Time: Sat Mar 29 05:42:45 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15770;
Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:52:35 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26315;
Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:52:27 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:38:57 -0800
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Is the IRC Constitutional?
Not one U.S. Supreme Court case cited here!
Moreover, you have failed to cite People v. Boxer.
The Federal Register contains statements admitting
that the 16th Amendment is Treasury's constitutional
authority. Under the Federal Register Act, Americans
can rely upon such statements; in fact, they HAVE to,
because the FR is the publication medium for federal
Legal Notices. The only other way to get actual notice
from the federal government, is if they actually serve
a notice upon your Person, physically, with a process
server!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 08:57 PM 3/28/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>On Thu Mar 27 14:57:59 1997 Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] wrote:
>
>> Objection: the 16th amendment
>> was never lawfully ratified.
>>
>> The IRC is void for vagueness,
>> in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
>>
>> See several discussions of the
>> "void for vagueness" doctrine
>> in "The Federal Zone."
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>Overruled..
Not by the U.S. Supreme Court,
sitting in an Article III capacity.
Furthermore, the "void for vagueness"
attack against the IRC has yet to be
properly adjudicated, because if it were,
it would demonstrate that the vagueness
is intentional, and that is FRAUD!!
Intentional deception in a law is FRAUD,
and that nullifies it, from its inception
(ab initio). Unconstitutionality dates
from the moment of its enactment, not from
the decision so branding it.
The Federal Zone contains plenty of historical
evidence proving that the vagueness and
ambiguities in the IRC were intentional.
In fact, a D.C. judge admitted as much,
before the D.C. Historical Society around
the turn of the century. There is your
smoking gun. We are the bodies. The motive
was money. The crime is solved! The bankers
committed the crime.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>That may very well be. However, check my link to the "Tax Protester
>Hall of Fame" <http://www.future.net/~thetruth/>.
>
>Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988) and
>United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) and
>United States v. House, 617 F.Supp 237 (W.D.Mich. 1985)
All of these cases began in the USDC, which have no
criminal jurisdiction. Moreover, the judges
sitting on these cases were paying taxes on
their pay, so they were disqualified per force,
pursuant to Article III, Section 1, and the
holding in Evans v. Gore. So, I throw them
all out, particularly the 9th Circuit case,
because the 9th Circuit has been notoriously
rogue when the subject matter is taxes or
the monetary system. See _In re Becraft_, for a
good (bad?) taste of their demonstrable bias.
They are at it again right now, as we speak,
because the C.J. in San Francisco refuses
to rule on my judicial complaint against
a Tucson federal judge who obstructed a mountain
of evidence against the IRS, including their
organizational genealogy.
We can't let the public see the truth about this
organization, now can we? So, the federal judge
STRUCK all the pleadings -- YES, STRUCK THEM --
so, they don't exist any longer. Yes, just like
that! They don't exist. Well, I'll tell you
something else -- they DO exist, because I
personally flew a complete set of those documents
to the Ninth Circuit, and filed them with the
Clerk of that Court, so the C.J. now has a little
problem on his hands, because that set was NOT
stricken. How about that!! That complete set
is also lodged with the FBI in Phoenix. Do you
want to see your real federal government in action?
What do you want to bet that the USDC set has been
conveniently destroyed? Does anybody want to bet?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally
>ratified, and here's what the courts said:
>
>With Miller they sanctioned him $1500 for costs and attorneys'
>fees under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
>also enjoined him from filing such claims in the future without
>first obtaining leave of court because of his "persistence in
>pursuing meritless constitutional claims through the use of the
>judicial review mechanism for penalty assessments under the
>frivolous tax return provision of 26 U.S.C. s 6702"
Garbage holding.
"Leave of the court." GARBAGE!
The federal courts were set up
specifically to adjudicate constitutional
questions, and Citizens have a fundamental
Right, under the due process clause, to do
just that. Here, the court is saying you
can only do that, if THEY give you THEIR
permission. They are wrong, again!
Deprivations of fundamental Rights are
felonies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242.
How many readers here have even read this
criminal statute?
I am sorry. This is the kind of sick illogic
I have come to expect from these judicial jerks.
They should be put out on the street pushing
shopping carts up and down the sidewalk, and
eating hand-outs at charity kitchens.
If a ratified 16th amendment had effect X,
then a failed 16th amendment proves that X
did not happen. What is X? Now, that can't
be all that difficult, particularly when
X has already been published and adjudicated
over and over ad nauseam. So, I did it for
them, in Chapter 13 of The Federal Zone, and
no one has been able to refute that summary
chapter. No one!
The 16th Amendment was never ratified,
and the failed ratification has enormous
implications, which have been documented
to the hilt over the past 12 years since
the evidence against it first surfaced.
It's time to move on, and abolish this
stupid tax. It only serves the enrich
foreign banks and their cronies in the
Congress, White House, and judiciary.
All that money belongs to the People,
and they should immediately stop voluntary
withholding from their pay checks.
It is a colossal crime, if you ask me,
and it needs to stop. Not one dime goes
to pay for ANY federal government services.
Not one!!
I rest my case.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>With Stahl they said, "We conclude that the Secretary of State's
>certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth
>amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states
>and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the
>courts."
This is a bogus argument.
The Constitution defines when an
amendment becomes law, not the
Secretary of State. When 3/4th's
of the Union states vote YES,
THEN it becomes law. If the
Secretary of State had been
required, the Constitution would
have had to say so. See the
9th Amendment, which is the
general rule of construction.
I have seen this argument before,
and this notion that the Secretary's
opinion is somehow "conclusive,"
when a vote of less than 3/4th's is NOT
conclusive, just shows how far the
federal courts have abdicated their
integrity. That's all it shows.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>And with House, they sumarized, "The sixteenth amendment and the
>tax laws passed pursuant to it have been followed by the courts
>for over half a century. They represent the recognized law of
>the land."
Tiring, boring, and wrong.
There are cases which say that
no one acquires a vested or protected
right in violation of the Constitution.
I have already posted those here (I think).
It is NOT the "law of the land," because
that term is borrowed from the Supremacy
Clause, which refers to the Supreme Law,
namely, the Constitution itself. So, we are
back, full circle. The federal courts
are good at that -- full circles, 0ver
and 0ver and 0ver and 0ver (spelled with
zeroes, 4 zeroes for lots of big zeroes).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>While I don't necessarily agree with the court quotations and
>decisions, there's the case law to pursuade someone that your
>arguement that the 16th amendment was never lawfully ratified
>is likely to be rejected as frivolous by the courts.
On the contrary, the Full Faith and Credit Clause
MANDATES that government employees give full faith
and credit to cases like People v. Boxer, and that
provision binds them to give credit to the documents
filed in that case. If they want to resort to this
obnoxious "frivolous" garbage, then they are calling
the Constitution "frivolous," which is perjury of
oath. They pull out "frivolous" when they have lost;
that is the pattern I have observed.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>In freedom,
>
>Tony Sgarlatti
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail