Show Ed the Law: Private Attorney General presents claim to $1,000,000 property reward
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:41:28 -0700
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@...>
Subject:Show Ed the Law:Private Attorney General presents claimto $1,000,000 property rewardGreetings Ed Brown,This is our bona fide claim to your $1,000,000 property reward.Please feel free to refer this claim to a qualified group of peers,to conduct a necessary and objective "peer review" of this claim:First of all, we did mail to you a certified courtesy copy of our"31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service"several weeks ago. This document is valuable, because it hasalready been filed in several State and federal court caseswithout any rebuttals from any opposing party(s):After serving the former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul H. O'Neillwith a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE for the Statute(s) at Largewhich create a specific liability for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A,his office fell totally silent. Therefore, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowenand U.S. v. Tweel, their silence in the face of that lawful SUBPOENAnot only activates estoppel, it is also a fraud. See URL:Therefore, there is no known Statute at Large which creates aspecific liability for any taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.Consequently, IRS is now legally estopped as a result oftheir principal's silence in the face of that SUBPOENA:There is, however, the published federal regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b):which attempted to create a specific liability for federal citizensand resident aliens to pay the income taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.However, without a corresponding Statute at Large (read "Act of Congress")that federal regulation violates Separation of Powers as explained clearlyin the standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Acker:("to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposedby regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit")An excellent abstract of that decision, and related decisions, waspublished in the 1962 edition of American Jurisprudence, but thecurrent edition has removed that abstract, which we host on theInternet in the Supreme Law Library here:On behalf of our many clients, we await the objective "peer review"which our claim above deserves. Please be advised that theirpeer review will very probably be filed by the United States ex rel.in Tenth Circuit appeal #07-2017, in USA v. Williamson et al.:FYI: there is much additional reading at the links after my name below.Thank you!
/s/ 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/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.