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

« Liberty News from BreakTheMatrix.com | Main | 11 Trillion USD Awaiting Go Ahead To Be Infused Into US Treasury In Furtherance Of Resolution Of National Debt Crisis »

Re: Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS - IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"

>  the USC applies strictly to, for want of an easier phrase [??], the territories of the geographic United States
That generalization is not valid, in all cases e.g.:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_I_20_5.html
cf.  "The Federal Zone" for a thorough dissertation on this point:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/
Also:  http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


From: Daniel Seigler <therealbeadweaver2002@yahoo.com>
To: "CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com" <CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"

the thing most forget is that ACCORDING to the definitions within it, the USC applies strictly to, for want of an easier phrase, the territories of the geographic United States of America, not to those states already admitted to the Union.

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
To: "paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com" <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: [CCCC-USA] IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea"
  Subject: IRC is VOID FOR INTENTIONAL VAGUENESS -- IT WAS INTENDED TO MIS-LEAD!! cf. "fraud in the inducement" and "mens rea" intent to mis-lead / intent to deceive


Yes!  The vagueness we demonstrated in the IRC is INTENTIONAL!!

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q20
As such, the entire IRC is thereby rendered VOID FOR VAGUENESS!

cf.  "Void for vagueness doctrine" and "mens rea"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea

As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent.
Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element.
Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

cf. also "fraud in the inducement":

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud+in+the+inducement

The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts
upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act.
-- Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM, william-richard  wrote:

I comprehend thoroughly. I always think the attorneys use "words of art"with the intent to mis-lead.
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 7/14/2011 1:48:04 PM
Subject: Re: lie lay lain
 

I understand.  But, in this "war on words" I believe we must put
our wood behind the best arrowheads ...

There are plenty of other, and more egregious, examples
of deliberate misuse and abuse of the English language, particularly
all the re-definitions of "State" and "United States" which litter the U.S. Code,
contrary to the prohibition issued in Eisner v. Macomber:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since
it [Congress] cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.


That holding was predicated on the proper and lawful ratification
of the so-called Sixteenth amendment, which would have
introduced the term "income" into the Constitution for the very first time
(i.e. if and only if it had been properly and lawfully ratified,
which it was NOT!)

You will please note that the term "income" is not even
defined anywhere in the IRC, a finding with which
the Eighth Circuit has already agreed!

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter7.htm


The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

 
[U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404]
[(8th Circuit, 1976)]

-- Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htmhttp://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

July 16, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink