Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Iowans for Tax Relief, Iowa Christian Alliance's 6 Questions to be answered at the Presidential Candidates Forum, which Ron Paul has been excluded from attending | Main | Iowans for Tax Relief's exclusion of Ron Paul from Presidential Forum Backfires - Paul Coming to Des Moines Sat. June 30th »

Re: Ed Brown,. IRS / US Marshal,. Persecution - Question for unionleader.com: How is a person made liable for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A?

Questions for unionleader.com:

How is a person made liable for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A?

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:30:38 -0700
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: writeus@unionleader.com
Subject: How is a person made liable for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A?

Dear Union Leader:

Please answer these two simple questions:

In the article you wrote below:

(1) what is "this title" and

(2) how is a person made liable for taxes imposed by subtitle A?

RSVP here.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=What+the+law+says&articleId=25d2faff-a701-4cb1-8850-62012199ebda

What the law says

U.S. Code, TITLE 26, Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(a)

General requirement of return, statement, or list

When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title,

or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations."


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

+++

This all sounds and reads like what the IRS prints in its publications. 

Correct!

>  No correct cites of law, no definitions that are in the codes,

>  just more cloudy words.

Correct!

>  Am I correct?

Yes.

Totally correct, particularly when you noted

that they did NOT quote any definitions.

Here's one of the errors of omission

which the Union-Leader committed --

IRC section 7343 defining "person"

for purposes of Chapter 75:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007343----000-.html

The Union-Leader has cited the penalty provision at section 7201:

that section falls within Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code --

CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES.

If one is NOT that "person" then one cannot violate 7201.

This is a very common error that U.S. Attorneys

and federal judges both make.

You will note the introductory qualifying phrases

in the definitions at IRC 7701:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7701.html

(a) When used in this title,

where not otherwise distinctly expressed 

or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

[please ignore, for the moment, the fact that

"intent" is not defined anywhere in the IRC either!]

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an

individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation. [WHERE NOT OTHERWISE DISTINCTLY

EXPRESSED!!  DON'T FORGET THIS QUALIFIER!!]

Well, 7343 is an "otherwise distinct expression"

which completely overrides the general definition

of "person" at 7701(a)(1) above.  The latter

definition is used ONLY where a distinct

statutory definition is NOT applicable.

So, for all penalty provisions found in Chapter 75,

the definition of "person" at IRC 7343 controls,

NOT the general definition of "person" at 7701(a)(1).

As for their citation to 6011, this is another typical error

that is made by people who are too uneducated

and/or too afraid to be objective with these "codes".

Here, we have the grammatical expression "person made liable".

This expression is in PASSIVE VOICE in formal English grammar.

Comparable ACTIVE VOICE expressions would be:

ACTIVE VOICE v. PASSIVE VOICE:

"My dog made me happy."  v.  "I was made happy by my dog."

"My brother made me angry."  [complete these others yourself]

"The weather made me sad."

"God made me."

Active Voice expressions have this form:

SUBJECT -- PREDICATE -- OBJECT

So, it is totally reasonable to ask these 2 questions: 

WHO made any person liable?

-or-

WHAT made any person liable?

And, since 7343 does NOT apply to 6011,

we must rely on the general definition of "person"

at 7701(a)(1) to understand section 6011.

These 2 questions bring us unavoidably

to ask if there is any STATUTE which makes

any person liable for taxes imposed by subtitle A:

"What STATUTE made any person liable?"

The latter is a very key question, because the

U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that

a TAX LIABILITY can ONLY be created

by an Act of Congress, NOT by federal regulations.

Commissioner v. Acker

Moreover, there IS such a STATUTE for

taxes imposed by subtitle C:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/3403.html 

"The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax

required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and

shall not be liable to any person for the amount

of any such payment."

The mere FACT that there is no comparable STATUTE

for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A is conclusive proof

that Congress intended it that way

inclusio unius est exclusio alterius

(an irrefutable inference must be drawn that

whatever was omitted or excluded from a federal statute

was intended to be omitted or excluded by Act of Congress)

IRREFUTABLE inference!

MUST BE drawn!!

But, for now, I've asked the Union-Leader only 2 simple questions:

we'll just have to wait and see if they even bother to answer.

Hopefully, by the time they get to Commissioner v. Acker,

they will have realized the fundamental error they made made:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm



Catherine wrote:

Paul,

This all sounds and reads like what the IRS prints in its publications.  No correct cites of law, no definitions that are in the codes, just more cloudy words.

Am I correct?

Catherine



Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Union Leader:

Please answer these two simple questions:

In the article you wrote below:

(1) what is "this title" and

(2) how is a person made liable for taxes imposed by subtitle A?

RSVP here.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=What+the+law+says&articleId=25d2faff-a701-4cb1-8850-62012199ebda

What the law says

U.S. Code, TITLE 26, Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(a)

General requirement of return, statement, or list

When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title,

or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations."


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

+++

>  IRS NOW SAYS: 

>  "paying the tax is, in fact, a legal requirement of all U.S. residents."

OBJECTION:  that's NOT a FACT:

the correct legal term is "resident aliens" not "U.S. residents".

Moreover, there is no federal STATUTE which makes

resident aliens (green card holders) specifically LIABLE

for payment of the taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A.

Again (to beat a dead horse into smithereens),

IRS FABRICATED that LIABILITY for "resident aliens" --

aka "aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence" --

in the federal REGULATION at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b), here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#b

But, that regulation violates the holding in

Commissioner v. Acker, explained in this excellent

abstract from the 1962 Edition of American Jurisprudence:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

IRS is lying, AND misrepresenting the law, AGAIN!!

Facts and laws are NOT one and the same thing.

It is a FACT that there is no liability STATUTE

for IRC subtitle A:  this means ...

IT IS A FACT THERE IS NO LAW!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm



Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006012----000-.html

The terms "liable" and "liability" do NOT even occur in section 6012 above!!

And, a "return" is not "payment" either:  a "return" is a FORM!!!

Compare IRC section 3403, which is a CLEAR LIABILITY STATUTE:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003403----000-.html

§ 3403. Liability for tax

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and

withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such

payment. 

[end excerpt]

If the one who executes a "return" is the one whom Congress

intended to make LIABLE, then Congress would have needed

to enact a statute comparable to 3403, like this:

"The U.S. individual who signs an income tax return

shall be liable for payment of the amount owed on that return."

-or-

"The U.S. individual who receives taxable income

shall be liable for payment of the tax due on that income."

BUT, again, there is no such STATUTE.

Moreover, it is the WITHHOLDING AGENT

who is made specifically LIABLE by reason

of the statutes enumerated at the definition

of "withholding agent" at IRC 7701(a)(16):

(16) Withholding agent

The term "withholding agent" means any person required to deduct and

withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441 , 1442, 1443, or 1461 . 

[end excerpt]

Now, examine carefully the language of 1461, for example:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1461.html

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter

is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims

and demands of any person for the amount of any payments

made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

[end excerpt]

Once again, NOTE WELL the language used by Congress

whenever it creates a SPECIFIC LIABILITY:

"... is hereby made liable for such tax ...."

"Hereby" means BY REASON OF THIS LIABILITY STATUTE!!

"Made liable" means exactly what it says:  that "person" must PAY!!

If a withholding agent withholds taxes,

s/he is LIABLE for payment of those taxes;

if a withholding agent does NOT pay the taxes s/he withheld,

then it's the withholding agent who has committed tax evasion,

NOT the worker from whose compensation those taxes were withheld.

The IRS continues to lie about these fundamental issues.

And, most importantly, they STILL don't know the meaning

of ESTOPPEL as applied to the SUBPOENA which

Treasury REFUSED to answer for four and one-half years.

EVEN IF THERE WERE SUCH A GENUINE LIABILITY STATUTE

FOR IRC SUBTITLE A, THEIR SILENCE HAS ACTIVATED ESTOPPEL.

MEANING:  IT'S O-V-E-R NOW:  NEITHER IRS NOR TREASURY

CAN COME INTO COURT WITH ANY LIABILITY STATUTES,

BECAUSE THEIR SILENCE FOR 4.5 YEARS NOW PREVENTS

THEM FROM CHANGING THEIR MINDS, TO OUR DETRIMENT.

Now that IRS is finally backed into a corner,

they're trying to say that the LIABILITY [sic] STATUTES [sic]

are 6011 and 6012.  WRONG!!!

To make matters much worse, both 6011 and 6012

fall within subtitle F: 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/stF.html

(roughly sections 6001 thru 7874, inclusive)

see IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) for a very key, and controlling, statute

concerning the date of enactment of "this title" and

the legal implications if "this title" is NOT yet enacted.

I realize that "this title" has a secret meaning:

that alone nullifies the IRC for vagueness.

The consistent legislative practice by Congress

is to use the term "this title" to refer to a

Title of the United States Code, e.g. see all

occurrences of "this title" in Title 28 of the U.S. Code --

the laws which govern all federal courts!

LET'S ASSEMBLE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY,

AND PUT THIS SIMPLE QUESTION TO THEM:

WHAT DOES "THIS TITLE" MEAN AT IRC 7851(a)(6)(A), PLEASE?

And, no coaching prior to this verdict, ok?

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm  <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm



On 6/24/07, lockski <lockski@comcast.net> wrote:

· IRS Answer to the Brown's

IRS official cites federal tax code

By KRISTEN SENZ
Sunday News Correspondent
18 hours, 29 minutes ago 


Frank Keith knows some people will never be convinced of their obligation to pay federal income tax. Nevertheless, he said, paying the tax is, in fact, a legal requirement of all U.S. residents.

Keith, chief of communications and liaison for the IRS, said two specific sections of Title 26 in the United States Code establish tax liability for individuals.

Sections 6011(a) and 6012(a), he said, are the basis for the "hundreds" of court cases in which anti-tax activists like Plainfield's Ed and Elaine Brown have been convicted of felony tax evasion.

Section 6011(a) reads in part: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary . . ."

Keith said multiple courts have ruled that the "regulations," or IRS rules, to which the statute refers carry the same weight as laws. "I think there's ample case law that says regulation has the strength of law," he said.

The Browns and many of their supporters argue that the federal court system is corrupt and invalid, and that court decisions are not the same as laws.

Section 6012(a), titled "Persons required to make returns of income," reads:

"Returns with respect to income taxes ... shall be made by the following: Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual who: is not married, is not a surviving spouse, is not a head of a household and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual ..."

Keith, who refused to talk specifically about the Browns' case, said he understands that the language used in the statutes may not satisfy all citizens.

"I'll agree that I may never be able to point to a section that's written in a way that they would like it to be written," he said.

But, he added, the U.S. Code can't be dissected to suit one's arguments.

"You can't always take one section of a code all by itself," he said.

Keith also pointed to a document on the IRS Web site that attempts to debunk "frivolous" arguments about tax liability. The 61-page document (available at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf) addresses several claims the Browns have made, including improper ratification of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"The arguments are well laid out right there in that document," Keith said. "There are a number of arguments, and I think what most of them have in common is they are not persuasive in a court of law."

Yet some people with views similar to the Browns' have won their court cases.

When a defendant convinces a jury that he honestly believed no tax liability existed, the jury must acquit due to a lack of criminal intent.

But the duty to pay federal income taxes is a very real one, Keith said.

"If certain conditions are met, you're required to file a tax return," he said, "and there are civil and criminal consequences for those who don't."

Keith said those "conditions" have to do with income, a term the Browns say isn't defined in the statutes and seems to deal only with corporate or off-shore activities.

"I point to a section in a code that I and hundreds of judges and juries have said creates the requirement," and still tax protesters argue about definitions and technicalities, Keith said. "The statute gives you the requirement."


., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SupremeLaw" group.
To post to this group, send email to supremelaw@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to supremelaw-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/supremelaw?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

+++

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:09:13 -0700
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Subject: IRS caught lying again ... this time about "residents of the United States"

The IRS is also trying to deceive everyone about the meaning

of "resident of the United States" -- i.e. by misrepresenting

that term to mean everyone who inhabits one of the 50 States.

WRONG!!

Here's the statutory definition of "resident alien",

found at IRC 7701(b):

(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien

(1) In general

For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B)--

(A) Resident alien

An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year

if (and only if) such [alien] individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):

(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence

Such [alien] individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States

at any time during such calendar year.

(ii) Substantial presence test

Such [alien] individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).

(iii) First year election

Such [alien] individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).

[end excerpt]

NOTE WELL that the term "resident alien" legally applies ONLY

to alien individuals, because they are the only "persons" who

can possibly meet one or the other of the three tests itemized above.

For relevant historical details, see the Chapter entitled "The Matrix" here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter3.htm

(written LONG BEFORE the famous film by the same name)

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

+++

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:16:14 -0700
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: "wrh@whatreallyhappened.com" <wrh@whatreallyhappened.com>
Subject: The IRS LIE 6-24-2007: paying the tax is a legal requirement of all U.S. residents [sic]

Here's the IRS LIE:

Frank Keith knows some people will never be convinced

of their obligation to pay federal income tax.

Nevertheless, he said,

"paying the tax is, in fact, a legal requirement of all U.S. residents"

See prior message for PROOF that this is a LIE.

HINT:  The term "resident of the United States" means "resident alien"

and it ONLY applies to aliens who satisfy one of the three (3) tests

for "resident aliens" at IRC 7701(b):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7701.html (b)

(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien 

(1) In general

For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B)—

(A) Resident alien

An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States

with respect to any calendar year

if (and only if) such [alien] individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):

(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence

Such [alien] individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States

at any time during such calendar year.  [these are GREEN CARD recipients]

(ii) Substantial presence test

Such [alien] individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).

(iii) First year election

Such [alien] individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).

[end excerpt]

And, by definition a "nonresident alien" is any individual

who is neither a federal citizen nor a resident alien:

(B) Nonresident alien

An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is

neither a citizen of the United States [read "federal citizen"]

nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).

[end excerpt]

These three (3) categories are mutually exclusive:

(1)  federal citizen (aka "citizen of the United States")

(2)  resident alien  (aka "resident of the United States" aka green card holder)

(3)  nonresident alien (legally equivalent to State Citizen like Frank Brushaber)

If one is a federal citizen, then s/he cannot be a resident alien or a nonresident alien.

If one is a resident alien, then s/he cannot be a federal citizen or a nonresident alien.

If one is a nonresident alien, then s/he cannot be a federal citizen or resident alien.

The legal meanings and inter-relationships among these terms

are fully explained in Chapter 3 entitled "The Matrix" here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter3.htm

The official IRS "Publications" are another excellent source of evidence

which supports the validity of The Matrix

These publications can be obtained by ordering them directly

from the Internal Revenue Service. 

For example, Publication number 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens,

begins with the following statements: 

Introduction

For tax purposes,

an alien is an individual who is not a U.S.** citizen

Aliens are classified as nonresident aliens and resident aliens.  ....

[emphasis in original]

To simply this horribly complex situation --

created by a deliberately deceptive tax Code --

if you are not a federal citizen then you are an "alien" for tax purposes.

And, there are only two kinds of aliens: resident aliens and nonresident aliens.

Because of the law of jurisdiction, State Citizens are legally equivalent

to nonresident aliens, just like Frank Brushaber.  See Treasury Decision 2313

for proof:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-c.htm

... as fully explained in the book "The Federal Zone" here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm  <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: lockski <lockski@comcast.net>
Date: Jun 24, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: IRS RESPONSE 6 24 2007
To: supremelaw@googlegroups.com

· IRS Answer to the Brown's

IRS official cites federal tax code

By KRISTEN SENZ
Sunday News Correspondent
18 hours, 29 minutes ago 


Frank Keith knows some people will never be convinced of their obligation to pay federal income tax. Nevertheless, he said, paying the tax is, in fact, a legal requirement of all U.S. residents.

Keith, chief of communications and liaison for the IRS, said two specific sections of Title 26 in the United States Code establish tax liability for individuals.

Sections 6011(a) and 6012(a), he said, are the basis for the "hundreds" of court cases in which anti-tax activists like Plainfield's Ed and Elaine Brown have been convicted of felony tax evasion.

Section 6011(a) reads in part: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary . . ."

Keith said multiple courts have ruled that the "regulations," or IRS rules, to which the statute refers carry the same weight as laws. "I think there's ample case law that says regulation has the strength of law," he said.

The Browns and many of their supporters argue that the federal court system is corrupt and invalid, and that court decisions are not the same as laws.

Section 6012(a), titled "Persons required to make returns of income," reads:

"Returns with respect to income taxes ... shall be made by the following: Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual who: is not married, is not a surviving spouse, is not a head of a household and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual ..."

Keith, who refused to talk specifically about the Browns' case, said he understands that the language used in the statutes may not satisfy all citizens.

"I'll agree that I may never be able to point to a section that's written in a way that they would like it to be written," he said.

But, he added, the U.S. Code can't be dissected to suit one's arguments.

"You can't always take one section of a code all by itself," he said.

Keith also pointed to a document on the IRS Web site that attempts to debunk "frivolous" arguments about tax liability. The 61-page document (available at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf) addresses several claims the Browns have made, including improper ratification of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"The arguments are well laid out right there in that document," Keith said. "There are a number of arguments, and I think what most of them have in common is they are not persuasive in a court of law."

Yet some people with views similar to the Browns' have won their court cases.

When a defendant convinces a jury that he honestly believed no tax liability existed, the jury must acquit due to a lack of criminal intent.

But the duty to pay federal income taxes is a very real one, Keith said.

"If certain conditions are met, you're required to file a tax return," he said, "and there are civil and criminal consequences for those who don't."

Keith said those "conditions" have to do with income, a term the Browns say isn't defined in the statutes and seems to deal only with corporate or off-shore activities.

"I point to a section in a code that I and hundreds of judges and juries have said creates the requirement," and still tax protesters argue about definitions and technicalities, Keith said. "The statute gives you the requirement."

 

+++

Has anyone here read a book called "The Law that Never Was?"   Its premise is that fed. "Income Tax" Act was never properly ratified, so is not current law.

Yes:  it's listed in the Bibliography of "The Federal Zone":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

See Chapter 13 in particular:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr13.htm

You should consider other books on the subject too,

chiefly because several high Court cases have held that

a ratified 16th "amendment" did NOT repeal 2 Clauses

in the Constitution requiring that all federal direct taxes

must be apportioned among the 50 States:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:2:3

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:9:4

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company is particularly

noteworthy in this context, because it held that the Constitution

can NOT contradict itself!  If a ratified 16th "amendment" was

intended to repeal the latter 2 Clauses, it would have needed

to say so ... but it did NOT.

Repeals by implication are never favored.

Compare the 21st Amendment which expressly

repealed Prohibition aka 18th Amendment:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#21st-amend

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#18th-amend

Thus, the omission of any repealing provisions must be

taken as an intentional act of the 16th "amendment's"

original proponents.  Confer at "inclusio unius est

exclusio alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

Because of considerations like those above,

we shifted our focus to the Internal Revenue Code,

and to the requirement that a specific LIABILITY for taxes

must be created by Act of Congress and NOT by

regulations published in the Federal Register:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

I hope this helps.  There is much additional reading

at the links after my name below ....

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm



Zounds456@aol.com wrote:

Sorry, a couple of meaningless messages were sent. 

Has anyone here read a book called "The Law that Never Was?"   Its premise is that fed. "Income Tax" Act was never properly ratified, so is not current law.  Very interesting subject.



**************************************

+++

6/22/07 Ron Paul on Ed & Elaine Brown
VIDEO:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4710607797448605118&q=ron+paul+ed+elaine+brown&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

+++


Jim Jones
to Undisclosed-Re.
show details
11:35 am (9 hours ago)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spread The Word ~ Forward to a Friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hey folks,
This came from a relative of mine. This is THE issue that can break the NeoCON's so-called election wide open. Support & focus must be brought to bear on the fight being led by Ed & Elaine Brown. If anyone out there knows Cindy Sheehan or Joe Bannister, please encourage them to head to Ed & Elaine's home...that is where we need to dig-in and fight. I believe that by bringing public light to this issue we could push the whole house of cards over. Pandora's Box is wide open...the time is now for a revolution in public opinion. This issue would do it.
Please forward to all on your lists...
- J.J.
 
1040 Checkmate?
 
DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised
 
Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud
 
DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain
 
On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.
 
The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.
 
The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.
 
Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.
 
The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.
 
On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).
 
In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.
 
In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence’s criminal trial).
 
In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. 
Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number.
 
Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.
 
Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect.
 
Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments.
 
Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DOJ and IRS decided not to let the Lawrence case proceed because it would reveal one critical and damning fact:
 
The PRA law protects those that fail to file IRS bootleg Form 1040
 
The DOJ knew that it stood a significant chance of losing the case, and if that happened, the press and others would quickly spread the word, and leave only fools to ever file a 1040 again. Oscar Stilley’s pleadings and documents made these points quite clear:
 
* IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.
 
* Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.
 
* The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
 
* The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. 
That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.
 
We The People Foundation has researched the facts, law and circumstances surrounding this case, and has determined that:
 
* A public trial would have opened a “Pandora’s Box” of legal evidence and government testimony under oath that would establish the IRS 1040 form as both fraudulent and counterfeit.
 
* Oscar Stilley’s PRA defense “checkmated” the DOJ and IRS
 
* The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit requirements of those statutes
 
Accordingly, We The People Foundation has petitioned the U.S. Attorney General, the IRS Commissioner, and Director of the OMB, requesting an official explanation of their conduct in Peoria.
We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.
 
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
 
June 9, 2006
 
Read the booklet Common Sense by Founder Thomas Paine, click here: http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/commonsense/index.htm
*******************************************************************
"Lose this day loitering 'Twill be the same old story, Tomorrow and the next, Even more dilatory.
Whatever you would do, Or dream of doing, begin it!
Boldness has power, genius, and magic in it. Begin it now."
~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
WE ARE THE MEDIA!!! ~ THE INFO WAR IS OURS!
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC NOW!
Just Say NO to the New World Order!

 
THE ONLY REAL AMERICAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
Just Say NO to Neo-Con Corporate Fascism & Global Socialist Amerikanism!
         
 

THIS MESSAGE OF INSPIRATION WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY,
The Conspiriosity Shop Vintage Patriot T-Shirts - www.newworldordertshirts.com
VINTAGE PATRIOT T-SHIRTS

WARNING: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
 
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection...
Have a nice day!

___

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Teknosis Join us at EENG - Free Blogs,.

June 25, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e200e5507a23f58834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Re: Ed Brown,. IRS / US Marshal,. Persecution - Question for unionleader.com: How is a person made liable for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A?:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.