Time: Mon Apr 14 12:01:07 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA15722; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:48:49 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA20581; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:48:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:00:02 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: L&J: Tax Liability (correction) I don't particularly want, or need, to engage in yet another endless debate about the construction, intent, and case law surrounding this or that section of the IRC. The debate raging about same is proof enough to me that the entire Code is void for vagueness, as a body of law with a fraudulent intent, down to its core. Do you stop for green and go for red in your town? Now, there is a law that is NOT void for vagueness. It is just, and it is easily understood, even by color-blind people (who decide by the position of the light which is on). You are not an "employee" if you work for someone else, or if you work for yourself. "Employees" are people who are subject to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, as amended. Congress used a special definition, so that people who declare themselves "employees" can be treated AS IF they are subject to said Act. This is one of the core features of the deception which FDR introduced. Signing a W-4 "EMPLOYEE'S" withholding allowance certificate creates the rebuttable presumption that you knew what you were doing, i.e. declaring yourself to be an public "employee" as that term is defined in the Public Salary Tax Act. Congress does not have any authority to legislate taxes upon private compensation, not without apportioning such a direct tax, not within the state zone, and not without a voluntary election to treat oneself as a "taxpayer." The tax is voluntary; this has already been demonstrated, many times over. See statement of Dwight Avis in 1953, [was "state"] for example. As for myself, I regard the Public Salary Tax Act as unconstitutional for being fraudulent by intent. The money collected is skimmed off the top of federal paychecks, and paid to foreign banks, under the ruse of collecting taxes to support government services. Why not exempt public employees from income taxes altogether, and advertise the "real" amount which the "employer" actually does end up "paying" them, after all their withholdings are withheld? Too simple, really, especially for Congress to understand. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 11:22 AM 4/14/97 -0400, you wrote: >Paul Mitchell sez: > >"And the 'employee' they are talking about here [Section 402(d)(1)(D) >under subtitle A] is a worker who has executed a valid Form W-4... If >you haven't executed a valid W-4, you aren't really an "employee" as >that term is utilized here." > >However, the fact that the W-4 that an individual signed is invalid has >to be proved by the "employee" making that claim. The IRS and >employers will assume the W-4 is valid unless you can prove >otherwise. This is one of the problems with stopping withholding. >The other problem is trying to educate a bunch of payroll and/or >personnel people who are just as scared of the IRS as everybody else. > >-- Lynda > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com> > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail