IRS legal negligence may have hindered their Federal income taxing powers
I got this notice which follows 2 days ago from a valued member, Paul Mitchell, in our Yahoo Group who happens to be the attorney in the forefront of this astonishing development with the IRS's ability to impose Federal Income Tax on workers' wages.
He has been posting in our Group, since early February, the events that led the IRS to, perhaps in their arrogance, take a technically legal misstep which may now offer citizens a legal tool to, at least, question or even defy the IRS's practice of imposing taxes on workers wages.
the post from Paul which conveys the story and outcome of this development.
I have gone back into our Group Archive and place the links to the many post that led to this outcome. They appear at the very end of this post.
Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...> wrote:
RIP: The Federal Income Tax Officially DIED today (3/27/2007) at 13:53:58 PDT
U.S. DOJ attempted to appear on behalf of a Delaware corporation which
has been revoked. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Justice is also legally estopped from enforcing IRC subtitle A and from attempting to rebut the AFFIDAVIT above, because the Relator in that appeal preempted DOJ the moment Relator appeared on behalf of the United Statesex rel:
It is now the official position of the United States (federal government)
that there is no federal Statute at Large which creates a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. For standing high Court authority, see Commissioner v. Acker:
Praise God for all of His many blessings during the past 17 years.
HERE IT IS FURTHER EXPLAINED IN LAYMAN'S TERMS
What is the significance of all of this in regards to the IRS???
I'm not sure what is going on, but it sounds pretty big what is happening in regards to these people not answering you.I have some other communication about a Chuck Conces who is having some troubles and wonder if this might be of import to what is happening to him.
Yes: this news is significant for all 300 million Americans, particularly as the annual April 15 tax deadline approaches.
There is no liability STATUTE for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code: IRS tried to create that liability with regulations instead, but it's not legal for IRS to do that:
EVEN IF IRS were a de jure service or bureau within 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.
So, in point of fact, IRS has been impersonating the Congress and impersonating the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These are violations of 18 USC 912 and 31 USC 333, respectively:
And, since Treasury fell silent in response to a proper SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, they were legally estopped the moment we filed a NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT
at the Tenth Circuit today. Service of LEGAL MAIL is effected on the day it's posted.
"Estoppel" basically means that they cannot come forward any longer, because they had their chance, for several years, and they couldn't produce a STATUTE.
So, now it's O-V-E-R for them.
EVEN IF they produced a liability STATUTE tomorrow, that STATUTE (which
doesn't exist, by the way) can be stricken from evidence at the Tenth Circuit on the basis of legal estoppel. In simple language, they cannot change their minds to the detriment of their opposing party(s):
Following, are the links to the post Paul has been placing in our Yahoo Group regarding the IRS matter.
Because, as can be seen there are too many to copy and paste, I decided to just place the links which are available to subscribers of our Yahoo Group "A FORUM FOR DISCLOSURES".
You might want to subscribe (is free) to this Group
just to get access to the text in these post and then cancel your membership aftrward if you wish. You can request membership by clicking on any of the following links (which will first take you to our Group's Home page) or by clicking on the link in my signature at the very end of this post.
Links: (just in case, they appeared on 3/23 and 3/26. There are a few earlier ones from as far back as Feb 1, 2007. I alse included a separate section at the end related to the Federal Reserve.
Paul has assembled a few of the most common Questions and Answers here: