Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

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

« Matthew Falconer for Orange County Mayor: Matthew Falconer Wins in a Landslide | Main | Viva La Resistance! »

Private Attorney General finds methodological errors in: "The Fictitious Legal Entity Called 'a Person'," by Paul Verge (2/14/2010)

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <>
Cc: Dr. Henry Makow Ph.D. <>; SupremeLaw <>
Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 5:24:14 AM
Subject: Private Attorney General finds methodological errors in:
"The Fictitious Legal Entity Called 'a Person'," by Paul Verge (2/14/2010)


Once again -- ALMOST!  But, "almost" only counts in horseshoes, love and atomic warfare :)

"Person" is one thing;  and, "person" is another thing.

Just as "Citizen" is one thing, and "citizen" is another thing:

Citizen of the United States = State Citizen i.e. Citizen of ONE OF the States united

citizen of the United States = federal citizen i.e. citizen of the District of Columbia

"Person" is the term that shows up in the organic U.S. Constitution to refer to Proper People (as in human beings).  See, in particular, all of the Qualifications Clauses, properly spelled:

The term "person" shows up in Section 1 of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment, and the same term also shows up in the definition at section 7701(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (that's no coincidence, by the way):  (a)(1)

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

[end excerpt]

Now, of course, literary titles should capitalize the major terms, and not capitalize minor terms like prepositions.

But, the author should have been aware of the key differences between "Person" and "person";  if he had, he should have titled his essay:

"The Fictitious Legal Entity Called a 'person'."

To drive my point home, despite the following:

The 'Strawman', also known as the Legal Person or Natural Person is the idea that a Fictitious Legal Entity, called a PERSON, exists for purposes of Law and Commerce.

... you will please note that no supporting authority(s) are cited -- not any provisions of the U.S. Constitution (the supreme Law), not any Acts of Congress, not any Federal Regulations, and not a single court case is cited to support this definition.

Moreover, the terms "Person" and "natural born Citizen" are found in the Qualification Clause for President of the USA;  as such, the term "Natural Person" is not what the author claims:

Last but certainly not least, because I am regarded as a nationwide expert on the Internal Revenue Code, I must emphatically object to the following claim:

You then receive your Employee ID # (also known as a SIN #) which creates another Person called a "TAXPAYER". This means you consent to the Income Tax Act, and now makes you liable for the Income Tax ....

[end quote]

Let's focus on the conclusion above:  "This ... makes you liable for the Income Tax."

[end excerpt]

In effect, the author argues that receiving an "employee I.D. aka SSN" means that the recipient "consents to the Income Tax Act" and that in turn makes the recipient liable for the Income Tax.

WRONG!  (winning BRIEF here!)
Consent is one of the elements that is essential to a valid contract, see CCC 1550.

Apparent consent is neither real nor free when obtained by duress,

menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake, see CCC 1567.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled correctly -- in Commissioner v. Acker --
that a Federal tax liability can ONLY arise from an Act of Congress,
and there is no Act of Congress creating a specific liability for
income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code
:  (see Item (7))

See also:

Here is the key holding from Commissioner v. Acker:

... [T]o 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 .

And, thus author Paul Verge runs the risk of permitting his "theory" to morph into fact.  This is a serious methodological error which has become rather rampant among such self-appointed experts.

P.S. I don't mind pointing out some of the errors that are showing up in essays you are re-publishing, because the errors are good object lessons for our Law students (UPPER-CASE "L").

He also misspelled "fictitious".  You do have a dictionary, yes?


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)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

February 15, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink