Time: Thu Oct 31 06:53:11 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Documents
Cc:
Bcc:
At 12:31 AM 10/31/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
> I got the documents you sent, Cooper &
>Clerical and I'm really impressed. Of course
>I've seen a few things other places about how
>the IRS is totally illegal, but I haven't seen any-
>body put it all together like you did. I'll have
>to go over the Clerical brief in more detail and
>check the statutes. You've done some awesome
>work.
These two were originally
written by Dan Meador and
William Cooper, with help
from Wayne Bentson. I simply
re-entered them, edited for
Sister Theresa Maria (a real
hand-slapper, that one), and
put them into my standard
format, so they can be
easily incorporated into
subsequent briefs/affidavits/etc.
Might even convince this paranoid to
>stop filing, since obviously filing and making sure
>I don't have to pay anything has its own repurcussions.
There is no filing requirement,
because there are no liability
statutes, except for withholding
agents, which are strictly
defined. See IRC 7701(a) et seq.
> But I still don't understand why the feds would
>care if I know this. People have tried to teach
>me tax before -- Jonathan has, I read a few case
>at his suggestion, and Larry has sent me some
>briefs on it. I'm interested, but it overwhelms me
>and there are already people who have studied for
>years. I could never catch up.
You don't need to catch up.
The feds view you as a major
threat, because Liberty is
a major threat to them.
The Puerto Rico connection
also demolishes the BATF,
because the SC declared their
seminal authority unconstitutional
in 1935. See if you can find
BATF in Title 31, which HAS been
enacted into positive law.
> I am confused on a few things, like why is
>congress passing policy, not law? I thought they
>did pass laws.
It's much more complicated than that.
There are private laws, and there
are public laws. IRC is in the former
category. Moreover, the enforcement
is still voluntary, per IRC 7851(a)(6)(A):
General rule: The provisions of subtitle
F shall take effect on the day after the
date of enactment of this title ....
Only problem is: Title 26 has never
been enacted.
> The feds are just too inclined to start some-
>thing new, where my chances of getting good are
>as good as anybodies. Problem is I do my job
>a bit too well and they give up on things.
"give up on things"?
There
>have been no federal FIJA cases since Regas,
... because nobody thought to
challenge the Jury Selection
and Service in each and every
federal jury action, whether
grand jury or trial jury.
If they had, EVERY case would
become a FIJA case. Do you
agree?
>and less FDA cases (and the ones they bring have
>more merit than they used to, there are real quacks
>out there).
Quacking up here. Boink.
Always on orders from DC, like I told
>Janet. Are pipe-bombs next to fall?
Pipe bombs are next to summer.
> I just don't see what I could possibly add to
>what you've already done, why they would be
>worried about me learning more about this.
BATF BATF BATF!!
>But, just in case you can figure out something
>I can't, I'm sending you my jurisdiction brief and
>the outline for my speech on the drug war.
I am honored. I need to
move a bit slowly into it,
however, since I have not
been sleeping well myself.
I woke up tired this morning.
> There's a bit of overlap with your work:
Nancy, it is no small "bit."
There are major overlaps,
beginning with Prohibition.
I will send you VOLSTAD.DOC.
This will ground you quickly
inside of 5 minutes. Please
read it for me, OK? It was
a very powerful catharsis
when I finally had that insight,
because I lost my brother to
alcohol poisoning (and smoking).
Take a walk down to your nearest
Interstate highway, and just look
at all the cars: how efficiently
do you think they are burning those
hydrocarbons? How many of those
cars and trucks are, right now,
rolling down the highways and
byways of America, on what? OIL,
that's what. And what are they using
for lubrication: OIL, that's what.
And the asphalt they are rolling on,
what is that? OIL, that's what.
The
>Bureau of Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs preceded
>the DEA, just like the BIR preceded IRS. drug
>prohibition starts out in territories, then they tax
>it, then they prohibit it. First drug laws were only for
>DC & the territories,
The federal zone!!!!!
then part of the of the Internal
>Revenue code, then treaties were passed and they
>went straight criminal.
Treaties cannot abrogate the
guarantees of the Constitution.
It's all in there, you'll have
>to see the slides yourself. And I know I've seen
>that definition of State somewhere.
Next time you see it,
it will JUMP off the page
and bite you, I guarantee it.
(hmmmmm. wish I could be there)
> Maybe there's some piece of a puzzle there
>that I'm just not getting, something that could make
>a whole lot of people wake up quick. Good luck.
The key is in VOLSTAD.DOC.
It will floor you, I am sure.
I am still reeling from the
insight.
> On the other hand, Don says that if your
>server is using the wrong language it can't log onto
>my server, and it might only be one "branch" which
>explains Harvey getting your mail. Just thought
>I'd run it by you.
It can't work, and then not work,
without a human change, or a serious
bug. I think we have several solutions
working right now.
> In not, this snooping may have given us a
>clue to something that's really bothering them. All my
>stuff's been published, taped by infiltrators, etc.
remember "LEADERLESS"?
Why do you think they
bothered to come to the
Supreme Law Seminar in
Tucson? We are about
to blow the federal
judiciary to the four
winds, that's why.
NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION!
> Kind of like "The Pelican Brief," isn't it?
I haven't read it.
I was kinda' hoping you
would, some day, be reading
it to me as we lounged around
a pool, 80 degrees outside,
water 75, room service poolside,
me admiring you every waking
minute, and dreaming the same
the rest of the time.
> I just heard from Mindspring, finally. Will get
>back if it's anything. If not, good night. Sorry for all
>the trouble.
>Nancy
>XXXOOOOXXX
>Hugs to POBOT too, it's not his
>fault you know. She's just a
>haunt, an old witch. Hallowe'en's
>tomorrow.
I will tell him that;
he is busy computing
noosphere intercept
vectors just now:
"Do Not Disturb" sign
is flashing.
Bye.
>
>
>
>
>
>Attachment Converted: I:\ATTACH\COMMERCE.TXT
> INTERNATIONAL ROOTS OF THE DRUG AND
>VITAMIN WARS
You must read "The Committee of 300"
by John Coleman.
>
> Last year, Rodger Sless was acquitted in
>a jury trial on a 15 count federal indictment
>for selling vitamins. The FDA did not call it
>that. They called it "causing the introduction
>of an unapproved new drug into interstate
>commerce." The "drugs" were Gerovital, Vitamin
>A cream, and Deprenyl. One of the reasons he
>was acquitted was that the defense team painted
>a more frightening picture than anything the
>federales could muster about the dangers of
>these so-called drugs. A squad of federal
>agents had descended on his small office with
>guns drawn and ordered Rodger and his terrified
>employees onto the floor. Luckily, the jury
>was as disturbed by this as anyone.
> The armed raids we hear so much about in
>the patriot press -- whether perpetrated by the
>FDA, IRS, BATF, or Postal Authorities -- have
>been going on for decades. Jack-booted thugs
>broke down doors and pulled babies out for
>their mothers arms, but few paid notice because
>the victims were maligned as "drug dealers" and
>there is little sympathy for the fellows with
>the red and blue bandannas. Perhaps the FDA
>agents who assaulted Rodger Sless had applied
>to the DEA first and been rejected, but the
>drug war has given other federal agencies more
>than a pool of DEA wanna-be's who grew up
>watching Miami Vice. The origin and history
>of the DEA and FDA are so interconnected that
>they are best described together. Their roots
>lie in the regulation of the District of
>Columbia, treaties, and taxes.
> Federalism flexed its jurisdictional
>muscles first in the context of drug control,
>where sympathy for the victims was so lacking
>that the expansion was accepted by the Supreme
>Court and the public. We have all wondered,
>"Why did alcohol prohibition require a
>constitutional amendment but drug prohibition
>is only a federal statute?" The Harrison Act
>of 1914 went into effect thirty years before
>the interstate commerce clause expanded under
>Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), but
>was simultaneous with the entry into force of
>the first of series of international treaties.
>These treaties, starting at the beginning of
>this century, gave the federal government with
>the authority to regulate and prohibit
>substances that people use in the privacy of
>their homes. Its authority inevitably reached
the medicines that help us to live longer and
>healthier. Our government demands that
>glaucoma patients go blind rather than use
>marijuana, the safest medicine known.
> This brutal policy started, not in 1906
>with the Pure Food and Drugs Act, but in 1898,
>Congress passed "An Act Relating to the
>adulteration of foods and drugs in the District
>of Columbia." It stated that no person should
>"sell, exchange, or deliver, or have in his
>custody or possession with the intent to sell
>or exchange, any article of food or drug which
>is . . . adulterated." Adulteration was
>defined as being out of compliance with the
>strengths and descriptions found in the United
>States Pharmacopoeia. The act only applied
>within the District of Columbia because the
>federal government had no jurisdiction to do
>this in the States. Enforcement was assigned
>to the D.C. health officer in the police court
>of D.C. The words of the statute foretell of
>the "Possession with intent to distribute" fiat
>crime that now sends so many to prison for
>decades for growing marijuana.
> But our early federals were not stopped
>at the borders of their District. In 1906,
>they signed a brief, innocuous looking treaty
>1906 called the "Agreement Respecting the
>Unification of the Pharmacopoeial Formulas for
>Potent Drugs." Opium ("opii") and cocaine
>("cocainum hydrochloride") were among the fifty
>or so substances listed. The treaty set forth
>the required strengths and proper formulations
>and the Pure Foods and Drugs Act was signed the
>same year. A drug, defined as any medicine or
>preparation in the United States Pharmacopoeia
>or National Formulary, would be deemed
>adulterated if its strength, quality or purity
>differed from the standard.
> The manufacture of adulterated drugs was
>prohibited in D.C. and the Territories, as was
>the "introduction" into any State, Territory
>or the District of Columbia from any other, or
>from a foreign country, or shipment to a
>foreign country. The term "introduction into
>interstate commerce" is not there because at
>that time its meaning was limited to the
>activity just described. Drugs and foods were
>"misbranded" and subject to seizure if they
>contained any "morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin
>. . . cannabis indica" and their labels did not
>state the quantity.
> In 1912 and 1913, during the "Progressive"
>era, a treaty called "Suppression of Abuse of
Opium and Other Drugs" was signed, and
>ratified. This treaty included opium,
>morphine, and cocaine, not cannabis. Article
>10 provided that all contracting powers use
>their best efforts to control the manufacture,
>import, sale, distribution and export of
>morphine, cocaine, and their salts and to
>accomplish this by limiting manufacture to
>"authorized" premises and demand that all those
>who manufacture, import, sell, or distribute
>these substances be licenses and keep records
>of the quantities so transferred, except for
>pharmacists.
> The infamous 1914 Harrison Act, enacted
>just one year before the 1912 treaty was to
>enter into force in 1915, required "[t]hat on
>the first day of March, nineteen hundred and
>fifteen, every person who produces, imports,
>manufactures, compounds, deals in dispenses,
>sells, distributes, or gives away opium or coca
>leaves or any compound, manufacture, salt,
>derivative, or preparation thereof, shall
>register with the collector of internal revenue
>of the district his name or style . . . is to
>be carried on." Registry was to be annual and
>tax was only $1 per year. Forms were to be
>prepared and sold by the Commissioner of
>Internal Revenue, approved by the Secretary of
>the Treasury. It became unlawful to send,
>ship, carry, or deliver the drugs from any
>State, Territory, or the District, to any
>other. It is plain that the purpose of this
>act was not to raise revenue, but to comply
>with the mandates of the treaty in a clever
>ruse that would, and did, pass constitutional
>muster. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241
>U.S. 394 (1916), held that the Harrison Act was
>valid as in aid of a treaty, but must be
>limited as requiring the registration and
>payment of tax by those required, not a ban on
>all possession of opium.
> The 1919 Revenue Act contains some
>language designed to reach the mere possessor.
>That act made possession of any package without
>tax stamps prima facie evidence of liability
>to the special tax, unless the possessor had
>a valid medical prescription. It worked. In
>United States v. Wong Sing, 260 US 18, the
>court said that "the power, congress, exerted
>through the act of 1914, though the act might
>be denominated a revenue measure, could, as a
>complement to it, make criminally unlawful the
>sale, barter or exchange of narcotic drugs,
>except under certain prescribed conditions
designed to make effective as a revenue
>measure."
> Conditions on sellers were then placed on
>purchasers, and the hated and costly
>prescription drug system was born.
>
>NEXT ISSUE: The Roosevelt Era
>o
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail