- 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
|
