A Special Definition of
"State":
Fraud Confirmed in the
Internal Revenue Code
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General (18 U.S.C.
1964)
When we were first exposed
to the possibility of fraud
built into the Internal Revenue Code, we were also
very aware
that proving any such fraud would require a lot
more than
repetition of stories overheard in local bars and
restaurants.
In legal circles,
proving fraud is a burden that falls on the
person making that claim.
In particular, the
word "conspiracy" often occurred during
conversations about the Federal government and its
"Codes",
but we also observed that many interested
Americans
were often allowing their own theories to
"morph" into facts:
Once they had
convinced themselves that a particular
conspiracy did exist, it was almost impossible to change
their minds with contrary facts. This tendency has now
acquired two descriptive labels: confirmation bias
and cognitive dissonance.
Before arriving at any
objective conclusions, we knew
going into such an endeavor that the proof would
need
to be readily available somewhere --
without needing
to resort to magic, mythology, or self-serving
assumptions.
In particular, if
fraud did exist anywhere in Acts of Congress
that were ultimately codified anywhere in the U.S.
Code,
the evidence of such fraud should be visible in
that Code
without too much additional effort beyond the correct
citation,
common sense, and comfortable familiarity with
legalese.
With that stated
objective foremost in our minds,
we set about examining numerous claims that
ended up in U.S. Mail that started to flood our
mail box.
This effort began
before the Internet became popular and,
as such, communications were not nearly as
instantaneous
as they are now.
Visiting a law library required a 2-hour
round trip by automobile; and, as we discovered much later,
some of the most valuable evidence was hidden in
locked archives!
I can remember
acquiring a hard copy of the book
entitled "The Omnibus" by Ralph F.
Whittington
in Houston, Texas. This was an odd title for a
difficult treatise that never made it onto any
"best seller" lists at The New York Times
or anywhere else, for that matter.
In retrospect, it's
now not difficult to understand
why it never received the attention it deserved:
it contained positive proof that Congress had
officially admitted using a special definition of
"State"
in key sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
One of those key
sections contained the legal
definitions which govern that entire Code.
In "The
Federal Zone" we re-published the
Omnibus Acts in
Appendix "B", and you are
encouraged to locate each "special definition"
in this electronic version of that Appendix,
now archived in the Supreme Law Library:
http://supremelaw.org/
After we started to
distribute printed hard copies
of the First Edition of "The Federal
Zone", our mail box
started to fill up even faster with tons of relevant
and
irrelevant documentation.
One of the most
satisfying documents we received
was a fax copy of a letter which had been written
by a
U.S. Representative
from Connecticut, in response
to a question asked by a man in San Diego,
California.
That letter ended up
being profoundly accurate
confirmation of the very same point which had
already been well documented in "The
Omnibus":
The special definition
of "State" included ONLY
the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa and Puerto Rico.
What made the letter
from that Connecticut Congresswoman
all the more valuable was her admission that she
initially
did not know the answer. So, she referred the question
to government "legal experts" in the
Federal offices of the
Legislative
Counsel and Congressional Research Service.
As such, we now have
it on the authority of "legal experts"
in the Federal government that the legal
definition of "State"
in the Internal Revenue Code does NOT include
any of
the 50 States.
It is true that the
Internal Revenue Code does define "State"
and "United States" differently in
several scattered places.
Nevertheless, the
legal definitions codified at IRC Section 7701(a)
are intended to be used "where not
otherwise distinctly expressed".
To minimize any
lingering doubts about Ralph Whittington's
monumental finding, we now incorporate an electronic
copy
of that Connecticut Congresswoman's important
letter.
http://supremelaw.org/press/
It isn't often that
such monumentally important discoveries
are exposed by a single sheet of paperwork.
Do enjoy yourself by
having a widely popular Internet
and high-speed telecommunications which can now
display that verifiable evidence right before your
eyes.
Seeing is believing, I always say!
Further reading: Electronic 11th Edition of
"The Federal
Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue":
http://supremelaw.org/
p.s.
The Preface was later expanded after an astute reader
pointed out that there was no liability statute
for subtitle A.
We left our references
to the guilty Regulation in later Editions,
to demonstrate how deliberately deceptive that
Code truly is.
And, of course, we
went the extra mile by serving a proper SUBPOENA
on the Secretary of the Treasury for the missing
statute(s):
http://supremelaw.org/press/
Instead of answering
that proper SUBPOENA, the story we heard
was that O'Neill was fired by G.W. Bush for
objecting to Cabinet meetings
where they were planning to attack Iraq BEFORE
9/11/2001.
# # #