Time: Mon Nov 25 18:52:31 1996 To: kalliste@delphi.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: request for telephone appointment Cc: Bcc: Dear Mr. Grabbe, Would you please call me at your earliest convenience, so that we can schedule a longer telephone appointment? Thank you very much for your consideration. /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Press Releases follow: [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release November 4, 1996 The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition System by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (October 1996) It is becoming increasing apparent, in large part because of a conspiracy of silence which has descended upon the District of Columbia in recent months, that President Clinton has a lot of explaining to do, in quite a few executive departments. One of the best suppressed stories of his administration thus far is evidence of White House kick-backs from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for each and every indictment issued by federal grand juries against "illegal tax protestors," whatever they are. The term itself is an oxymoron, because protest has never been illegal in America. Protest is even recognized by the federal government's precious Uniform Commercial Code for repudiating presentments in a lawful manner. So, for the phrase "illegal tax protestor" to withstand the obvious constitutional challenge (yes, the First Amendment is still the supreme Law in America), the adjective "illegal" must modify the noun "tax." This is a telling admission on the part of our vaulted Congress of what many Americans have known for a long time, namely, the federal income tax is a total and utter fraud, from stem to stern. Our Ship of State is a sieve at sea that's riddled with loop-holes and sinking fast. What makes this term even more obnoxious is the way in which the IRS now attacks American "rebels" who dare to learn and speak the truth. A key page from the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") clearly shows that the President routinely receives $35,000 from the Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"). We have a political prisoner in federal custody right now who is prepared to testify that the President receives this sum each and every time a federal grand jury issues an indictment against any illegal tax protestor ("ITP"). U.S. Attorneys receive a mere $25,000 per indictment of ITP's. Now, if the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has a secret task force in place to attack ITP's who've become organized, like the former Pilot Connection Society which has been reported to have over 5,000 members, the President stands to rake in a tidy sum if his hench-persons in the DOJ succeed in bringing grand jury indictments against all 5,000. Let's see, 5,000 times $35,000 equals $175,000,000. The bad news for President Clinton is that the IRM provides absolutely no authority for these "performance recognition rewards" (read "kick-backs"). Courts have consistently ruled that the IRM has no more authority than a pizza recipe, when it comes to authorizing salaries and other The Kick-Back Racket: Page 1 of 3 compensation for federal government employees. Federal employee salaries must be determined by Acts of Congress, and the IRM is a far cry from that high standard of law. Furthermore, the Constitution forbids the President from receiving any other "emoluments" during his term of office. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: "... he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." A FOIA request by this author for all PMRS records produced an admission, on Treasury Department letterhead, that some records do not exist because the rewards were paid in cash. This is bad enough. But, when you couple these kick-backs with the perjury racket now rampant within the Department of Just US, and with a grand jury system which badly needs either complete overhaul or abolition, you quickly find that the indictments issuing from federal grand juries, for alleged violations of the Internal Revenue Code, are really threats, engineered by the biggest extortion racket this planet has ever seen. Jury tampering, perjury, and obstruction of justice are terms which do a far better job of describing what is really going on. In one recent grand jury case, involving a subpoena for certain books and records, a federal judge in Arizona conspired with the Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") to commit 27 counts of mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above. When a formal request was submitted to that grand jury to investigate probable violations of federal law by the AUSA, the judge intercepted this certified request, and all subsequent pleadings which were then directed to the grand jury by Counsel in order to keep them informed of what was really going on. These pleadings contained crucial evidence -- you guessed it -- of the PMRS kick-back racket, and of a pattern of pathological lying by the AUSA dating back to a $4,797 fine imposed on him for repeatedly lying to a federal court in Phoenix. This was unprecedented for federal courts who almost never eat their own. Last but not least, the evidence is now overwhelming that the law which Congress enacted to qualify and convene all juries, both grand and trial, is horribly defective for exhibiting obvious class bias against state Citizens who are not also federal citizens. The courts have consistently ruled that Americans can be state Citizens without also being federal citizens, whether or not the federal government's precious Fourteenth Amendment was properly approved and adopted (and we now know that it was not). Unfortunately for Congress, this class discrimination in the Jury Selection and Service Act, Title 28 United States Code Sections 1861 thru 1865, invalidates each and every federal grand jury indictment, and each and every federal trial jury verdict, ever since the end of the Civil War. The United States is now in very deep trouble for putting so many Americans in federal prisons, with absolutely no lawful authority whatsoever to do so. Couple that with the fact that the U.S. incarceration rate is twice as high as it is in South Africa, which is second world-wide in prisoners per capita. The Kick-Back Racket: Page 2 of 3 Do you think maybe that the federal government may be running an extortion racket here, just for money? I think so. I know so. I can prove it. I am appalled. Common Law Copyright Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice November 4, 1996 # # # [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release November 2, 1996 "Karma and the Federal Courts" by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (November 1996) The law of karma is this: what goes around, comes around. When you begin with freedom, freedom comes back to dwell in your house. And so, we have come to this point in decoding Title 28 of the United States Codes: there are two classes of federal "District Courts" in the federal court system. One class is for the federal zone; the other class is for the state zone. Using a very powerful rule of statutory construction, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," we show that the phrase "District Court of the United States" refers to federal courts for the state zone; and the phrase "United States District Court" refers to federal courts for the federal zone. We have this on the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, most notably in the cases of American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic]. Now, here's the rub: Since federal courts are creatures of statutes only, they can only cognize subject matters which are assigned to them expressly by statutes. When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, the controlling statute is 18 U.S.C. 3231. This statute grants original jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States (DCUS), but does not mention the United States District Courts (USDC)! How about them apples? Remember this carefully: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (in Latin ). Inclusion of one is exclusion of others (in English). Since the USDC is not mentioned, its omission can be inferred as intentional. (Read that again, then confirm it in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition). So, from the historian's point of view, Congress has permitted the limited territorial and subject matter jurisdiction of the USDC to be extended, unlawfully, into the state zone, and Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 1 of 3 into subject matters over which said court has no jurisdiction whatsoever. This deception was maintained as long as nobody noticed, but now it is obvious, and quite difficult to change, without bringing down the whole house of cards (which is happening, by the way. The Liege firemen are literally hosing their own corrupt court buildings, so we're not alone in this department of judicial tyranny.) By the way, the famous Belgian Firemen from Liege have been invited, via the Internet, to discharge the Belgian debt to the United States by moving their talents state-side. They should return home debt free, in about ten years or so, depending on available supplies of soap and water. Imagine a sheet of Saran Wrap, which has been yanked too far, by pulling it beyond the strict territorial boundaries which surround the federal zone. This is the United States District Court (USDC), in all its limited Honors and tarnished glory. Further proof of this bad karma can be found by comparing 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c). Both statutes grant authority to issue remedies to restrain racketeering activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1962. Section 1964(a) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the DCUS; Section 1964(c) grants civil jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to the USDC. Both refer to the exact same subject matter, namely, RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activities. So, when these two statutes are otherwise identical, why did Congress need to enact two separate statutes? The answer is simple: one authority was needed for the DCUS, and the other was needed for the USDC. Simple, really, when the sedition by syntax is explained in language which penetrates the deception. Now, if this is truly the case, and nobody has been able to prove us wrong about this matter, the United States (federal government) is in a heap of trouble here, because it has been prosecuting people in the wrong courts ever since the Civil War; furthermore, those courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, because such an authority is completely lacking from Titles 18 and 28, both of which have been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26, which has not been enacted into positive law. See Title 1 for details. What do we do with this earth-shaking discovery? Well, when any federal case is filed, the criminal defendant should submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request immediately, for such things as any regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for 18 U.S.C. 3231. Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 2 of 3 It won't hurt to send submit similar FOIA requests for the credentials of all federal employees who have "touched" the case in any way. Since we already know that there are no regulations for 18 U.S.C. 3231, and that federal employees will usually refuse to produce their credentials, your FOIA requests will be met with silence, whereupon you will file a FOIA appeal. Once the appeal deadline has run, you are in court. But which court? Guess ... ... the answer is the District Court of the United States. What an amazing discovery, yes? A United States District Judge in Arizona, in late Spring of 1996, ruled that the United States District Court (USDC) is not the proper forum to litigate a request under the FOIA. That can only be because FOIA requests must be litigated in the District Court of the United States (DCUS). Now we have the United States checkmated. The proper forum for FOIA is now res judicata. If the DCUS is the proper forum for FOIA, and if the USDC is NOT the proper forum for FOIA, then the USDC is not the proper forum for prosecuting violations of Title 18 either, because the USDC does not show up in 5 U.S.C. 552 or in 18 U.S.C. 3231! Read that last paragraph again, and again, until you get it. It's okay to admit that you must read it several times; this writer once read a paragraph from Hooven and Allison v. Evatt some 20 different times, until the meaning was finally clear. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head- on, collision. Knowledge is power, and power is freedom ... ... freedom. Freedom! FREEDOM!!! Love it. Common Law Copyright Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice November 2, 1996 # # # Karma and the Federal Courts: Page 3 of 3 The Kick-Back Racket: Page 3 of 3
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail