Time: Fri Dec 12 13:02:12 1997
To: "Watts, William (HT-EX)" <WWatts@NLvl.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: RE: Law Review Article


we are "illegal tax protestors" ...

... because the tax is illegal, 
not the protest, and certainly
not the protestors.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 02:19 PM 12/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Brad and fellow patriots,
>I feel strongly compelled to respond to this posting, in particular this
>excerpt from Louis' posting. I'll address my first comments directly at
>Louis, though you have at this point, as you indicate later in your
>response, deliberately concealed Louis' address. Feel free, as you have
>my permission, to forward my reply directly to him should you deem it
>appropriate. I have sent this reply to my own collection of names and
>>>> The law review article I mentioned in an earlier note is entitled "The
>>>> Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar Whatever His Demands".
>>>> It
>>>> was written by Christopher S. Jackson, who is, according to the footnotes,
>>>> "[c]andidate for the degree of LL.M. in Taxation, Southern Methodist
>>>> University School of Law, 1997; J.D. Gonzaga University School of Law,
>>>> The article can be found at 32 Gonz.L.Rev. 291 (1996-1997), and is
>>>> worth your time is you intend to pursue this journey.  You should be able
>>>> locate the article in any law school library.
>>Another "Caesar" apologist. Sad. 
>>Before I completely jump in here and attack this gross misconstruction of
>>fact ( i.e. Render unto Caesar...) I must state in fairness to Louis that I'm
>>not totally sure on what side of the fence he sits on here. At best he may be
>>simply sending information for educational purposes, or, at worst, he is
>>attempting to discredit this movement. I'll assume for the sake of simplicity
>>and as a basis for making my following points, that Louis is attempting to
>>discredit this movement under the false justification of: Render unto Caesar
>>that which is his. Therefore I'll respond to Louis as an adversary.
>>Louis, it greatly saddens me that you, as well as a significant majority of
>>this nation, are completely, and in some cases willfully ignorant of our
>>heritage. Which in turns breeds ignorance and misconception of many, if not
>>all, of our basic constitutional principles; especially the "tax" system as
>>witnessed by the RUC ( Render Unto Caesar ) justification. Before you read
>>this any further, I implore you to go to a dictionary and look up the word
>>sovereign and then look in the mirror. Do you see the face of a sovereign
>>looking back at you? Do you get that proud feeling of sovereignty when you
>>look at your paycheck? I didn't think so, I know I certainly don't. Now that
>>you have hopefully looked up the word sovereign, let's place it into
>>meaningful perspective as it applies to the RUC complex. 
>>We, as in "We the People" are the sovereigns, Louis. Think about that
>>carefully. WE _ ARE _ THE _ SOVEREIGNS. Repeat as many times as necessary
>>till you realize this and come then to the inevitable logical conclusion
>>that, and this is where the RUC complex crashes to the ground: *WE*, Louis,
>>are the Caesar's! Not the defacto "leaders" we have who pretend, and have
>>most duped into believing otherwise. They are *OUR* servant's and
>>representatives, they really can't even be considered leaders, in the
>>strictest sense of the word. And that, my dear friend, is, in a nut shell,
>>the very reason this once great country is decaying into a third world
>>nation, a nation of men instead of law.
>>Having made the above point, I could stop right hear as nothing more needs to
>>said. However, for some reason, chalk it up to the spirit of giving in this
>>season, I shall continue...
>>If we were to back up here and disregard the point I just made and pretend
>>for he moment that we live under the authority of a  "Caesar", ( even the
>>thought of pretending we have a Caesar for this example wretches my stomach )
>>I must then ask a few questions of you about Caesar's power.
>>First, does Caesar have unlimited powers?
>>If no, then what are Caesar's limits?
>>Does Caesar have the rightful power to take from one, by force, and give it
>>to another?
>>( Note: I use the term rightful power, as Caesar my very well have the
>>physical power at this point to do whatever the hell he damn well wishes.
>>But, rightful power??? )
>>Does "Caesar have the rightful power to put you and me, as well as our
>>children into debt?
>>Are you beginning to see the real picture here, Louis?
>>"Caesar's" rightful powers even in the context of this hypothetical thought
>>example are in fact quite limited. Until you understand the limits, and more
>>importantly *WHY* those limits were created, then neither you or the majority
>>of this nation will ever understand the value or meaning of liberty. I'm
>>talking the kind of liberty that men pledge their sacred honor, their
>>property, and if need be their lives to defending. Certainly not the
>>rhetorical kind spewed forth from our present "Caesar(s)".
>>So Louis, I'll now take leave of my direct reply to you and leave you this to
>>1. We didn't elect Caesar.
>>2. The constitution prohibits Caesar ( government ) from enforcing a
>>direct tax without apportionment.
>>3. The constitution prohibits Caesar from waving our rights unless we
>>do so voluntarily.
>>4. Finally, Caesar is destroying his country with massive loads of debt not
>>authorized in the constitution. He ran one country into the ground,
>>you'd think we'd learn from history.
>>Death to Caesar!!!
>>Just one last thing Louis, if by some chance your thinking has been perverted
>>to the point that you believe Caesar has unlimited rightful power to tax (
>>destroy ) then I must challenge you with this: Are you willing to put *YOUR*
>>life on the line to defend your beliefs? I'm am prepared to defend my beliefs
>>with my life. And I say this with the clearest of conscience.
>>> The reference in the title to the movement as "inane" may be true based
>>> the mountains of case law based on totally erroneous arguments.  However, I
>>> take exception to the "tax protest" label.  How can it be against the law
>>> this land to protest a tax code which is purposefully vague?
>>Louis doesn't realize that this great nation was started by a tax protest.
>>I'm sure that the Louis's of the day at that time were all saying the very
>>same things to them damn revolutionaries. 
>>In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, 
>>and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, 
>>for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
>>Mark Twain -- Notebook, 1904
>>> I am blind copying my internal list on this, so that everyone can go and
>>> for themselves.  They are entitled to see what they are up against.  
>>Thanks Brad, though I'm sure, as I know I am, fully what we're up against.
>>> Your address has been obscured to protect your identity.
>>You may freely use my address, I have nothing to fear or be ashamed of.
>>> As a personal note to the rest of the list, I would offer that I have
>>> received several emails which disparage Louis based solely on his
>>> profession.  He does not deserve this.  I want Louis to know that I
>>> personally believe that the original 13th Amendment was properly ratified,
>>> but will not hold it against him.  We can all learn from each other, and I
>>> thank him kindly for his efforts.
>>Since you have only partially quoted Louis's mailing, I can only guess at
>>what profession Louis is engaged in. I would tend to conclude that since you
>>were discussing the real 13th amendment, that Louis carries a title of
>>nobility, perhaps barrister?
>>> I got a DEMAND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS against a Willful Failure to File
>>> from a friend, and would be pleased to pass it along to anyone who requests
>>> it. Be advised that it is HUGE. It shows the arguments on which we base
>>> issue and defense, and demands a point by point response from the federal
>>> prosecutor, under penalty of perjury, so that we can understand the cause
>>> and nature of the offense, and so be able to enter a plea.
>>Please do, Brad.
>>I'll be on vacation till the new year.
>>Send all e-mail to me from my web page link below my name. If you do a simple
>>reply to this mail, it will come to me at work, so I wouldn't be able to read
>>or respond to it till next year.
>>For those of you who don't have web access:
>>Best wishes to all! ... even you barrister(?) Louis.
>>Bill Watts
>>The jury has a right to judge both the 
>>law as well as the fact in controversy.
>>John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. 
>>Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 
>>To consider the judges as the 
>>ultimate arbiters of all constitutional 
>>questions is a very dangerous 
>>doctrine indeed, and one which 
>>would place us under the despotism 
>>of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson 
>>If we can prevent the government from 
>>wasting the labors of the people under 
>>the pretense of caring for them, the 
>>people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
>>The Libertarian Party:

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail