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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Schools or Sun Rail; you decide | Main | Sherry Peel Jackson Needs Our Help! »

"Half of US Debt Is Owed to Fed" -- HOWEVER, U.S. has formally declared insolvency as to that "debt" + AUTOMATIC STAY has been activated by 11 U.S.C. 362

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: FYI: "Half of US Debt Is Owed to Fed" -- HOWEVER, U.S. has formally declared insolvency as to that "debt" + AUTOMATIC STAY has been activated by 11 U.S.C. 362
Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 8:14 AM

Private Attorney General in USA comments re: your article entitled:
Half Of US Debt Is Owed to Fed
http://www.henrymakow.com/half_of_us_debt_is_owed_to_fed.html


Greetings Henry,

Thank you for your article above.  We would appreciate it very
much if you would follow-up with another article reporting
some or all of the following:


Your readers need to know that the United States (Federal Government)
has now formally declared insolvency as to its obligations
allegedly owed to the Federal Reserve Banks.  As a qualified
Private Attorney General, I appeared on behalf of the United States "ex rel."
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington State,
and duly filed the following pleadings:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/interpleader.htm

There were no rebuttals by anyone connected with that bankruptcy case.

A newspaper-style explanation is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm


If you like, I can put you in touch with the private clients who retained
me for that work:  they would need to contact you at their discretion,
but I will be happy to forward to them your written request for
a telephone briefing.  I am quite confident that they will want to
speak with you at length about that bankruptcy case.

They are both wonderful people, and I know you will be delighted
to make their acquaintance!


Because that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY was duly filed
in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court, an AUTOMATIC STAY has also been
activated against the alleged "creditors" by the Federal bankruptcy
law at 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/362.html

That AUTOMATIC STAY was clarified here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

... as follows:

AUTOMATIC STAY:  11 U.S.C. 362

It is also the intent of the United States for this DECLARATION to effect the automatic stay authorized by pertinent statutes in the bankruptcy laws of the United States, as authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.  See Title 11 of the United States Code, and its implementing Regulations, for governing details.

This automatic stay is intended to bar any and all Federal Reserve Banks henceforth from any and all further efforts to collect from the United States, or from the People at Large, either the principal or interest amounts previously owed by the United States to the Federal Reserve Banks.

This intent necessarily also bars the Internal Revenue Service from performing, or claiming any authority to perform, any further collections of income taxes allegedly imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  See IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

It is now a well established fact that Congress never enacted any Statute(s) at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  By comparison, Congress has enacted Statutes at Large creating specific liabilities for taxes imposed by subtitles B and C of the Internal Revenue Code.  On this key point, see 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) and Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), quoting in pertinent part:

 

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit.  United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447; Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134.

[bold emphasis added]

Furthermore, the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury were legally ESTOPPED
when both failed for FOUR AND ONE-HALF YEARS to answer a proper SUBPOENA
for the Federal statute which creates a specific liability for income taxes imposed
by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  The NOTICE OF DEFAULT was duly filed
at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm  (see Item (7), in chief)

That DEFAULT and ESTOPPEL were also explained in newspaper style here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm


The standing authority for the latter DEFAULT and ESTOPPEL
is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Acker:  briefly,
taxes may not be imposed by Regulations published in the Federal Register
in the absence of the requisite Act of Congress:  1 U.S.C. 101:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html  ("Act of Congress" defined)

That standing decision is nicely abstracted here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif
  <--- citation was later PULLED from American Jurisprudence!


I am standing by to answer any questions you may have about the above.


Cc: The Internet (widely)

--
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

December 1, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink