Time: Tue Oct 29 17:23:02 1996
To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Research point
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 05:49 PM 10/29/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Tuesday, 29Oct96 @ 17:48 Hours CST
>
>TO: Paul Mitchell
>From: Dale Robertson
>Subject: Research Point
>
>Re-post to your at your request, as follows:
<snip>
>Monday, 28Oct96 @ 14:37 Hours CST
>
>TO: Counselors - all
>From: Joseph Dale Robertson
>Subject: What is "United States" & Who is required to file a return?
>
>
>At this time, there is an active pending case in the USDC and Bankruptcy
>in which there is an opportunity (as well as necessity) to adjudicate
>the the following issues:
>
>1. As it pertains to "income" as defined under Title 26 of the United
>States Code, are individuals within the various 50 states within the
>definition of "United States"?

You are already stepping with
the wrong foot forward.  Title
26, as such, has never been
enacted into law, so it is, at best,
rebuttable evidence of the law(s)
in question.

As for the IRC, the Kennelly letter
is important evidence that the 
definition of "State" at IRC 
3121(e) embraces ONLY the named
territories and possessions, and
the District of Columbia.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

Rep. Kennelly should be subpoened
to testify about the evidence she
received from the Legislative Counsel
and the Congressional Research Service.
She is from Connecticut.  Go get her.


>
>2. Who is required to file a return?

Anybody made liable.

As for the income tax,
as opposed to the other
taxes discussed in the IRC,
the only persons made liable
are "withholding agents".
Cf. in the definitions,
IRC 7701(a) et seq.

You can confirm this by
submitting a FOIA request
for all IRC statutes, 
other than those listed
in the defintion of
withholding agents, which
impose a liability.  The
government will then be
required to admit, on record,
that there are no other
liability statutes.

>
>I am presently compiling a compendium respecting especially the first
>and tangentially the second issue stated above.

You need Kennelly's letter,
and her testimony, under oath.
Ask her why she never answered
Paul Mitchell's letters.

>
>Should any counselor have comment, experience, interest, expertise, or
>briefs respecting the above issues your response will be most sincerely
>appreciated. Significant work has been done, and I have done some
>interesting research on this point, but there is no compendium to which
>I am aware which amalgamates the sum of argument(s) in one compendium.

See "The Federal Zone" available
on the Internet via the Alta Vista
search engine.


>Any counselor who makes make a submission will receive the end product
>compendium and will be advised of developments as this issue proceeds
>through the bowels of the USDC and the Bankruptcy forums.

You know you are in the wrong
court for any criminal prosecutions,
don't you?


 (Hey, I have
>to provide an incentive of some type - don't I?) Thanks and 
>
>Constitutionally,
>
>Jospeh Dale Robertson
>joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.tx.us
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail