Estoppel Activated against IRS and U.S. Dept. of the Treasury

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

Subject:

RIP: The Federal Income Tax Officially DIED today (3/27/2007)

at 13:53:58 PDT

My Fellow Americans:

We bring you tidings of great joy.

That was the date and time stamp on our Sales Receipt

from the U.S. Postal Service at downtown San Diego,

California, USA, at the very moment we posted this

NOTICE OF DEFAULT:

INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT; AND,

SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Tenth Circuit #07-2017) here:

FINALLY, the federal income tax is officially dead.

Not only is the U.S. Department of the Treasury legally estopped.

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which has been revoked.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 States ex rel:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/intervention.htm

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:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm (see Am Jur abstract!)

Moreover, U.S. DOJ cannot now attempt to appear on behalf

of the United States (federal government), because

the United States is already legally represented in that appeal:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

IT'S OVER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN -- FINALLY!

PLEASE TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THIS GOOD NEWS:

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX OFFICIALLY DIED TODAY (3/27/2007)

AT 1:53 P.M. PACIFIC DAYLIGHT TIME.

Praise God for all of His many blessings during the past 17 years.

Sincerely yours,

/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/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

> 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:

An administrative regulation is NOT an "Act of Congress":

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html (defines "Act of Congress")

Regulations are written and promulgated by Executive Branch agencies,

NOT by the Congress of the United States i.e. the Legislative Branch.

Only the Congress can "make federal laws":

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1

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:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/912.html (felony federal offense)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/333.html (civil and criminal penalties)

And, since Treasury fell silent in response to a proper and lawful

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):

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

For the rest of the story, study up on the topic

of "estoppel" in any good law dictionary

e.g. "equitable estoppel" and "collateral estoppel".

Sincerely yours,

/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/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

> Mr. Mitchell are you telling me that there is no more income tax?

Yes: pursuant to this NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT,

the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS are now

legally estopped, because they fell silent in response to a lawful

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE for a proper liability statute:

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm (PAST DUE & IN DEFAULT)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

There is no LIABILITY STATUTE for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.

For high Court authority on this point, see Commissioner v. Acker,

cited in this Am Jur abstract:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

"In a nutshell" here's a very brief summary:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

The communists who have infiltrated our State and federal governments

are coming unglued by the NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT above.

Too bad for them! They're trying to enforce a Plank in the

Communist Manifesto, contrary to the Law in America.

They went to sea in a sieve, and now it's sinking fast.

We are a Republic by Law, not a communist country.

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.

Bcc: The Internet

Sincerely yours,

/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/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:13:02 -0700 (PDT)

From: Supreme Law Firm < paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>

Subject: Help w/ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker

> I am studying closely your APPELLANTS' INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF

> in the Williamson case and trying to understand the language referenced i.e.

> "[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or

> any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority,

> especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee."

> but I am not able to see this

> when reading Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

> What am I missing here? Will you help me understand this?

Hi Tharon,

Good question!

Start here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

And derive three (3) key points from that Am Jur citation

("3" is my lucky number, remember? :)

(1) the power of an administrative agency to make rules

does not extend to the power to make legislation;

(2) a regulation which is beyond the power of the agency to make is invalid; and,

(3) an administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability

not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, and specifically a liability for a tax

or inspection fee.

Now, click on the link to Commissioner v. Acker, and study this paragraph:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

[begin excerpt]

The fact that the section contains no basis or means for the computation

of any addition to the tax in a case where no declaration has been filed

would seem to settle the point beyond all controversy.

If the section had in any appropriate words conveyed the thought expressed

by the regulation it would thereby have clearly authorized the Commissioner

to treat the taxpayer's failure to file a declaration as the equivalent of a declaration

estimating his tax at zero and, hence, as constituting a "substantial underestimate" of his tax.

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore,

to 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 questioned regulation must therefore be regarded "as no more than

an attempted addition to the statute of something which is not there."

United States v. Calamaro, supra, 354 U.S., at 359.

[end excerpt]

Now, apply what you just learned about such "over-reaching" regulations

to the specific regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b):

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#b

That regulation attempted to create a specific liability

for federal citizens and resident aliens to pay income

taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.

To paraphrase Commissioner v. Acker now:

"IRC section 1 contains nothing like the specific liability

provision which Congress enacted for subtitle C

at IRC section 3403."

In other words, there is no corresponding Act of Congress

which created a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.

The PROOF is in the silence which the former Secretary of the

Treasury exhibited in reply to this lawful SUBPOENA:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm

"Silence activates estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen

"Silence can be equated with fraud." U.S. v. Tweel

Therefore, the regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1 is void

for attempting to create a specific liability

without a corresponding Act of Congress:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html

Sincerely yours,

/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/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

> Paul, this involves civil, not criminal;

> how does that differ as far as the income tax goes?

> Thanks Gene

No difference, really. The USDC has no criminal jurisdiction

whatsoever, in point of law; this is explained further here:

(e.g. the federal Jury Selection and Service Act is unconstitutional,

thus invalidating all federal grand jury INDICTMENTS and

all federal trial jury VERDICTS against State Citizens;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a defunct

Delaware Corporation; etc. ad nauseam)

Statutes conferring original jurisdiction upon federal district courts

must be STRICTLY construed. In this context, see 18 USC 3231:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html

More importantly, the constitutionality of IRC subtitles A and F

has now been formally challenged at the Tenth Circuit

by the United States appearing ex rel.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/

(the United States agrees with the Williamson Appellants!)

Subtitle F contains ALL the enforcement provisions, e.g.

criminal penalties for tax evasion, etc.

See further discussion of 18 USC 3231 here, in the

Williamson Appellants' INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/informal.opening.brief.htm

3231 supra confers original criminal jurisdiction upon the

Article III District Courts of the United States ("DCUS"),

NOT upon the Article IV United States District Courts ("USDC").

Summarizing: It's now O-V-E-R for the IRS! The End

Bcc: The Internet (widely)

Sincerely yours,

/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/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm

> You demanded the U.S. Government to show by Judicial Process

> that there is a Law demanding the people to pay income tax.

> I believe the Grace period you gave the U.S. Government to respond was 60 days.

Greetings Patrick:

Not exactly. Here's a somewhat detailed history:

A blank SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE was issued

by the Clerk of the Article III District Court of the United States

in Santa Ana, California, on behalf of a client of the

Supreme Law Firm. That was the District Clerks' practice back then,

if a plaintiff or defendant requested such a blank civil SUBPOENA.

Because our client had no immediate use for that blank

SUBPOENA, she gave it to me and, much later,

I completed that SUBPOENA on 9/14/2002 and served it

on Paul H. O'Neill, who was the Secretary of the Treasury

at that time. The deadline for his answer, as stated

on that SUBPOENA, was November 1, 2002:

About 2 months after it was served, Paul H. O'Neill was fired

by George W. Bush and, ever since then, we have been

looking and hoping for the best opportunity to introduce

that SUBPOENA into evidence, with the requisite

NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT.

You will note, on the list of recipients of that original SUBPOENA,

that a significant diversity of different litigants was to receive

certified copies of the requested Statute at Large:

that diversity was intended to create qualified federal witnesses

out of all those litigants, in the event that O'Neill either fell silent,

or complied with the SUBPOENA.

For example, we can now use formal discovery to confirm

whether or not those itemized dockets show any record

of a written reply to that SUBPOENA from O'Neill's office.

The Williamson appeal provided my office with a unique

opportunity for the United States to intervene "ex rel." --

which I have now done as the "Relator" legally representing

the United States (federal government). Having legally

perfected that intervention, we followed with several

supporting documents, the most recent of which included this

INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT; AND,

SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm

The SUBPOENA in question, PROOF OF SERVICE and

related documents were attached to the latter

NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT. See item (7)

and this Press Release:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

Therefore the amount of time which the Department of the Treasury

has now allowed to pass, withOUT producing the required liability STATUTE,

extends from September 14, 2002 to March 27, 2007 -- a period spanning

approximately 4 1/2 YEARS.

We are quite confident, then, to argue that estoppel has now been activated,

pursuant to the holding in Carmine v. Bowen (silence activates estoppel).

I hope this helps.

Sincerely yours,

/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/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm