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

Re: [CCCC-USA] IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... That generalization is not valid, in all cases e.g.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_I_20_5.html cf.  The Federal Zone
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 15, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      the USC applies strictly to, for want of an easier phrase [??], the territories of the geographic United States

      That generalization is not valid, in all cases e.g.:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_I_20_5.html


      cf.  "The Federal Zone" for a thorough dissertation on this point:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/


      Also:  http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
       
      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
      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: Daniel Seigler <therealbeadweaver2002@...>
      To: "CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com" <CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:32 AM
      Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"

      the thing most forget is that ACCORDING to the definitions within it, the USC applies strictly to, for want of an easier phrase, the territories of the geographic United States of America, not to those states already admitted to the Union.

      From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
      To: "paulandrewmitchell2004@..." <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
      Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:17 PM
      Subject: [CCCC-USA] IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"
       
      Subject: IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"
      intent to mis-lead / intent to deceive


      Yes!  The vagueness we demonstrated in the IRC is INTENTIONAL!!

      http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/
      http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q20
      As such, the entire IRC is thereby rendered VOID FOR VAGUENESS!

      cf.  "Void for vagueness doctrine" and "mens rea"

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea

      As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent.
      Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
      A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element.
      Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
      cf. also "fraud in the inducement":

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud+in+the+inducement

      The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts
      upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act.
      -- Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htmhttp://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
      On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM, william-richard  wrote:
      I comprehend thoroughly. I always think the attorneys use "words of art"with the intent to mis-lead.
       
      -------Original Message-------
       
      Date: 7/14/2011 1:48:04 PM
      Subject: Re: lie lay lain
       
      I understand.  But, in this "war on words" I believe we must put
      our wood behind the best arrowheads ...

      There are plenty of other, and more egregious, examples

      of deliberate misuse and abuse of the English language, particularly
      all the re-definitions of "State" and "United States" which litter the U.S. Code,
      contrary to the prohibition issued
      in Eisner v. Macomber:

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189

      Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since
      it [Congress] cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
      from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
      within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.


      That holding was predicated on the proper and lawful ratification
      of the so-called Sixteenth amendment, which would have
      introduced the term "income" into the Constitution for the very first time
      (i.e. if and only if it had been properly and lawfully ratified,
      which it was NOT!)

      You will please note that the term "income" is not even
      defined anywhere in the IRC, a finding with which
      the Eighth Circuit has already agreed!

      http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter7.htm


      The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
       
      [U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404]
      [(8th Circuit, 1976)]
      -- Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htmhttp://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

      --



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