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

« OBAMACARE WATERLOO | Main | Obamacare Fines to be Seized From Bank Accounts Fw: Fw: Comment posted -- re signing up for Obamacare »

"No Law Requiring You to Pay Income Tax" (10/1/2013) VIDEO: Please PASS THIS ALONG

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." 
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: VIDEO: Please PASS THIS ALONG: "No Law Requiring You to Pay Income Tax" (10/1/2013)

That DEFAULT was verified, filed and served in this case:

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


Further discussion is here, explaining how and exactly why
the IRS is now legally estopped as a result of Treasury's silence
in response to the SUBPOENA above:

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


The U.S. Supreme Court case you need to WITNESS
is Commissioner v. Acker, cited in this excellent abstract:

http://supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm  (can't do it with a Regulation!)
http://supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

... [T]herefore, 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. Calamaro354 U.S. 351, 359 
Koshland v. Helvering298 U.S. 441, 446 -447; 
Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner297 U.S. 129, 134 



Commissioner v. Acker was not a precedent, as such,
because of the latter 3 cases which were cited
to support that holding:

http://supremelaw.org/decs/calamaro/354US351.htm

http://supremelaw.org/decs/koshland/298US411.htm

http://supremelaw.org/decs/manhattan/297US129.htm


And, this DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY AS TO
OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
also cited Commissioner v. Acker in the same context:

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


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]
For "The Rest of the Story" see our 31Q&A:

http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

... and a very short summary "In a nutshell":

http://supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm  (w/ longer reading list at the end)

-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
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

October 1, 2013 | Permalink