> under it. Thus, Congress can regulate its own
>> >> [federal] citizens, via regulations published in
>> >> the Federal Register. Even Becraft has argued the
>> >> doctrine of implied legislative consent, i.e.,
>> >> these regs have been in existence for decades,
>> >> and thus Congress has given its implied legislative
>> >> consent [sic] to 26 CFR 1.1-1(b).
>> >>
>> >> I know: this is garbage law. But, you must read
>> >> Downes v. Bidwell, and the scathing critiques
>> >> which were published soon after, in the Harvard
>> >> Law Review; one of these critiques was even
>> >> anonymous, I believe for fear of reprisal.
>> >>
>> >> Becraft still does not believe there are two classes
>> >> of citizenship, despite the decision by the Supreme Court
>> >> in his own home state: Gardina v. Board of Registrars,
>> >> 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909), quoting now:
>> >>
>> >> "There are, then, under our republican form of
>> >> government, two classes of citizens, one of the
>> >> United States and one of the state."
>> >>
>> >> His office is in Huntsville, the last time I checked.
>> >>
>> >> The only liability "statutes," as such, that we can
>> >> find, are the ones listed in the definition of
>> >> "withholding agent" in IRC 7701(a)(16), namely:
>> >>
>> >> sections 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461
>> >>
>> >> There you have it. Without a valid W-4, there
>> >> can be no withholding agent. When there is a
>> >> valid W-4, the withholding agent is holding
>> >> money which belongs to the United States.
>> >>
>> >> Until such time as that money is paid, the
>> >> withholding agent is legally liable for it.
>> >>
>> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> http://supremelaw.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At 12:55 PM 11/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>> >> >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:59:33 -0600
>> >> >From: Jim <jsh@IO.COM>
>> >> >To: "liberty-and-justice@pobox.com"
>> >> <liberty-and-justice@pobox.com>
>> >> >Subject: L&J: [Fwd: Confirm]
>> >> >Reply-to: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Tax Attorney Confirms Article on W-4
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry Becraft, Jr.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Presently, I have an appeal in a criminal tax case pending before
>> >> >the Eleventh Circuit which raises the issue as to who is liable
>> >> >for the federal income tax.
>> >> >
>> >> >The government filed its brief in this case and I was utterly
>> >> >amazed at the government's answer to my argument.
>> >> >
>> >> >Due to the admission so made, I now realize that my argument is
>> >> >monumentally significant and I feel compelled to tell other
>> >> >attorneys involved in similar litigation.
>> >> >
>> >> >Last year, I tried a case in Orlando, Florida wherein Dehur D.
>> >> >Ward was charged with tax evasion. Ward was a student and
>> >> >follower of a man named George Arlen, who, like Irwin Schiff,
>> >> >advocated the who's liable argument built around 26 USC sections
>> >> >6001, 6011, and 6012.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ward had engaged in a constant stream of letters to both the IRS
>> >> >and his employers which squarely raised the issue that he didn't
>> >> >believe he was liable for the tax because he found no section of
>> >> >the Code that made him expressly liable.
>> >> >
>> >> >This position formed the factual foundation for our defense that
>> >> >he didn't act willfully. It also afforded me the excellent
>> >> >opportunity to raise the same legal argument via requested
>> >> >instructions and motions for judgement of acquittal.
>> >> >
>> >> >The essence of my argument was that the income tax, pursuant to
>> >> >Subchapter N of the Code, imposed the tax only on aliens and
>> >> >foreign corporations who had sources of income outside the U.S.,
>> >> >and also within U.S. possessions. The only persons expressly
>> >> >made liable for the income tax are section 1461 withholding
>> >> >agents for aliens and foreign corporations.
>> >> >
>> >> >This was the legal argument created by my requested instructions
>> >> >and my Rule 29 Motion.
>> >> >
>> >> >My brief in Ward's case to the Eleventh Circuit had several major
>> >> >parts which constitute my ultimate conclusion that state citizens
>> >> >were not taxed on their sources of income within the states.
>> >> >
>> >> >First, I treated the question of the jurisdiction of the United
>> >> >States and showed that its jurisdiction was only in Washington,
>> >> >D.C., the federal enclaves within the states and the territories
>> >> >and insular ~possessions of the United States.
>> >> >
>> >> >Next, I discussed all the federal income tax statutes from the
>> >> >1913 act forward and showed that, statutorily, the tax was one
>> >> >imposed only in its jurisdiction.
>> >> >
>> >> >I then treated all prior regulations promulgated for all the
>> >> >prior income tax acts and showed that the regulations clearly
>> >> >stated that the tax was jurisdictional.
>> >> >
>> >> >My argument was thus ended with the conclusion that state
>> >> >citizens are outside the jurisdiction of the United States and
>> >> >were not thus taxed. As my brief says:
>> >> >
>> >> > For U.S. citizens, the sources subjected to taxation are
>> >> > treated in Section 911 and 931. In Section 911, a U.S.
>> >> > citizen living and working abroad, and thus having sources
>> >> > without the U.S., is subjected to taxation. In Section 931,
>> >> > the sources subjected to taxation are those sources earned
>> >> > within a possession of the United States. For U.S.
>> >> > citizens, who were born in the U.S., who are domiciled in
>> >> > the U.S., and who have sources of income within the U.S.,
>> >> > there is no income tax imposed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Since Ward did not fall within the statutory classes of
>> >> > individuals subject either to the tax or filing requirement
>> >> > under section 6012, the District Court committed error in
>> >> > denying his motions for acquittal.
>> >> >
>> >> >I then presented the subchapter N argument and concluded that the
>> >> >only persons liable for the tax pursuant to 26 USC sections 6001,
>> >> >6011, and 6012, were section 1461 withholding agents.
>> >> >
>> >> >I had expected that the government would respond with a lengthy,
>> >> >detailed argument showing that state citizens were taxed via some
>> >> >complicated manner that directly or indirectly so imposed the
>> >> >tax.
>> >> >
>> >> >But, when I received the government's brief, I found one page
>> >> >thereof that addressed my issue;.. After calling my argument
>> >> >frivolous, the U.S. attorney then stated as follows:
>> >> >
>> >> > The government is unable, therefore, to offer case authority
>> >> > for the universally accepted proposition that a citizen of
>> >> > the United States, working and residing in the United
>> >> > States, subject to federal law, earning wages, and
>> >> > responsible for filing an income tax return, is liable for
>> >> > taxation.
>> >> >
>> >> >Although these are the words of Bruce Hinshelwood, I feel
>> >> >confident that most other prosecutors would have been compelled
>> >> >to make the same admission. There, indeed, is no case, or
>> >> >statute, that expressly holds a state citizen liable for the
>> >> >income tax.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is my hope that you and other attorneys will study this
>> >> >issue... From my viewpoint, we certainly need to raise this
>> >> >issue in other circuits.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >P.S. Why is it that the only court which has been given
>> >> >jurisdiction of Title 26 crimes is the U.S. District Court in
>> >> >Guam? See 48 USC 1421.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >[Reprinted from `American Information Network', Sept/Oct. 1988;
>> >> >from `The Correspondent']
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE Fidonet 1:346/16 (208) 267-9851
>> >> >"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
>> >> >the Fidonet Backbone..." SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
>> >> >Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web: http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/
>> >> >Subscribe: libnw-on@circuit.com -- Unsubscribe: libnw-off@circuit.com
>> >> >
>> >> >...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
>> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> ===========================================================================
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
>> B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
>> tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
>> email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
>> website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
>> _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
>> As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
>> not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
>> ======================================================================== 12
>> [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
>>
>Harold Thomas
>harold@halcyon.com
>http://www.halcyon.com/harold/
>
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail