Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 03, 1998 at 21:13:39:
In Reply to: we also have the smoking gun (err, canon :) posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 03, 1998 at 20:57:21:
Here's the pertinent paragraphs from a pleading
filed In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, published at
Internet URL:
http://supremelaw.com/library/nlhc/opp2osc2.html
The historical record documents undeniable proof that the
confusion, ambiguity and jurisdictional deceptions now built into
the IRC were deliberate. This historical record provides the
"smoking gun" that proves the real intent was deception (read
"fraud"). The first Internal Revenue Code was Title 35 of the
Revised Statutes of June 22, 1874. On December 5, 1898, Mr.
Justice Cox of the D.C. Supreme Court delivered an address before
the Columbia Historical Society. In this address, he discussed
the history of the District of Columbia as follows:
In June 1866, an act was passed authorizing the
President to appoint three commissioners to revise and bring
together all the statutes .... [T]he act does not seem, in
terms, to allude to the District of Columbia, or even to
embrace it .... Without having any express authority to do
so, they made a separate revision and collection of the acts
of Congress relating to the District, besides the collection
of general statutes relating to the whole United States.
Each collection was reported to Congress, to be approved and
enacted into law .... [T]he whole is enacted into law as
the body of the statute law of the United States, under the
title of Revised Statutes as of 22 June 1874. ...
[T]he general collection might perhaps be considered,
in a limited sense as a code for the United States, as it
embraced all the laws affecting the whole United States
within the constitutional legislative jurisdiction of
Congress, but there could be no complete code for the entire
United States, because the subjects which would be proper to
be regulated by a code in the States are entirely outside
the legislative authority of Congress.
[District of Columbia Code, Historical Section]
[emphasis added]
More than half a century later, the deliberate confusion and
ambiguity were problems that not only persisted; they were
getting worse by the minute. In the year 1944, during
Roosevelt's administration, Senator Barkley made a speech from
the floor of the U.S. Senate in which he complained:
Motion to Continue, Reconsider, and Challenge Supreme Court:
Page 15 of 29
Congress is to blame for these complexities to the extent,
and only to the extent, to which it has accepted the advice,
the recommendations, and the language of the Treasury
Department, through its so-called experts who have sat in on
the passage of every tax measure since I can remember.
Every member of the House Ways and Means Committee and every
member of the Senate Finance Committee knows that every time
we have undertaken to write a new tax bill in the last 10
years we have started out with the universal desire to
simplify the tax laws and the forms through which taxes are
collected. We have attempted to adopt policies which would
simplify them. When we have agreed upon a policy, we have
submitted that policy to the Treasury Department to write
the appropriate language to carry out that policy; and
frequently the Treasury Department, through its experts, has
brought back language so complicated and circumambient that
neither Solomon nor all the wise men of the East could
understand it or interpret it.
[Congressional Record, 78th Congress, 2nd Session]
[Vol. 90, Part 2, February 23, 1944, pages 1964-5]
[emphasis added]
Search immediately after "Page 14 of 29" in
that HTML document (hypertext link follows below).
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.