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

« Unpeeling the Matrix | Main | All the cue we need take was given us by one man »

Private Attorney General responds to Facebook post claiming "The income tax is 100% constitutional"

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:45 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General responds to Facebook post claiming "The income tax is 100% constitutional"

Thanks for starting that thread, and
for all your follow-up Comments:

I honestly don't believe that such a man is a "shill"
chiefly because there are so many Courts cases
which clearly contradict each other on the
legal effects of a ratified 16th amendment:

The claim that "the [federal] income tax is 100% constitutional" 
is easily refuted because:

(1)  there is no LIABILITY STATUTE for taxes imposed by 
subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code:  for authority,
see Commissioner v. Acker:

EVEN IF IRS were a de jure service, bureau, office or
other subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury --
the one in Washington, D.C., NOT the other one in San Juan,
Puerto Rico -- IRS would STILL not have any authority
to create a tax liability solely by means of Regulations
published in the Federal Register.

(2)  in the book "The Federal Zone" the obvious and deliberate
vagueness that is rampant throughout the Internal Revenue Code
is fully documented with lots of examples:  
see in particular the "Void for Vagueness Doctrine" and 
all supporting Court decisions:
In point of Law, the 16th amendment is somewhat
irrelevant:  it's comparable to an electrical outlet:

if Congress does not attempt to use that "power", THEN
the absence of the requisite Act of Congress
is highly significant -- in point of fact and in point of Law:

Commissioner v. Acker held that liability for taxes
cannot be created solely by means of Regulations --
absent the requisite Act of Congress:

("Act of Congress" defined)

Because IRS attempted to create a tax liability
with the Regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1, 
that Regulation violates Separation of Powers:  

only Congress can make law, 
IRS cannot make law:

Since Separation of Powers is a fundamental Right
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, 
IRS personnel can be terminated for violating that Right:
see Sec. 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998:
(that RRA98 was never codified in the U.S. Code, however!)

p.s.  I tried to add Comments at your Facebook page,
but Facebook won't allow me to do so.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



Outstanding health products/opportunity for health and wealth or


Join with Solavei team mobilepro ($49 [building to free then $ every mo.] unlimited talk, text,

data cellphone service over T-mobile and much more for 2013 and beyond

Solavei Social video:


iLA (Inspired Living Application) - An outstanding *global* opportunity!

My associate link:

iLA overview

iLA compensation training video:

Awesome video for this week

Access to vault for associates

Apple App Store/Google Play Store: iLivingApp


June 1, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink