Time: Sat Apr 19 21:22:49 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA06186;
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 17:23:56 -0700 (MST)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28054;
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 17:22:50 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:19:23 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: LLAW: Lawful Money (fwd)
Cc: Charles Marcus <csharp@mindspring.com>
Dear Clients,
I offer this entire message to all of you,
without any further comments.
Please be your own judges of this debate.
I made up my mind a long time ago.
Caveat lector.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
copy: Charles Marcus
>From: fwolist@sportsmen.net
>Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:49:36 -0700
>Subject: Re: LLAW: Lawful Money
>To: pmitch@primenet.com
>
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
> Type: Not Moderated
> Distributed on: 19-APR-97, 16:49:16
>Original Written by: IN:csharp@mindspring.com.
>=======================================================
>
>
>I apologize to all of the listmembers that have
>had to put up with this (although it wouldn't
>surprise me if you have started just trashing
>messages with this header), but it is difficult
>for me to put up with irrationality and stupidity.
>
>This will be my final response to Robert on the
>issue of the 16th amendment and the income tax,
>unless he can come up with some documentation to
>support his mis-opinions.
>
>behold@teleport.com said:
>
>>>WHAT ISSUE YOU MORON??????? The issue I am talking
>>>about is what the supreme court ALREADY SAID, MORE
>>>THAN TWICE, about the amendment. This issue has
>>>ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
>>
>>Wangrud:
>>What's the matter, can't you get your foot off your tongue? You and the
>>rest of the corporate pleaders have been standing in the same muddy water
>>for 50 years, it's time to move on.
>
>I agree...since you have posted nothing rebutting,
>then I agree that I must stop repeating myself, as
>you have agreed that I am right by your silence.
>
>>>Are you BRAINDEAD, or just STUPID?
>>>
>>>I will NOT be responding to any more of your
>>>BULLSHIT opinions, unless you can start backing
>>>them up with FACTS and PROOF.
>
>>Wangrud:
>>I am backing them up. I could care less if you respond.
>
>Saying you are, and DOING it are to different things.
>Providing some lower court rulings, and mere opinions
>IS NOT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE AGAINST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
>Are you claiming otherwise?
>
>>>I have already cited for you Osborne, which defined
>>>a member of a corporation as an 'individual', and the
>>>statutes THEMSELVES define 'person' as ONLY ARTIFICIAL
>>>persons by the CONTEXT (it NEVER mentions citizens or
>>>people).
>
>>Wangrud:
>>
>> "...There is no difficulty, therefore in sustaining the Legislature in
>>placing corporations in one class and individuals in another" [See
>>Mallinckrodt Works v. State 238 U.S. 41, 55-56, 35 Sup. Ct. 671, 59 L.
>>Ed. 1192
>
>I don't see what you are trying to claim that this
>says. All it says is that being a MEMBER of a
>corporation is a different class than a corporation
>as a whole. SO WHAT? Of WHAT significance is that
>to this tiresome discussion?
>
>>>I am very familiar with Article Five...SO WHAT? What
>>>does this have to do with ANYTHING we are talking about??
>>
>>Wangrud:
>>Article Five is the Amending article, are you saying the 16th amendment was
>>not an amendment under the procedures of article Five?
>
>> As I
>> remember it, there is a statement by Secretary of State Knox. He
>> explains the 16th Amendment was passed under the same conditions
>> as the 14th Amendment. What is Knox's saying? If you understood
>> Article Five [U.S. Const.] It is clear as a bell what Knox meant.
>
><snip>
>I'll be addressing this as a separate e-mail, as
>it has created a separate issue.
>
>By the way, Robert, although I disagree with some
>of your reasoning and conclusions, this IS an
>excellent example of what I am screaming for in
>THIS discussion on the 16th amendment and the income
>tax.
>
>All I can get out of you now are some inane
>references to some previous 'proofs' that consisted
>solely of a couple of LOWER court rulings (along
>with some weird reference to the fact that one of
>them hadn't been appealed, as if that by default over-
>ruled the STANDING supreme court decisions I cited),
>and the REFERENCE to some U.S. attorneys opinion, and
>these inane references ("What's the matter, can't you
>get your foot off your tongue? You and the rest of the
>corporate pleaders have been standing in the same muddy
>water for 50 years, it's time to move on." and "I am
>backing them up. I could care less if you respond.")
>have NO STANDING to rebut standing supreme court caselaw.
>
>>>>>Robert, unless and until you provide some SUPREME
>>>>>COURT rulings that OVERRULE the numerous cites I
>>>>>gave you, you are pissing in the wind.
>
>>>>What if there isn't any until some one brings this issue before them? You
>>>>could rephrase your statement to spitting in the wind.
>
>>>WHAT ISSUE??? WHAT ISSUE??? WHAT ISSUE???
>>>
>>>You keep invoking some mystical 'issue' trying to keep
>>>from admitting you are WRONG about this.
>>>
>>>Either state the issue you are referring to, in clear,
>>>concise terms, or SHUT UP.
>
>>Wangrud;
>>OK Hitler, under the 16th Amendment are there Excise Taxes and Direct Taxes
>>being imposed. That's the issue.
>
>THANK YOU. That's all you had to do. And I'll
>advise you to keep your slanderous statements to
>yourself. If you want to call me names because
>I lose a little self-control and call you dumb
>names when you are being ignorantly stubborn, then
>fine, but keep them in the same context. Moron and
>Hitler are very different contexts, and since this
>medium is public, and not a private e-mail
>correspondence between just you and me, you'd
>best be careful when using criminally offensive
>terms like 'Hitler' to describe someone, especially
>me.
>
>Understood?
>
>Now, I challenge you to provide ANY kind of clear
>reasoning and/or historical/public record proof of
>this opinion, otherwise it remains just that...a
>mere unsubstantiated and unreasonable opinion.
>
>I have READ the amendment, and NOWHERE IN IT is
>even the HINT that it is referring to more than
>ONE kind of tax. Neither is there even a HINT
>in ANY of the NUMEROUS court cases on it.
>
>Besides, even if there WERE some room for debate
>(as opposed to clear and obvious proof) that you
>were right, IT WOULD NOT MATTER. The supreme
>court has ALREADY ADJUDICATED the matter...and
>they said that the 16th amendment granted Congress
>NO NEW TAXING POWER. PERIOD. So it would be a
>moot point, ANYWAY. In light of this FACT, ANY
>argument on the taxing power would AVE to be argued
>in light of Congress taxing power AS GRANTED IN THE
>ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, WITHOUT REGARD to the 16th
>amendment.
>
>The obvious answer to your so-called issue is an
>absolute and unqualified NO. This is not MY opinion,
>it is the supreme Courts, so if you want to argue
>about it, then the ONLY acceptable arguments are
>OVERRULING SUPREME COURT CASES, or some REALLY
>sound reasoning.
>
>Also, you expressed the opinion that it matters
>whether or not these cases dealt with men in their
>private capacity, or corporations. I agree with you.
>The character and status of the parties is very
>important to understand a courts decision in context.
>In these cases, I think that it is still important,
>but in a different light.
>
>It is reasonable to conclude that, because
>corporations are creatures of statute and therefore
>of the State, the State has a VESTED authority to
>regulate them to the extent allowed and limited ONLY
>by THE CREATING STATUTE.
>
>Therefore, any INHERENT or CONSTITUTIONAL limitations
>determined by the court in reference to any statute
>(in this discussion, the income tax amendment) found
>to be applicable to A CORPORATION, which has NO
>UNALIENABLE RIGHTS under Yahweh, MUST, BY DEFINITION,
>be ALSO applicable to men and women in their private
>capacities, as it would be LUDICROUS to argue that a
>creature of the State could have any RIGHTS that
>exceed those of it's creators.
>
>Understand, here, I am NOT speaking of PRIVELEGES.
>Limited liability, imho, is abhorrent to Yahweh's Law,
>and the root cause of most of our economic and social
>problems today.
>
>>>> "...There is no difficulty, therefore in sustaining the Legislature in
>>>>placing corporations in one class and individuals in another" [See
>>>>Mallinckrodt Works v. State 238 U.S. 41, 55-56, 35 Sup. Ct. 671, 59 L.
>>>>Ed. 1192
>
>>>Sure...but DEFINE INDIVIDUAL.
>
>>Wangrud:
>>OK, as I have shown the Social Security Act includes the term INDIVIDUAL.
>>To prove you are an individual the IRS will examine your conduct. Should
>>you have signed up for the Social Security Act ,and used the NUMBER
>>ASSIGNED to you the IRS can establish by your conduct you are the
>>individual as stated in the Social Security Act. There needs to be no
>>further definition of the term individual.
>
>This does NOT DEFINE the term...it merely expresses
>your opinion. If you are so sure of your opinion,
>why not CITE THE DEFINITION OUT OF THE ACT? THAT is
>what I am looking for.
>
>This is where we differ. I think it is VERY
>important to understand exactly WHAT it is they claim
>you ARE by VIRTUE of using the number.
>
>I have it on good authority that it makes one a
>federal employee, but do not have the cites handy,
>and won't until I take his class next month (John
>Nelsons), so until then, this is just hearsay and mho.
>
>>As the Court in the Krzyske case
>>reveled the Social Security Act is an Income Tax, and as the Mallinckrodt
>>Works case separates corporations and individuals into two separate class'
>>of Individuals, the connection to part 1 section 1 of the IRC is not to
>>hard to understand.
>
>I haven't challenged your reasoning, just your
>opinion that the term 'individual' includes EVERYONE
>other than 'Free White State Citizens'.
>
>I say it ONLY includes those who USE an SSN, BECAUSE
>it's use makes one a federal employee, and as such,
>a member of the federal CORPORATION known as the SSA,
>but again, since I don't have the cites handy AS OF
>YET, at this time, this remains mho.
>
>>>>>You are TOTALLY missing my point, and I am beginning
>>>>>to think it is on purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>Listen very carefully, Robert.
>>>>>
>>>>>FORGET about the word 'individual for a minute.
>>>>>That word DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE AMENDMENT. I
>>>>>showed you where the supreme court defined, FOREVER,
>>>>>the definition of the word INCOME, as it relates TO
>>>>>THE AMENDMENT. Since it can ONLY mean CORPORATE GAIN,
>>>>>then the ENTIRE AMENDMENT only dealt with CORPORATE
>>>>>GAIN.
>
>>>>Where is the word Corporate found in the 16th Amendment????According to
you
>>>>if the word corporation/individual is not found in the 16th amendment the
>>>>court cases are all wrong??
>
>>>I can't believe you are this ignorant, Robert, so you
>>>must be one of those kind of people that are just
>>>incapable of admitting when they are wrong.
>>>
>>>The word 'corporation' is NOT in the amendment...BUT...
>>>the supreme court DEFINED the word 'income, which IS in
>>>the amendment, TO MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING IT MEANT IN
>>>THE CORPORATION INCOME TAX ACT OF 1909. This LIMITED
>>>the application of the 16th amendment, FOREVER, to ONLY
>>>CORPORATE GAIN.
>
>Again, SILENCE on this issue, must mean you agree
>with it? Thanks again.
>
>But this also makes it appear that you are lying (either
>to me or to yourself) in your above statement that you
>admit mistakes...because the only way you are admitting
>them in this discussion is by SILENCE.
>
>>>>>Now, I ALSO explained to you, using reason and logic,
>>>>>what the 16th amendment DID do. In more than one case,
>>>>>the supreme court ruled that ALL the 16th amendment did
>>>>>was PREVENT the income tax from being taken OUT of the
>>>>>category of INDIRECT (that's EXCISE, Robert) taxation,
>>>>>to which it INHERENTLY BELONGED.
>
>>Wangrud:
>>I'm not saying you are wrong about the corporate excise tax, I am saying
>>that is not all there is to the 16th Amendment.
>
>Then PROVE it. A mere unsubstantiated opinion
>that there are TWO PARTS to the 16th amendment is
>not only hearsay, but easily shown to be WRONG,
>simply by READING THE AMENDMENT.
>
>>>>That's the reasoning you and others have gone before the people with for
>>>>years and it has failed to protect any of them.
>
>>>Now THAT is an informed, fact-filled, substantive
>>>rebuttal......NOT.
>
>>>>It's backed by 30 years of watching patriots lose defending on your
issues.
>
>>>So, let me get this straight, Robert. You are
>>>using the fact that just because the courts are
>>>corrupt and owned by the money powers and are
>>>military in nature and can do ANYTHING THEY WANT
>>>under the unlawful guise of 'necessity', that
>>>this in and of itself overrules all of the supreme
>>>court decisions I cited to you?
>
>>Wangrud:
>>No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying you can not say that is all
>>there is to say about the 16th Amendment.
>
>I can, until you can bring me some valid REASONS
>for saying otherwise.
>
>If you can't show me, in the amendment itself,
>where it refers to two classes of taxes, then show
>me in the public record...the debates on the 16th
>amendment...supreme court OR lower court rulings...
>ANYTHING but your mere wish or opinion.
>
>>>I have better things to do than clutter up
>>>LLAW's bandwidth arguing with a moron, Robert.
>>
>>Wangrud;
>>Is every one a Moron,that brings more light to this debate???
>
>You say you are shedding light? I say you appear
>to be PURPOSEFULLY TRYING TO CONFUSE the issue by
>bringing into this discussion your mere opinion
>without ANY substantiating evidence or reasoning.
>
>>>>>Now, the question remains, WHO WAS BEING
>>>>>PREVENTED? Only ONE answer to this question,
>>>>>Robert...THE COURTS.
>
>>Wangrud:
>>I agree the courts are corrupt, but I have exposed how the courts by
>>establishing rules are evading the constitutional demands of the Bill of
>>Rights:
>
>And I see that you dodged answering my question
>AGAIN, so by your silence, you agree with me on
>the above question. Thank you.
>
>>The controversy goes back and forth between the proper procedures to
>>challenge the venue and jurisdiction of the courts. Behold says use the BOP
>>others say use the Abatement, still others have other actions which vary
>>from person to person. The following 3rd Circuit case is the best I have
>>seen yet as to why the BOP is the best action to bring out the venue and
>>jurisdiction of the courts.
>
>I have never argued that your BOP wasn't a
>great tool, and although I have never had
>the need to try and use it, I certainly wouldn't
>hesitate to, nor to provide you with the results,
>either way, BUT...
>
>what has this to do with our discussion??
>
>>Wangrud:
>>Do try to open you brain cells and see if you have made a mistake, and are
>>you big enough to admit it.
>
>You show me my mistake, and I'll admit it. I
>simply require EVIDENCE and/or sound REASONING
>before I will change my understanding of FACTS.
>
>As I said before, I will do my best to refrain
>from responding to ANYTHING other than EVIDENCE,
>or sound reasoning (as opposed to wishful thinking
>or mere opinion).
>
>In Liberty,
>
>Charles
>
>
>========================================================================
>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net
>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
> email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net
>For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net
>
>========================================================================
>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail