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