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

« Frank Sturgis told NYPD Det. Jim Rothstein on 10-31-77 that he shot John Kennedy | Main | Urgent: EMERGENCY MOTION BY UNITED STATES ex rel. PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE: USA v. Kent Hovind et al. »

PLEASE FORWARD to Mr. Peter J. Reilly re: Kent Hovind

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Subject: PLEASE FORWARD to Mr. Peter J. Reilly re: Kent Hovind
To: readers@forbes.com, pressinquiries@forbes.com, ideas@forbes.com
Cc: Eugene Kobzar <mr.kobzar@gmail.com>, SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>


For more "story pitches", see also:

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

http://supremelaw.org/cc/zakheim/invoice.4.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/invoice.1.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/bep/state.governor.intro.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/bep/memo.recall.program.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/maugans/Two.Invoices.htm


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:04 AM
Subject: Kent Hovind
To: Eugene Kobzar <mr.kobzar@gmail.com>
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>



(1)  paying workers in CASH is not a crime;  but,
accepting Form W-4 renders the payer specifically
liable for all taxes withheld, read "withholding agent";

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1461


(2)  Form W-4 is for "employees" as defined at IRC 3401(c)

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm


(3)  there is no liability statute for taxes imposed by subtitle A:

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm


(4)  the law does not permit creating a tax liability with a Regulation:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif


(5)  as you already know, it is very dangerous to ASSUME
that the prosecutor, judge, clerk and IRS personnel
all have valid credentials

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/clerks.or.jerks.htm

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-pignatiello-2 :

There is sound policy support for requiring the oath of office. It solemnizes the appointment and sensitizes the appointed person to the obligations and limitations of the office. Additionally, it formalizes the appointment and works an official notification that the appointed person represents the government of the United States in its prosecuting authority and binds that branch of government to the acts of the appointed individual. In terms familiar to the law of agency, the oath is evidence of actual authority of the attorney as agent and thereby avoids disputes which could be generated by reliance upon some apparent authority.


You already know the rest of the story:

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



Mr. Hovind's beliefs about the age of planet Earth
are totally irrelevant to the criminal allegations.

If we are going to discuss sanity in this context,
then let's have the "attorneys for the government"
fully explain "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
and why they have no powers of attorney
See Executive Order 13132 in this context i.e.
President's definition of "United States of America":



p.s. I could not find an email address for Peter J. Reilly:
"imposing a tax" is not the same as specifically defining
who is liable to pay the tax imposed.  If Congress imposes
a tax on chickens, does that mean the chickens pay?
Why not the farmer? or the wholesaler? or the retailer?
or the consumer?
 
/s/ Paul


On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Eugene Kobzar <mr.kobzar@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul,
 
Here is some summery of Kent Hovind's trial. There are links in it to more details.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/10/29/government-coming-down-harder-on-kent-hovind/

--
Eugene Kobzar



--
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
 
___
 
Update: 

Urgent: EMERGENCY MOTION BY UNITED STATES ex rel. PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE: USA v. Kent Hovind et al.
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2015/03/urgent-emergency-motion-by-united-states-ex-rel-paul-andrew-mitchell-for-leave-to-intervene-usa-v-ke.html

Related:

March 5, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink