Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 10, 1998 at 20:52:59:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 22, 1998
Post a Followup
Paul Mitchell Blasts Clinton & Rubin
for Racketeering with Foreign Banks
Austin, Texas. The President and Treasury Secretary
drew sharp criticism today for their recent opposition
to the House vote to repeal the Internal Revenue Code.
Paul Andrew Mitchell, a Counselor at Law, qualified
Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General, took
both men to task for using scare tactics to further
the unlawful enrichment of foreign banks.
"It is perhaps the ultimate irony that Clinton
should now whip up fear and uncertainty as outcomes
of repealing the tax code," replied Mitchell. "It is
precisely the vagueness which renders that Code
null and void from its inception. Nobody can be
certain about obviously, deliberately ambiguous laws."
Mitchell here refers to the deliberate vagueness
and ambiguities which his many years of research have
documented in the Internal Revenue Code. Most notably,
that Code confuses Americans into equating the term
"State" with one of the 50 states of the Union. But,
key definitions of "State" limit its meaning to the
federal territories, federal possessions, and federal
enclaves. The 50 states are intentionally omitted
from the Internal Revenue Code, in several key places.
After defending former California state judge
Norman Vroman in a criminal tax case in 1991, Mitchell
heard Vroman predict that the tax code would be
broken by careful application of principles embodied
in the Sixth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights. This
Amendment guarantees to defendants the fundamental
Right to know the nature and cause of any criminal
accusation. Laws are null and void, if they are vague.
"Judge Norman L. Vroman told me he just did not
have enough time to do a proper analysis, but he was
sure the Sixth Amendment was powerful enough to break
the Code," Mitchell remembers. "Those have been my
marching orders, ever since that pivotal moment."
A host of Americans, over the years, have voiced
similar complaints about the complexities and overly
convoluted provisions in the IRC, including President
Reagan on down. Most recently, Attorney Lowell Becraft
of Huntsville, Alabama, has published a thorough expose
which further develops the void-for-vagueness theme
first documented in "The Federal Zone," Mitchell's
classic book on decoding the IRC. Norman L. Vroman
was the first to review initial drafts of this book.
"Becraft has done an excellent job of showing how
federal and state judges are all at odds with each
other, when it comes to the controlling principles
of federal income taxation," adds Mitchell. Becraft's
essay, now published on the Internet, cites numerous
cases in which judges have disagreed on the meaning
of "income," the legal effects of a ratified 16th
amendment, and the correct classification of income
taxes as direct or indirect. The U.S. Constitution
requires Congress to put all federal taxes in one, or
the other, class. Other serious disagreements among
judges are documented, with full case citations.
"When you stop to think about it, the controlling
principle here completely nullifies the Internal
Revenue Code, from its inception. This principle says
that a law is vague, if men of common intelligence must
disagree as to its meaning and practical application,"
"Here, the very experts who are specifically
trained in law and its correct interpretation, are the
ones who disagree with each other. This is very much
like 3 judges ruling we go for green, 3 judges ruling
we go for red, and 4 judges saying they go for yellow."
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin also came under
Mitchell's sharp criticism, for siding with Clinton's
fears about uncertain tax futures. Mitchell is now
convinced that foreign banks, primarily in Europe,
are the real beneficiaries of the federal income tax,
and this explains their consistent support for a
fraudulent, deceptive Code during the past 85 years.
The 16th amendment was adopted in 1913.
"Fraud explains Rubin's consistent support for
an Internal Revenue Service which really operates
as an extortion racket," charged Mitchell. "The
Grace Commission leaked the awful truth, when they
admitted that federal income taxes are not paying
for ANY government services. Those taxes are being
collected to service the mounting federal debt, by
laundering huge sums straight into foreign banks.
Such is the service the IRS provides."
The Grace Commission was convened by President
Reagan, in order to identify ways of reducing federal
government waste, and of increasing the efficiency
of the federal government bureaucracy. Buried deep
in that Commission's final report was a key admission,
which continues to stun Americans who understand its
full ramifications. That report is now hard to find.
"The implications are now quite clear that the
federal income tax is a bank racket, most likely
centered in Europe, where the major banking families
have plied their trade for centuries," Mitchell
explained. "Clinton and Rubin are shills of these
foreign banks, if they persist in sustaining the
Internal Revenue Code long after that Code has been
exposed as a massive fraud," Mitchell challenged.
Mitchell continues to work at educating Americans,
primarily through the Internet, as to the fundamental
importance of repealing the income tax on judicial
compensation, for example. "The only rational reason
for the Public Salary Tax Act is to pack the pockets
of wealthy foreign bankers. This is most obvious in
taxes on the pay of federal judges, who have enjoyed
a constitutional immunity from such taxes ever since
the organic U.S. Constitution was first ratified, in
the year 1788," Mitchell argues.
Mitchell's federal court litigation has often
raised this immunity, by charging federal judges
with conflicts of interest. Mitchell even confronted
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, before a large
class at the Law School of the University of Arizona.
That incident is reported in Mitchell's essay entitled
"The Lawless Rehnquist," published in the Supreme Law
Library at http://supremelaw.com/library under another
"It is politically impossible for federal judges
to rule against the IRS, as long as those judges
are subject to its undue influence. Every W-4 ever
signed by a federal judge is proof of that conflict,"
concludes Mitchell. He supports such statements by
citing cases like Evans v. Gore and Lord v. Kelley,
and by demonstrating the skewed results in almost all
recent federal tax cases.
Mitchell is quick to add that the IRS was never
created by any known Act of Congress, and it is
conspicuously absent from the laws which created
the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in Title 31
of the United States Codes.
"The only reference to the IRS in all of Title 31
is an authority for the President to appoint their
general counsel." Mitchell elaborates this fact by
proving that the Department of Justice does not have
any powers of attorney to represent the IRS in court.
DOJ receives no lawful appropriations for this purpose.
Conversely, IRS cannot lawfully retain DOJ attorneys
at public expense, but they do anyway.
"This finding arose in the civil case which Karl
Kleinpaste brought against the United States, the IRS,
and an individual IRS agent," Mitchell stated. "Even
though DOJ can and does represent Treasury officers,
the IRS is not part of the U.S. Treasury Dept. and has
never had authority from Congress to use DOJ attorneys
to litigate their cases. IRS is a trust, domiciled
in Puerto Rico, and their records are private."
Paul Mitchell's court pleadings can be viewed
at Internet URL http://supremelaw.com/library. His
permanent email address is
# # #
Post a Followup