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 Courts
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.
[FONT="]
[/FONT] 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:
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.
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)
Agency Holding v. Malley-Duff Associates
[FONT="]
[/FONT]http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/intervention.htm
