W
www.freedomtofascism.com
Guest
Citizen AG Orders US Marshalls -
Cease, Desist Tax Enforcement
6-21-7
http://www.rense.com/general77/cease.htm
NOTICE AND DEMAND
TO CEASE AND DESIST
TO: Mr. Stephen R. Monier
c/o Office of the U.S. Marshal
Warren B. Rudman U.S. Courthouse
55 Pleasant Street, Suite 207
Concord 03301
NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a),
Rotella v. Wood
DATE: June 15, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT: Mr. Ed and Mrs. Elaine Brown
Greetings Mr. Monier:
This is to inform you formally and officially that my office legally
represents the United States ex rel. in Tenth Circuit appeal #07-2017.
In that case, extensive verified evidence has already been admitted into
that Court's record, proving conclusively that there is no Statute at Large
creating a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC").
The alleged "liability" was fabricated by the Internal Revenue Service, but
there is no corresponding Act of Congress creating that specific liability
for any income taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.
Accordingly, even if the IRS were a de jure service, bureau, office or other
subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT),
they would still not have any authority to create a tax liability by means
of regulations published in the Federal Register. See 31 U.S.C. 333;
Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959).
Moreover, you are hereby served with formal NOTICE that the
constitutionality of IRC subtitle A, the federal Jury Selection and Service
Act and the Act of June 25, 1948, has now been properly and formally
challenged in that Tenth Circuit Appeal.
In the first instance, it is now the position of the United States ex rel.
that the Jury Selection and Service Act is unconstitutional because it
expressly discriminates against State Citizens by requiring that all jury
candidates be federal citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has already held that
such "class discrimination" in jury selection is unconstitutional. There are
two (2) classes of citizens in America.
Therefore, the Browns were never "indicted" by a lawfully convened federal
grand jury, and they were never "convicted" by a lawfully convened federal
trial jury. Both panels of federal citizens were not lawfully convened
federal juries, in the first instance. My office has not yet had an
opportunity to review any of the court pleadings filed in the Browns' case.
Nevertheless, our 17 years of experience in State and federal litigation
inform us that the U.S. Department of Justice routinely institutes criminal
proceedings on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. However, the latter
entity incorporated twice in Delaware, and both of those foreign
corporations have now been revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State.
To make matters much worse, the long-standing rule in all federal litigation
is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on Federal District Courts
must be strictly construed. The Article IV United States District Court has
no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever. The general grant of criminal
jurisdiction at 18 U.S.C. 3231 confers original jurisdiction upon the
Article III District Courts of the United States, not on the Article IV
United States District Courts.
We have enclosed a few key documents to substantiate every statement above,
and full details are readily available from supporting links and related
resources in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/
DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST
Accordingly, formal demand is hereby made of you and all of your associates,
accomplices and accessories of whatever description, to cease and desist
immediately from any further attempts to apprehend the Browns or to trespass
upon their fundamental Rights or private property in any manner whatsoever.
NOTICE OF INTENT
If you willfully violate this lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST,
this is our formal NOTICE to you of our intent to lodge a VERIFIED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION specifically naming you as a principal in a
conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities in connection
with the Browns and in connection with any other attempts by your office to
enforce a non-existent liability for IRC subtitle A "income taxes", in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962.
Notice to agents is notice to principals. Notice to principals is notice to
agents.
Thank you for your immediate cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
List of Hard Copy Attachments:
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Cease, Desist Tax Enforcement
6-21-7
http://www.rense.com/general77/cease.htm
NOTICE AND DEMAND
TO CEASE AND DESIST
TO: Mr. Stephen R. Monier
c/o Office of the U.S. Marshal
Warren B. Rudman U.S. Courthouse
55 Pleasant Street, Suite 207
Concord 03301
NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a),
Rotella v. Wood
DATE: June 15, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT: Mr. Ed and Mrs. Elaine Brown
Greetings Mr. Monier:
This is to inform you formally and officially that my office legally
represents the United States ex rel. in Tenth Circuit appeal #07-2017.
In that case, extensive verified evidence has already been admitted into
that Court's record, proving conclusively that there is no Statute at Large
creating a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC").
The alleged "liability" was fabricated by the Internal Revenue Service, but
there is no corresponding Act of Congress creating that specific liability
for any income taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.
Accordingly, even if the IRS were a de jure service, bureau, office or other
subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT),
they would still not have any authority to create a tax liability by means
of regulations published in the Federal Register. See 31 U.S.C. 333;
Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959).
Moreover, you are hereby served with formal NOTICE that the
constitutionality of IRC subtitle A, the federal Jury Selection and Service
Act and the Act of June 25, 1948, has now been properly and formally
challenged in that Tenth Circuit Appeal.
In the first instance, it is now the position of the United States ex rel.
that the Jury Selection and Service Act is unconstitutional because it
expressly discriminates against State Citizens by requiring that all jury
candidates be federal citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has already held that
such "class discrimination" in jury selection is unconstitutional. There are
two (2) classes of citizens in America.
Therefore, the Browns were never "indicted" by a lawfully convened federal
grand jury, and they were never "convicted" by a lawfully convened federal
trial jury. Both panels of federal citizens were not lawfully convened
federal juries, in the first instance. My office has not yet had an
opportunity to review any of the court pleadings filed in the Browns' case.
Nevertheless, our 17 years of experience in State and federal litigation
inform us that the U.S. Department of Justice routinely institutes criminal
proceedings on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. However, the latter
entity incorporated twice in Delaware, and both of those foreign
corporations have now been revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State.
To make matters much worse, the long-standing rule in all federal litigation
is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on Federal District Courts
must be strictly construed. The Article IV United States District Court has
no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever. The general grant of criminal
jurisdiction at 18 U.S.C. 3231 confers original jurisdiction upon the
Article III District Courts of the United States, not on the Article IV
United States District Courts.
We have enclosed a few key documents to substantiate every statement above,
and full details are readily available from supporting links and related
resources in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/
DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST
Accordingly, formal demand is hereby made of you and all of your associates,
accomplices and accessories of whatever description, to cease and desist
immediately from any further attempts to apprehend the Browns or to trespass
upon their fundamental Rights or private property in any manner whatsoever.
NOTICE OF INTENT
If you willfully violate this lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST,
this is our formal NOTICE to you of our intent to lodge a VERIFIED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION specifically naming you as a principal in a
conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities in connection
with the Browns and in connection with any other attempts by your office to
enforce a non-existent liability for IRC subtitle A "income taxes", in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962.
Notice to agents is notice to principals. Notice to principals is notice to
agents.
Thank you for your immediate cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
List of Hard Copy Attachments:
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
