Time: Fri Dec 05 17:28:43 1997 To: Jay Robbins <han-wi@ri.ultranet.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: More detail ... Cc: Bcc: sls, friends, liberty lists, 3cc, psc References: I would prefer that you read and study Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF in the Supreme Law Library first, then come back to us here with any questions which still remain. Here's the chain of evidence, in summary form: 1. all voter registrants must declare, under penalty of perjury, that they are federal citizens (aka "citizens of the United States"); confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition 2. the regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 impose the federal income tax on federal citizens (and also on resident aliens) 3. consequently, to exercise the fundamental Right to choose U.S. Representatives, has the unavoidable consequence of creating a federal income tax liability, under color of federal regulations, but NOT by any statute(s) 4. regulations are not valid, if they are overly broad extensions of the underlying statute(s), which are the real "authorities", i.e., Statutes at Large (NOT Title 26) 5. the ONLY liability statutes, as such, for the federal income tax, are those which are itemized in the definition of "withholding agent" at IRC 7701(a)(16) 6. there are no liability statutes, as such, anywhere in Section 1 of the IRC, in contrast to the clear liability statutes for alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and petroleum taxes (which are lawful excise taxes) 7. 26 CFR 1.1-1 contains the regs which correspond to Section 1 of the IRC, promulgated pursuant to the Federal Register Act; the CFR is legally a supplement to the Federal Register, and courts are required to take judicial notice of the CFR; thus, you may rely upon the contents of the CFR This sequence is thoroughly elaborated in the book "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," first published in 1992, and cited as a household word by Justice Kennedy concurring in U.S. v. Lopez, S.Ct. (1995), and further enhanced by the most recent analyses in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, now before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri state. These points are now irrefutable, but this creates much friction, even among well meaning Americans, who feel that they have come to their own firm conclusions about the IRC. I encourage this disagreement, because the entire IRC is definitely void for vagueness. The rule is this: men of common intelligence should not be disagreeing about the meaning, and application, of statutes. But, of course, they still do; thus, this obvious and passionate disagreement is empirical proof that the IRC is void for vaguensss. Do you stop for red, and go for green, in your town? See what I mean? This is a well accepted common law principle, which facilitates the movement of traffic on public highways. The IRC should be no different. The entire IRC violates the Nature and Cause Clause in the Sixth Amendment. I hope this helps. /s/ Paul Mitchell, Candidate for Congress http://supremelaw.com copy: Supreme Law School, the Internet At 05:17 PM 12/5/97, you wrote: >Can you elaborate on this, and how did you reach this conclusion? > > >You wrote: > >Because of 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) thru (c), electing >federal citizenship causes a tax to be imposed >on the Right to choose U.S. Representatives, >when such a Right is un-lien-able!! We have >also attacked these regs for being an overly >broad extension of the corresponding statutes >in the IRC. > Jay Robbins > 4 Your Information > PO Box 672 > Woonsocket, RI 02895 > Email: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com > Voicemail:1-800-947-1902 > Website: http://www.ultranet.com/~han-wi > IRS: We've got what it takes, to take what you've got. > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail