Time: Thu Sep 18 08:55:03 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA14500
for [address in tool bar]; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:53:37 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:31:39 -0700
To: crdubo@juno.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: Summons to appear and produce books and Records
See attached pleading, as a place to begin your
argument in opposition to an administrative
summons. The Fifth Amendment applies, even
in administrative hearings, because the
transcripts of such hearings can be admitted
into evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus,
you have the Right not to be a witness against
yourself in administrative hearings too. You must
remember, however, that a "blanket" invocation
is not proper; you must respond to each and
every question in exactly the following way:
"I decline to answer that question, because I cannot
be compelled to be a witness against myself."
Answer this way even when they ask you for your name!
And, be sure to have a silent witness with you.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
p.s. Juno might not be able to receive the attached
file at your end; if so, you are out of luck for
now, until we receive more financial support to host
this particular file set on our website.
At 10:52 PM 9/17/97 PST, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>As a student of your Supreme Law Class, and someone whom has been
>involved with the issues of Income Taxation since 1979, I am still
>interested in different opinions with regards to the dreaded "Summons to
>appear and produce books and Records."
>
>On numerous occasions I have helped people overcome the Federal
prosecutors & Judges, with respect to fifth amendment rights to not be a
witness
>against oneself. Larry Becraft has written many legal arguments on the
>this fundamental right!
>
>Wherefore, with your knowlege and expertise regarding this matter, How,
>What and I guess when would you (personally) address a letter from the
>IRS regarding, "You should bring signed returns and visit our office on
>----date---time--your meeting is scheduled." "If you do not..., a
>summons may be issued."
>
>They of course quote 7210 of the IRC stating," Anyone who is summoned to
>testify or appear... and does not do so and is convicted, will be fined
>$1000.00 and imprisoned up to one year."
>
>I would really appreciate your thoughts on this, how you would address
>this "Form Letter", and thank you in advance for your reply.
>
>Sincerely, Craig Smith
>
>
>On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:13:19 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in toolbar] writes:
>>Dear Alfred,
>>
>>The verifications also conform to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2),
>>the mode for statements executed under penalty of
>>perjury INSIDE the United States (federal government).
>>Compare 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Notice also that the
>>"United States" and the "United States of America"
>>are both mentioned in this statute.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>copy: Supreme Law School
>>
>>
>>At 04:54 PM 9/9/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>> In late 1942, Congress enacted, and President Roosevelt signed
>>into
>>>Law, "The Victory Tax Act of 1943" (56 stat. 884), which became
>>effective
>>>on January 1, 1943. Part II of the "Victory Tax Act of 1943"
>>provided
>>>for WAGE WITHHOLDING, and was codified in Subchapter D of Chapter 1
>>of
>>>the 1939 Internal Revenue Code. Part II of the "Victory Tax Act of
>>1943"
>>>was REPEALED on June 30, 1943 with the enactment of "The Current Tax
>>>Payment Act of 1943" (57 stat. 126), signed into law by President
>>>Roosevelt.
>>>
>>> "The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943" (57 stat. 126) contained the
>>>exact same wage withholding provisions for "The Public Salary Tax Act
>>of
>>>1943", as Part II of "The Victory Tax Act of 1943", HOWEVER, "The
>>Current
>>>Tax Payment Act of 1943" was codified in Subchapter D of Chapter 9 of
>>the
>>>1939 Internal Revenue Code, which dealt with "EMPLOYMENT TAXES".
>>>
>>> Now, take a look at the Form W-4, which is titled "Employee
>>>Withholding Allowance Certificate". Notice: the "EMPLOYEE" subject
>>to
>>>withholding is an "employee" who is "Under Penalties of Perjury".
>>This
>>>Form W-4 is a Federal Form. It applies to a Federal "employee" who
>>is
>>>"Under Penalties of Perjury". This Form W-4 is for the "withholding"
>>of
>>>"EMPLOYMENT TAXES" upon Federal "employees" who are "Under Penalties
>>of
>>>Perjury". IT APPLIES TO OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
>>>
>>> If you look in the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle C, "EMPLOYMENT
>>>TAXES", you will see the definition of "employee" (Section 3402 C)
>>>subject to "withholding for employment taxes" and they are defined as
>>>elected and appointed officials.
>>>
>>> You will have to search Subtitle C of the Code "Employment Taxes"
>>to
>>>see what taxes are to be withheld from elected and appointed
>>officials.
>>>It has NOTHING to do with "Income Taxes". Here is what the court
>>said
>>>about "Withholding":
>>> "Withholding requirements are located in the Internal Revenue
>>>Code in
>>> Subtitle C - "Employment Taxes". The withholding tax is not
>>the
>>>same
>>> as the income tax: it is a separate entity."
>>> Central Illinois Publishing Co. v. U.S., 551 Ed. 2d. 82
>>>
>>> The Form W-4, "Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate" has
>>nothing
>>>to do with the withholding of "Income Taxes". And It has nothing to
>>do
>>>with the private sector or private sector employers.
>>>
>>> See how the IRS and EMPLOYERS are conspiring to commit fraud and
>>>extort your property!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal
>>witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C.
>>Irvine
>> :
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256:
>>24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586
>>CPU
>>website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library
>>now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its
>>best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal
>>zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o
>>this
>>_____________________________________:
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We
>>shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns
>>eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional
>>spacing.]
>>
>
>
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\OPPOSOS1.ASC"
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
:
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
_____________________________________:
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]From ???@??? Thu Sep 18 09:05:09 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA20564;
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:04:08 -0700 (MST)
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11272;
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:01:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:01:17 -0700
To: MSmith6791@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: de facto v. de jure state courts
Yes, the gold-fringed flag is prima facie evidence
of a martial-ruled summary jurisdiction. It is a
de facto forum, convened under federal municipal law.
There, you will be treated as a subject of the Congress,
because they will proceed on the basis of the presumption
that you are a citizen of the United States. I will send
you, from our other machine, a recent pleading, a portion of
which discusses this distinction as far as Arizona courts
are concerned; but, the distinction is the same everywhere,
because this de facto regime has been imposed on all Union
states, with their full cooperation (cooptation?)
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 11:06 AM 9/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 9/15/97 3:17:08 PM, you wrote:
>
><<If you are indicted or summoned to appear
>
>on a marijuana charge, and you are arraigned
>
>in any California court which displays the
>
>gold-fringed flag, you should appear "In Propria
>
>Persona" and Notice this court of your intent
>
>to petition the Superior Court of California state
>
>for a warrant of removal, in order to hear the
>
>question(s) of law which arise in the instant case
>
>(see below for examples). This Superior Court of>>
>
>**Paul, in traffic court yesterday on that ticket. Later I went to the
>superior court, court room and the flag there has a gold fringe also. Does
>that indicate that is not a de jure superior court?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Michael Smith
>
>MSMITH6791@aol.com (for pers. messages only & business please
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail