Time: Fri Oct 03 18:37:07 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA25769
for [address in tool bar]; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:36:37 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:36:14 -0700
To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: The Municipal Revenue Code
Cc: pmitch@primenet.com
>I take it, then, that your argument is that the Internal Revenue Code
>is not enacted, and therefore subtitle F has not gone into effect, and
>therefore the Secretary of the Treasury's creation of the IRS is therefore
>invalid?
>^H
>
>If so, again the basis for this argument has been rejected by the courts.
>The ruling in _Young vs. IRS et al_ (1984, again another plaintiff-sues-IRS
>case), states in part
>
> Although Congress did not pass the Code as a title, it did
> enact the Internal Revenue Code as a separate Code,
> see Act of August 16, 1954, 68A Stat. 1, which was then
> denominated as Title 26 by the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to
> 1 U.S.C. s 202(a).
Okay, I see where one of the problems is:
(setting aside ALL of the problems I have discussed previously):
#1: the case admits that Title 26 has not been enacted as a title;
#2: they are playing with words by saying that IRC is
a "Code" and, therefore, it can be cited as 26 U.S.C. (wrong);
#3: they have not dealt with 7851(a)(6)(A), particularly
as regards the meaning of "this title", which is
clearly ambiguous in this all-important context.
Please note that the Speaker of the House has admitted,
in the Federal Register, that Title 26 has NOT been
enacted into positive law; therefore, it is NOT
conclusive evidence of the laws in question. We must
look to the Statutes at Large to find conclusive
evidence of the law(s) in question. By convention,
we use the term IRC to embrace all enacted Statutes
at Large which comprise the internal revenue laws.
Remember, we are attacking the IRC and 26 U.S.C. for being
void for vagueness. There are hundreds of reasons why
these statutes are void for vagueness, the most important
of which is their deliberate vagueness with respect to their
territorial application within the federal zone. The term
"this title" is very consistently used in Title 28 to refer
to a Title of the United States Code. The term "Code" and
the term "Title" are not one and the same. Some people
have argued that "this title" in 7851 refers to the name,
or commonplace description of the Act(s) in question.
I argue that the usage in Title 28 controls, and that
usage refers to an enacted Title of the United States Code.
These two interpretations are obviously discrepant, and
this understandable disagreement satisfies the rule that
laws should be clear enough to nullify laws over which
men of common intelligence must guess as to their meaning,
and differ as to their application.
This debate has raged for years now, and I maintain that
the territorial application of the IRC is municipal, per force,
if nothing else due to the failed ratification of the 16th:
there are NO APPORTIONMENT STATUTES anywhere in the IRC,
and this is definitely NOT the only reason why it is a
municipal code (small "c").
The bottom line is that the absence of clear liability statutes
-- which do exist in the case of alcohol, tobacco, firearms,
and petroleum -- means that the entire IRC is "private law",
which is enforceable in equity; when you hire into federal
employment, they treat the entire IRC as a contract in equity,
even if you are working and living within one of the several states.
That is the main reason why proving federal employment,
via a valid and duly executed Appointment Affidavit,
IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO PROVING THAT THE PUBLIC SALARY
TAX ACT CAN BE ENFORCED UPON AN "EMPLOYEE" [sic] -- BUT ONLY
IN EQUITY. Ask yourself this: can the federal government
FORCE one of their employees to complete a W-4? I say no,
because the U.S. Constitution protects federal employees too!
Notice that Clarke as NOT attempted to prove that YOU are
a federal employee; IS THIS VERY IMPORTANT IN YOUR CASE,
because they MUST establish that a Citizen of Pennsylvania
is necessarily SUBJECT TO the rules which govern federal
employees, and you are OBVIOUSLY NOT one of them!! Nor
has Clarke even attempt to imply, or createt any presumption,
that you are a federal employee, by putting a SSN into
evidence.
Now, THERE is the crux of the matter, because this whole
debate hinges on the real INTENT of the income tax,
which is to skim money back INTO the "treasury" that
would otherwise be kept by federal employees who are
receiving it directly FROM the "treasury." If you want,
I can provide you with lots of reasons why the Public
Salary Tax Act is unconstitutional, because its real
intent is fraudulent: the skimming is being done for
the benefit of foreign banks and their principals.
The money is being collected by IRS [sic] and then
laundered via Trust #62 into the hands of foreign
(read "alien") bankers and their families, mostly
European. Howard Freeman has proven this, by showing
what really happened when the federal government
went bankrupt, secretly, in 1933. So, this whole issue
of Code v. Title v. Act v. IRC v. 26 U.S.C. actually
shrouds the REAL INTENT: the income tax "laws" [sic]
are a deceptive elaboration of a kick-back scheme
which was imposed upon all federal employees in 1939,
via the Public Salary Tax Act, and the true territorial
extent of the law, as regards non-federal employees,
is the federal zone. The admission by Rep. Barbara
Kennelly makes that shockingly and abundantly clear:
"State" embraces ONLY the named territories and
possessions of the United States at IRC 3121(e),
AND NOT THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION e.g. Pennsylvania.
What we are doing our very best to demonstrate with our
argument in 7851(a)(6)(A) is to show this statute
as just one, albeit excellent, case in point: there ARE
legitimate disagreements among men of common intelligence as to
the true meaning and intent of key terms like "this title."
The existence of these legitimate disagreements is proof,
positive, that the statute(s) in question are void for
vagueness. But, 7851 is not the ONLY such statute;
the whole thing is unconstitutional for violating
the Sixth Amendment, because territorial application
is the sine qua non of any good legislation.
The IRC is a set of municipal laws, which have no apportionment
provisions, because the federal zone is exempt from
such provisions, pursuant to Downes v. Bidwell. Now you
know why we have also attacked Downes v. Bidwell: direct
taxes were intended to be spread across the entire nation,
on a "per capita" basis. A graduated, progressive, and
non-apportioned tax on compensation is a blatant
violation of 1:2:3 and 1:9:4. It is socialism; it is
the Communist Manifesto. It is null and void, ab initio,
inside the several states. See the Guarantee Clause for
the final, pivotal proof. If they have any shred of
authority for treating the two zones differently, it is
there, in the Guarantee Clause and NOT in Downes v.
Bidwell. The latter is just a stupid, highly
controversial 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court;
the Guarantee Clause is SUPREME LAW, and you threw
the whole debate into its proper perspective by claiming,
Rightly, to be a Citizen of Pennsylvania state who was
NOT also a federal citizen, by Right of Election. This
means that they cannot touch you with their municipal
law(s), any more than Arizona state can touch you with
its municipal laws, any more than Pennsylvania state
can touch ME with its municipal laws!!!!!!
So, when push really comes to shove, you will see that
certain "officials" like Senator Barbara Boxer, have
admitted, in public, that the tax is totally voluntary.
If you want, we can enter all the pleadings in People v.
Boxer into your case; I personally think we should!!
They are about ready to be loaded into SLL.
When you sign the W-4, you are authorizing withholding
according to published schedules, and that W-4 authorizes
the paymaster to be a withholding agent [sic]. This withholding
agent then becomes the liable party, because s/he is holding
money which belongs to the United States; until that money
is paid, the withholding agent is liable, and can be
prosecuted for tax evasion for NOT paying it. It is really
all that simple. Also, when you sign the W-4 and/or when
you complete a Form 1040, you are consenting to be treated
as a "taxpayer" meaning that you are agreeing to be governed
by all the private law which is enacted for the Municipal
Revenue Code.
"Internal" means "municipal". References available upon request.
The pertinent citations are all assembled into the electronic
seventh edition of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of
Internal Revenue." When you hear "code" think "Morse Code"!!!
That Morse Code has now been cracked, and all the king's
men cannot put the Code back together again, because the
deceptions are now established, proven, and unrebuttable.
Deception is fraud.
I rest my case.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail