Time: Wed Dec 17 08:23:46 1997
To: Bud Riggs
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FYI: SNET: I WROTE IT!
Cc: 
Bcc: 
References: 

Caught another one!

>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:00:55 -0800
>To: snetnews@world.std.com
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Re: SNET: I WROTE IT!
>
>
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>
>Because I am the author,
>you stupid idiot.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>
>
>At 08:39 AM 12/17/97, you wrote:
>>
>>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>
>>It is posted to the Internet, and you are going to SUE me for copyright
>>violation(s)???
>>Goodluck pal!!!!
>>
>>Question Mitch, Paul or who ever you are....why did you post the original
>>to SNET as 'Paul Andrew Mitchel' as the 'Author' of the MEMO and the one in
>>the Book (that you wrote) as "Mitch Modeleski"??? ODD...don't ya' think????
>>Pen Name my A**!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>At 05:59 AM 12/17/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>>
>>>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>>
>>>TO: <han-wi@pop.ri.ultranet.com>
>>>
>>>One last thing:  YOU are in violation 
>>>of the copyright restrictions stated
>>>in the Preface.
>>>
>>>You have now been lawfully notified.
>>>
>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>Candidate for Congress
>>>http://supremelaw.com
>>>
>>>
>>>At 07:35 AM 12/17/97, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>>>
>>>>Paul Andrew Mitchel posted this memo as the AUTHOR, yet in the book (The
>>>>Federal Zone) the Memo is from Mitch Modeleski to S-A-P.  So PAUL which is
>>>>it??? And why did Mitch give you NO credit as the author of the MEMO????
>>>>Have you sued ??? 
>>>>
>>>>Anyone who wishes to verify this can go to
>>>http://www.deoxy.org/fz/fedzone.htm
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>>>>----
>>>><Paul Andrew Mitchel's Post>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>><From the book!!!!>
>>>>
>>>>Appendix W: Memos on Downes vs Bidwell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MEMO
>>>>TO:       Edward A. Ellison, Jr., J.D.
>>>>          John William Kurowski
>>>>FROM:     Mitch Modeleski, Founder
>>>>          Account for Better Citizenship
>>>>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 vs 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 immedNow 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 --
>>>>
>>>>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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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. vs 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. 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 on this question predates Hooven 
>>>>by 44 years, and predates the so-called 16th Amendment by 12 years. In 
>>>>Downes vs 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 and predates 
>>>>the so-called 16th Amendment by 12 years. In Downes vs 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 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The controversy that surrounded Downes vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 vs U.S., United States District 
>>>>Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Case No. 
>>>>SA-89-CA-1308. 
>>>>
>>>>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. 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!" 
>>>>
>>>>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. 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). 
>>>>
>>>>Since involuntary servitude is now forbidden everywhere in this land, 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
>>>>
>>>>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>>>->  Posted by: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>===========================================================================
>>>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
>>>
>>>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>>->  Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>->  Posted by: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>===========================================================================
>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
>
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail