E Mails Paul Andrew Mitchell

Email exchange with Paul Andrew Mitchell, July 2012

I received a colorful email from Paul Andrew Mitchell who calls himself Private Attorney General, also posted at soundofheart.org. Since he posted it online and cc-ed his payed subscription mailing list, he apparantly has no objections to this being published. So, here we go: 

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: Supreme Law Firm <xxx>
 Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM
 Subject:
 Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS
 Re: The Fascinating History Of Civil Law Versus Divine Common Law
If the US removes the P2 fascist government run via the United States of America corporation, then all US external debts will not have to be paid by the American people. We are trying to bankrupt that war mongering and murdering corporation and their fascist overseers at the P2 Roman empire headquarters.

This same old lie -- that the Federal Government in the USA is a corporation -- has already been thoroughly refuted by verified evidence assembled by my office and filed in Courts of competent jurisdiction.

First and foremost, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the "United States" (Federal Government) is NOT a corporation: see U.S. v. Cooper Corporation cited and quoted here: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" did incorporate twice in Delaware, but both corporations were later REVOKED by the Delaware Secretary of State: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/
 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/

Neither registered to do business in any of the other 49 States of the Union, as far as we know (we've confirmed with a few SOS): 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/

Even in New York State -- the heart of the The Conspiracy -- neither registered to do business in that State: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/ny/

Another impostor corporation was created with the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (added "THE" at the front of the name): 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/THE.UNITED.STATES.OF.AMERICA.JPG

... and this one turned up domiciled in Scotland: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/THE.UNITED.STATES.OF.AMERICA.LIMITED.JPG

If you are interested in the exact details of our refutations, we got to the bottom of this "myth" here: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/reply.to.brief.for.appellee.htm
 (filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado)

Secondly, the United States (Federal Government) has now properly and formerly declared insolvency with respect to obligations allegedly owed to the Federal Reserve Banks: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
 (filed in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Washington)

So, both "legs" claiming authority for the Federal income tax have now been legally CUT OFF:

(1) there is no Statute at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm (see Commissioner v. Acker, in chief)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm
 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm  (see Item (7) )

EVEN IF the IRS were a de jure service, bureau, office or other subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury -- which they decidedly are NOT -- they would STILL have no authority to create a tax liability solely by means of implementing Regulations published in the Federal Register.

(2) the AUTOMATIC STAY authorized by 11 U.S.C. 362 has now been activated as a consequence of that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY: 

 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362

Consequently, the Federal Reserve Banks and their collection agency, the IRS, are now legally BARRED from collecting any more Federal income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

Thirdly, the terms "admiralty and maritime" in Article III of the Constitution are defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary to refer to matters that arise on the high seas: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#3:2:1
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend ...
-- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction 
 http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldm1.htm
MARITIME. That which belongs to or is connected with the sea. 
 http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/blda1.htm#admiralty
ADMIRALTY. The name of a jurisdiction which takes cognizance of suits or actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or relating to the sea; or, in other words, of all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea. 2 Gall. R. 468.

The term "sea" above does NOT refer in any manner to the Vatican: it refers to the large bodies of water the separate major land masses on planet Earth.

As such, "admiralty and maritime" are subject matters in American law; they do NOT refer to any particular kind of court.

As such, there is no such thing as an "admiralty court" under current American laws. On the contrary, certain Federal Courts have been given either original or appellate jurisdiction over cases involving matters arising on the high seas. 

 Sincerely yours,
 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
 Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
 http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
 http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

 All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for your message and links. I haven't had time to follow all your links, but you certainly provide interesting information. I see from your resume that you have an interesting mixed background, including computer sciences. That tells me you think for yourself and do your own research. I have a background in Electrical Engineering and programmed in C++ for several years.

<snip> 

 On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell <xxx> wrote:
 >
 >
 > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 > From: Supreme Law Firm <xxx>
 > Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM
 > Subject:
 > Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS
 > Re: The Fascinating History Of Civil Law Versus Divine Common Law

 >
 >
 > >  If the US removes the P2 fascist government run via the United States of America corporation, then all US
 > >  external debts will not have to be paid by the American people. We are trying to bankrupt that war mongering
 > >  and murdering corporation and their fascist overseers at the P2 Roman empire headquarters.
 >

This was a quote from Benjamin Fulford, BTW. 

 >
 > This same old lie -- that the Federal Government in the USA
 > is a corporation -- has already been thoroughly refuted
 > by verified evidence assembled by my office and
 > filed in Courts of competent jurisdiction.
 >
 > First and foremost, the U.S. Supreme Court has already
 > ruled that the "United States" (Federal Government)
 > is NOT a corporation:  see U.S. v. Cooper Corporation
 > cited and quoted here:
 >
 > http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
 >

This one speaks about corporations under federal law:

"For an entity to become a corporation under federal law, there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation."

How about a corporation under another jurisdiction, such as international civil law?

As far as I can tell, there are two fundamentally different jurisdictions:

1) Common law, whereby the people are sovereign;

2) Roman type civil law, whereby the people are subjects to some sovereign.

The original United States of America was established under common law. The question is whether or not there is a second "United States of America" under some civil law jurisdiction, whatever that exact jurisdiction may be and whatever the exact legal type of entity it may be.

It looks like you have to search further back in history to find this entity: 

 http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/

 http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/were_you_ever_free.htm
I stated in my book that the 1783 Paris peace Treaty DID NOT give America title to the land, it recognized our use of it, it DID NOT grant individuals any freedom, it only recognized the States as independent powers, with the inhabitants being subject to the States in which they lived. It recognized the States intent to incorporate into the United States. I asked the simple question in my book, "if we won the war, how is the king granting us anything?". I stated this was a continuation of the king's corporate Charters and that he was allowing through subterfuge the re incorporation of the States into the United States. I have stated the king had no lawful, legal right or authority to grant (cede America by way of title) to anyone, because legally it was not his to give away. As I have shown in my book the king's possessions in America were governed by corporate Charters and that they were also irrevocable trusts, with his heirs and successors to forever profit from the kings exploration and conquest of America. 
 http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/theking.htm
The Newhaven case is a true God send, it totally confirms the Informer's and my research findings concerning our being subjects bearing financial obligation for the debt owed to the king of England and his heirs and successors, as well as the main party of interest, the Pope. Which confirms what I said in "The United States Is Still A British Colony". 
 http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony.html
The United States is still a British Colony

So, it appears to me that there may very well be a corporate US, under the jurisdiction of the King of England (operating as a vassal of the Vatican), which is why you will not find an act of congress creating it under US Federal law...

I have been pointed to the "Canons of Positive Law", which I link to in my article: 

 http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/331.html
Maritime Law, also later known as “Admiralty Law” is a body of law first formed by the Venetian/Magyar trading families and their agents in the 13th Century but falsely claimed of much earlier origin designed to impose and maintain commercial monopoly over all aspects of trade and commerce, impose certain occult related ritual and symbolism within the function of the law and to treat of men, women and children as mere property or “goods”, subject to the jurisdiction of “maritime law”.

[...]

The word Maritime is a 13th Century word formed from two Latin words maris meaning “sea and see as in Holy See” and timeo meaning “to fear, be afraid (of)”. Hence the literal original meaning of “maritime law” is to “be fearful and afraid of the Law of the Holy See (Vatican)”.

Given the behavior of the Vatican over the centuries, conquering Europe and such, it seems reasonable to me that these Canons are correct. However, I have not done any further research as to which sources were used in these Canons.

Sincerely,

Arend Lammertink. 

 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:20:48 -0700
 Subject: Re: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: The Fascinating History
 Of Civil Law Versus Divine Common Law
 From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <xxx>
 To: Arend Lammertink <xxx>
 Cc: SupremeLaw <xxx>

Cognitive dissonance is not scholarship. 

 > I haven't had time to follow all your links


 http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote: 

 http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html
"We may say in passing that the argument that the United States may be treated as a corporation organized under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained as not to merit serious consideration ."

"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" incorporated twice in Delaware, but both corporations were later REVOKED by the Delaware Secretary of State: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/registered.agent.2007-02-12.gif
 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/registered.agent.2007-02-12.gif

The British Army surrendered at Yorktown!!

United States Attorneys have no powers of attorney legally to represent foreign corporations: corporations chartered in the 50 States are "foreign corporations" with respect to the District of Columbia: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

Also, an AUTOMATIC STAY is now in effect barring any further income tax collections by the Federal Reserve Banks or its collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
"We do not make law by force or by fraud," Glass v. The Sloop Betsey

But, I decline to argue with you, because you have "not followed the links". 

 -- 
 Sincerely yours,
 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
 Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
 http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
 http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
 http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

 All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 Arend Lammertink <xxx> Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM
 To: Paul Andrew Mitchell <xxx>
 >
 > But, I decline to argue with you, because you have "not followed the links".
 >

As if you were able to follow all the links I sent you and read all of it within 5 hours.

-- Arend -- 

 Paul Andrew Mitchell <xxx> 	Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM
 To: Arend Lammertink <xxx>
 Cc: SupremeLaw <xxx>

Read the cases, Mr. Lammertink!

The U.S. Supreme Court has already spoken concerning your error: in the future, you might try citing and quoting U.S. v. Cooper Corp.

Cf. "stare decisis" as elaborated in U.S. v. Mason.

My unsolicited advice to you is to spend the next 12 months READING THE CASES.

Maybe then you and I can resume this correspondence, but I decline to do so before then.

Goodbye.

p.s. Repeating for the benefit of all SupremeLaw subscribers, the Congress of the United States expressly extended the entire U.S. Constitution in D.C. in 1871; the common law is mentioned TWICE in the Seventh Amendment: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871

 http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/16/16stat426.gif  (Sec. 34, last sentence)

 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244

It may be added in this connection, that to put at rest all doubts regarding the applicability of the Constitution to the District of Columbia, Congress by the act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. 419, 426, chap. 62, 34), specifically extended the Constitution and laws of the United States to this District. 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#7th-amend

See also 42 U.S.C. 1988: 

 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988
(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.

[end quote]

READ THE CASES! 

 Arend Lammertink <lamare@gmail.com> 	Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM
 To: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
 On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell

 <supremelawfirm> wrote:
 > Read the cases, Mr. Lammertink!

In your previous message you wrote:

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html
"We may say in passing that the argument that the United States may be treated as a corporation organized *under its own laws*, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained as not to merit serious consideration."

And *that* is exactly the point I already made:

IF there is a "corporate" US entity, in whatever shape or form it may have, BESIDES the United States of America as founded by the people under Common Law, then you have to look for it OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the United states.

And therefore, one can read as many cases under US jurisdiction as one feels like, one will not find a "corporate" US entity, if it exists or not.

One will have to look elsewhere, such as in international treaties like the 1783 Paris peace Treaty referred to in the material I sent you some links about: 

 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29

The first sentence already says enough:

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."

This Treaty was signed under the jurisdiction of Roman Civil law and under the ultimate sovereignty of the Vatican.

And here you can read how the US is still under the King of England and thus the sovereignty of the Vatican: 

 http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/theking.htm
As a matter of law these treaties were written in such away they could not be overturned using civil law, so the Revolutionary War changed nothing concerning the king's investment and creation of America Inc.
"....His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old government existed under the King's charter, and a revolution took place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation existing under the King's charter, was not transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown...."
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
"....The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of 1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29., Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:" I admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin's case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby's Rep. 413), that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The revolution left the demandant where she was before...."
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

-- Arend -- 

 Paul Andrew Mitchell <xxx> 	Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:58 PM
 To: Arend Lammertink <xxx>

Hello,

You have contacted a business email address: this email address is not available for casual correspondence, or for those seeking regular "pen pals."

If you are not a current client of the Supreme Law Firm, please consider subscribing to our SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm

Because of the large number of requests we receive for free ("pro bono") counsel, we currently do not provide any free counsel, free services, free comments, free advice or the like.

We have regular expenses we must meet, like ISP charges, office rent, computer hardware and software, electricity etc.: 

 http://www.supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm

And, we cannot meet those obligations by helping everyone for free (economics 1-A actually).

If you cannot afford at least \$ 10/month to support the Supreme Law Library, then I regret to say that we cannot afford to help you for free.

This is one of the many economic realities which we mention above.

In the future, please direct all unsolicited email to:

<xxx>

Thank you for your cooperation. 

 Sincerely yours,
 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
 Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
 Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

 All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

It appears Mr. Mitchell does have quite a lot of interesting information on his site about the US legal system and how to use common law within that system.