Time: Tue Oct 29 17:25:39 1996
To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Research point
Cc:
Bcc:
At 05:49 PM 10/29/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Tuesday, 29Oct96 @ 17:48 Hours CST
>
>TO: Paul Mitchell
>From: Dale Robertson
>Subject: Research Point
>
>Re-post to your at your request, as follows:
<snip>
>Monday, 28Oct96 @ 14:37 Hours CST
>
>TO: Counselors - all
>From: Joseph Dale Robertson
>Subject: What is "United States" & Who is required to file a return?
>
>
>At this time, there is an active pending case in the USDC and Bankruptcy
>in which there is an opportunity (as well as necessity) to adjudicate
>the the following issues:
>
>1. As it pertains to "income" as defined under Title 26 of the United
>States Code, are individuals within the various 50 states within the
>definition of "United States"?
You are already stepping with
the wrong foot forward. Title
26, as such, has never been
enacted into law, so it is, at best,
rebuttable evidence of the law(s)
in question.
As for the IRC, the Kennelly letter
is important evidence that the
definition of "State" at IRC
3121(e) embraces ONLY the named
territories and possessions, and
the District of Columbia.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
Rep. Kennelly should be subpoened
to testify about the evidence she
received from the Legislative Counsel
and the Congressional Research Service.
She is from Connecticut. Go get her.
Finally, "income" is not defined as
such in the IRC. See U.S. v. Ballard,
which rendered this question res
judicata.
>
>2. Who is required to file a return?
Anybody made liable.
As for the income tax,
as opposed to the other
taxes discussed in the IRC,
the only persons made liable
are "withholding agents".
Cf. in the definitions,
IRC 7701(a) et seq.
You can confirm this by
submitting a FOIA request
for all IRC statutes,
other than those listed
in the defintion of
withholding agents, which
impose a liability. The
government will then be
required to admit, on record,
that there are no other
liability statutes.
Be aware that a FOIA request
will thrust you into the
District Court of the United States,
where you belong anyway. Have
you considered a removal action?
>
>I am presently compiling a compendium respecting especially the first
>and tangentially the second issue stated above.
You need Kennelly's letter,
and her testimony, under oath.
Ask her why she never answered
Paul Mitchell's letters. Or,
get leave of the court to depose
her. Her letter is earth-shaking
(see Press Release infra).
>
>Should any counselor have comment, experience, interest, expertise, or
>briefs respecting the above issues your response will be most sincerely
>appreciated. Significant work has been done, and I have done some
>interesting research on this point, but there is no compendium to which
>I am aware which amalgamates the sum of argument(s) in one compendium.
See "The Federal Zone" available
on the Internet via the Alta Vista
search engine.
>Any counselor who makes make a submission will receive the end product
>compendium and will be advised of developments as this issue proceeds
>through the bowels of the USDC and the Bankruptcy forums.
You know you are in the wrong
court for any criminal prosecutions,
don't you?
(Hey, I have
>to provide an incentive of some type - don't I?) Thanks and
>
>Constitutionally,
>
>Jospeh Dale Robertson
>joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.tx.us
>
>
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 28, 1996
Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion
Payson, Arizona. Paul Mitchell, a Counselor at Law and Citizen
of Arizona state, today challenged U.S. Representative Barbara
Kennelly to stop evading the big question about federal income
taxes: Does the term "State" at Internal Revenue Code 3121(e)
include only the named federal territories and possessions of the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and
American Samoa? Can this be income tax evasion? Read on.
In a letter to Mr. John Randall of San Diego last January
24, Kennelly responded to a written request from Randall asking
her if the word "State" in 26 U.S. Code 3121(e) and in other
pending legislation were the same. Rep. Kennelly, a Democrat
from Connecticut, first checked with the Legislative Counsel and
with the Congressional Research Service about the definition.
"According to these legal experts," answered Kennelly, "the
definitions are not the same. The term state in 26 U.S. Code
3121 (e) specifically includes only the named U.S. territories
and possessions." Her letter to Randall, on official House of
Representatives stationery, was dated January 24, 1996.
This admission is earth-shaking, according to Paul Mitchell,
who has conducted an in-depth investigation of federal laws and
the U.S. Constitution for seven years now. If the Internal
Revenue Code was deliberately written to confuse the American
people into believing that "State" means "Arizona" or
"California," when it does not, then the Congress has a lot of
explaining to do. Mitchell has since challenged Kennelly to
produce copies of the correspondence she received from the
Legislative Counsel and Congressional Research Service, but she
has now fallen silent and refuses to answer any follow-up
letters. Congress, incidentally, exempted themselves from the
disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
Writing under several pen names, Paul Mitchell's work has
reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted
"the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995
decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His book entitled The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, was first published in
1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid
language and indisputable legal authority. The book was
originally written in electronic form, which made it easy to
disseminate through the Internet. The fourth edition can be
viewed with the Alta Vista search engine, developed by Digital
Equipment Corporation. The Internet version does not preserve
any bold, underline, or italics, however. Mitchell has used
special character formats to highlight important words and
phrases in federal statutes and case laws, easing the reader's
burden of deciphering an otherwise unintelligible code.
Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly: Page 1 of 2
It is clear, there is a huge difference between the area
covered by the federal zone, and the area covered by the 50
States. "Money is a powerful motivation for all of us," writes
Mitchell in a chapter from the book. "Congress had literally
trillions of dollars to gain by convincing most Americans they
were inside its revenue base when, in fact, most Americans were
outside its revenue base, and remain outside even today. This is
deception on a grand scale, and the proof of this deception is
found in the statute itself." Indeed, the proof is now leaking
out on official Congressional stationery.
Mitchell goes on to argue, it is no wonder why public
relations "officials" of the IRS cringe in fear when dedicated
Patriots admit, out loud and in person, that they have read the
law. It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted definitions
of "United States" do appear to unlock a statute that is horribly
complex and deliberately so. As fate would have it, these
carefully crafted definitions also expose perhaps the greatest
fiscal fraud that has ever been perpetrated upon any people at
any time in the history of the world. It is now time for a shift
in the wind. That shift is being driven by a growing
understanding of personal status and its relation to government
territorial jurisdiction.
The vivid pattern that has now painfully emerged is that
"citizens of the United States", as defined in federal tax law,
are the intended victims of a modern statutory slavery that was
predicted by the infamous Hazard Circular soon after the Civil
War began. This circular admitted that chattel slavery was
doomed, so the bankers needed to invent a new kind of slaves.
These "statutory" slaves are now burdened with a bogus federal
debt which is spiralling out of control. The White House budget
office recently invented a new kind of "generational accounting"
so as to project a tax load of seventy-one percent on future
generations of these "citizens of the United States". The final
version of that report upped the projection to eighty percent.
"It is our duty to ensure that this statutory slavery is soon
gone with the wind, just like its grisly and ill-fated
predecessor," concludes Paul Mitchell.
The fifth anniversary edition of The Federal Zone will be
available before the end of the year. Copies of Mitchell's
correspondence with U.S. Representative Kennelly can be obtained
by sending email to pmitch@primenet.com, Mitchell's email address
on the Internet.
# # #
Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly: Page 2 of 2
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail