Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Lawman Meeting
- Subject: Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Lawman Meeting
clearly stated that the income tax is the extension of the Corporation tax act of 1909, to individuals and co-partnerships that are "doing business", and the Eisner v Macomber US Supreme Court, 252 US 189, clearly stated that unless a gain or profit has been realized there can be no taxable income.> the CongressNone of that matters one bit, in the final analysis, becauseCongress failed to enact a statute creating a specific liabilityfor taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.The ONLY THING that can make income "taxable"is an Act of Congress creating a specific liabilityfor taxes specifically imposed upon income as defined.THERE IS NO SUCH ACT OF CONGRESS, HOWEVER:WE CHECKED -- FIRST WITH A FOIA REQUEST,THEN WITH A SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE:http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htmAuthority: Commissioner v. Acker (a standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court)http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm <--- MEMORIZE THIS ABSTRACT!!!http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87"[T]o uphold this addition to the tax would be to holdthat it may be imposed by regulation,which, of course, the law does not permit.United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359 ;Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447;Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 ."The latter was not a precedent, per se,because it cites the following:http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/calamaro/http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/koshland/http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/manhattan/IRC 3403 is an excellent example of a genuineliability STATUTE for taxes imposed by subtitle C:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003403----000-.htmlThe employer shall be liable for the payment of the taxrequired to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, andshall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment. [end quote]It's very easy to modify the latter sectionso that it applies to subtitle A, for example:The recipient of income shall be liable for the payment of the taxrequired to be paid under subtitle A of this title.[LATTER IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY!!]BUT, CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO!!!Cf. "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition(an irrefutable inference must be drawn that whatever was omitted or excludedfrom a Federal statute was intended to be omitted or excluded by Act of Congress)If Congress expressly defines "car" to include Chevrolets, Buicks and Oldsmobiles,but Congress fails to mention any other automobiles in that statutory definition, THENa Cadillac is not a "car" and neither is a BMW and neither is a Volkswagen!!Lastly, EVEN IF the IRS were a de jure service, bureau, office or other subdivisionof the U.S. Department of the Treasury -- which they decidedly are NOT --they would STILL not have any authority to create a tax liability solelyby means of Regulations published in the Federal Register.Executive agencies can NOT make law:all lawmaking power is vested in the Congress,NOT in any Executive Branch agencies andNOT in any Judicial Branch courts or tribunals either!So, you can throw out 26 CFR 1.1-1 too, because that "regulation"http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#bhas no underpinning STATUTE authorizing it in the first place!Federal citizens and resident aliens are not "made liable" either,for the same reason: there is no such LIABILITY STATUTEmaking either class of people specifically liable for taxesallegedly imposed by IRC subtitle A.Conclusion: An irrefutable inference must be made thatthe omission of any liability statute(s) from IRC subtitle Awas an intentional Act of Congress.Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
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
From: colanthelv <colanthelv@...>
To: Nancy Goldston <nothingbutthetooth@...>; Nassar Nassar <mastertaxman6@...>; Pat Turner <turner52@...>; Paul VanKoeveing <amishboy2@...>; Paul Mitchell <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>; Pete Faye <pdfay@...>; Phil Sandy <philsndy@...>; Randy Armour <washtenaw_9thdiv@...>; Richard Lozon <Resco@...>; Robert Lawrence <saveyourpay@...>; Robert Welti <bopat88@...>; Robert Thomas <thomasrobertt@...>; Robert Warner <tfcloggers@...>; Robert Woodmansee <justjane@...>; Robert Gilman <tlcrobert@...>; Robert Clarkson <robert@...>; Rodney Smith <voyager@...>; Ron Grandy <11thhr@...>; Ron Wedge <rwedge1938@...>; Ron Keller <rpko0613@...>; Rose Lear <firstrose@...>; Rose Bogaert <wctaxpayers@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Lawman MeetingNEW MEETING LOCATION!!The monthly Lawman & WTP Meeting will be held on Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 10 a.m. at the Gone Wired Cafe at 2021 E. Michigan Ave, at Fairview St., Lansing Michigan. It is next to the PNC Bank. US 127 crosses Michigan Ave. Parking on the street and a parking lot in the rear is available. Some of us arrive at 9 a.m. for breakfast. This meeting is for like minded patriots in A search for the truth to render justice. We are not attorney’s (lawyers) and we do not give legal advice. The meetings are open to address your concerns and seek solutions. This is not a public forum.The Patriots in the freedom movement to enhance friendships, camaraderie and trust in a search for the truth this has always been among the best traits of the patriots.
reserved without prejudice. We have a right to privacy and free association. We are not a group or organization. We are not a company or corporation or association. We sell nothing and we charge nothing. Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is confidential and may be lawfully privileged in the context of private meetings. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you.
Sovereigns confidentiality notice; This private email message, including any attachment(s) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged and confidential information. Any/all political, private or public entities, International, Federal, State, or Local corporate government(s), private International Organization(s) Municipality(es), Corporate agent(s), informant(s), investigator(s) et. al., and/or third party(s) working in collusion by monitoring my email(s), and any other means of communication without my permission are barred from any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution, with explicit reservation of all my rights, without prejudice and without recourse to any of my rights. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and /or all intellectual property rights or reserved rights.
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent, Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. This sender, therefore, does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise during or as a result of e-mail transmission.