Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Lawman Meeting

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    Subject:Private Attorney General COMMENTSRe: Lawman Meeting ... clearly stated that the income tax is the extension of the Corporation tax act of 1909, to
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Subject: Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Lawman Meeting

      the Congress
      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.

      None of that matters one bit, in the final analysis, because
      Congress failed to enact a statute creating a specific liability
      for 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 liability
      for taxes specifically imposed upon income as defined.




      Authority:  Commissioner v. Acker (a standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court)

      http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm  <--- MEMORIZE THIS ABSTRACT!!!  


      "[T]o uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold
      that 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:




      IRC 3403 is an excellent example of a genuine
      liability STATUTE for taxes imposed by subtitle C:


      The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax
      required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and
      shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment. [end quote]

      It's very easy to modify the latter section
      so that it applies to subtitle A, for example:

      The recipient of income shall be liable for the payment of the tax
      required to be paid under subtitle A of this title.



      Cf.  "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
      (an irrefutable inference must be drawn that whatever was omitted or excluded
      from 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, THEN
      a 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 subdivision
      of the U.S. Department of the Treasury -- which they decidedly are NOT --
      they would STILL not have any authority to create a tax liability solely
      by 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 and
      NOT in any Judicial Branch courts or tribunals either!

      So, you can throw out 26 CFR 1.1-1 too, because that "regulation"
      has 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 STATUTE
      making either class of people specifically liable for taxes
      allegedly imposed by IRC subtitle A.

      Conclusion:  An irrefutable inference must be made that
      the omission of any liability statute(s) from IRC subtitle A
      was 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 Meeting

      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.
      If all goes well Don Fleming will be attending our next meeting as our guest speaker. Don has been a guest on the Deanna Spingola radio show on the Republic Broadcasting internet and is scheduled to be back. Don has researched the Congressional Record from 1909 to 1913 and discovers that the Congress 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.
      DISCLAIMER:  We are like minded patriots that get together and exchange information.  This is a private gathering of private men/women private sector not for public use. Please understand this information is not to be construed as legal advice.  It is for educational purposes only and disseminated under our First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech.  We specifically invoke the First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and of the press ALL rights are explicitly
       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.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.