Time: Mon Dec 15 10:42:37 1997
To: patriotlad@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: ANTI-IRS Stuff Questioned
Bcc: sls
References: <>

My position on all of these points
is well documentd in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, and to defend that
position, I have now applied for
intervention in his appeal, on behalf
of the People of the United States
of America.  I am the Private Attorney
General in People v. United States et al.,
filed in Billings and in west Texas state.

Take a close look at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B),
then read "Karma and the Federal Courts,"
and then tell me what YOU think.  Do you, 
or do you not, believe that the cases cited 
in that essay support my finding that there
are two (2) classes of federal courts?  
The full citations are in the OPENING BRIEF.

I know what Ralph thinks.  Unfortunately
for him, the Alabama Supreme Court has
already held that there are two (2)
classes of citizenship, and the Philippine
Supreme Court has held that citizenship,
as such, is a term of municipal law.

The rest of the story is in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, and all the various 
appendices which were incorporated in
that BRIEF.  Let's debate the merits,
instead of citing federal cases which
never had jurisdiction, and which were
issued by judges who had an adverse
conflict of interest, by virtue of their
"contracts" with the IRS, in violation
of Article III and Evans v. Gore.

If you like, I can tell you some things,
but privately, about Becraft and the
Save-A-Patriot fellowship, which might
make your hair stand on end.  It did make
mine stand on end, for quite some time.
Hint:  Becraft told the New Life Health
Center officers that the company no longer
had a right to a jury trial in the grand
jury subpoena case I litigated.  Those
pleadings are now published, in detail,
in the Supreme Law Library.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 09:28 AM 12/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Ralph @ Teaminfinity has just released a comprehensive list of "bogus
>arguments" concerning the many and varied attempts to show that the IRC
>and the IRS have no basis in positive law, that State Citizens are not
>federal citizens, and so on and so on.  Many of the points have ten to
>twenty cases cited, and it is his conclusion that the "non-resident"
>arguments won't hold up and folks will go to jail.
>Also, his cites indicate that having failed to enact Positive Law does
>not invalidate the rest of the IRC ... and he addresses the question of
>is the Sec. of the Treasury actually a foreign agent (of the IMF).
>He says we are all lost in the tall grass, essentially.  Also, he
>indicates that the use of all capital letters in court cases goes all
>the way back to the origins of the Supreme Court and is not a post-1933
>invention.  I.e., the "nom de guerre" argument is thus fallacious and
>cannot be used as defensive move.  Boy, I am really confused now.
>Haven't you established, by the failure of the I.R.S. to respond to your
>questions about their "Attorneys" that this Positive Law issue is valid
>and not fraudulent?

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail