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 Cc: Bcc: sls References: <3.0.3.16.19971213113618.3b671a1a@pop.primenet.com> 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 http://supremelaw.com At 09:28 AM 12/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Paul: > >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? > >Richard > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail