Time: Tue Oct 07 04:47:23 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA29095;
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:43:40 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA16079;
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:42:11 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 04:41:31 -0700
To: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Is the IRC plain English?
References: <3.0.3.16.19971006070336.36efb724@pop.primenet.com>
<199710060837.BAA29247@mail1.halcyon.com>
This is excellent, Harold.
I would only add one thing:
unconstitutionality begins
at date of enactment, NOT
at the decision so branding
the act.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 01:29 AM 10/7/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>I completely agree with you that the IRC is void for vagueness,
>which, incidentally to me makes it unconstitutional in principle if
>not in fact.
>
>Further, it is up to the people to stand up and refuse to honor or
>obey laws which are either ambiguous or unconstitutional. The
>Founders clearly said it was our right and duty to not obey such
>laws.
>
>To those who argue that only the Courts can deceide what is
>"unconstitutional", I respond that such reasoning is absurd. Why
>would the Founders have counselled us to not obey "unconstitutional"
>laws if only the Courts could declare such -- the instant a law is
>declared unconstitutional by the courts, it is immediately void and
>would not be in force to be "not obeyed"!
>
>The Founders expected the People, and only the People, to retain
>their liberties by being "beligerant claimants" of their rights.
>They knew full well that when the people lost the intelligence, will
>or fortitude to do so, no constitution or system of gov't would long
>preserve Liberty.
>
>Harold
>
>> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 07:03:36 -0700
>> To: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
>> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> Subject: Is the IRC plain English?
>
>> If you read Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, we show
>> how the term "this title" refers clearly to Title 28,
>> where it matters, in the rules which govern the
>> federal courts. The terms "this title" or "title"
>> are NOT defined in the IRC, therefore, I infer that
>> "title" refers to Title 26, if only because there is
>> vagueness on this point, and doubt should be
>> resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is
>> sought to be laid. This argument is made with
>> full force in Point 7 in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
>> now available in the Supreme Law Library ("SLL").
>>
>> The implications are enormous, because subtitle F
>> contains ALL the enforcement mechanisms of the IRC.
>>
>> Please understand that I roll either way with answers:
>> I don't really care if people agree or disagree; I use
>> the disagreements as empirical proof that men of common
>> intelligence cannot agree on the meaning of the law;
>> contrast this with stop for red, and go for green!
>> The latter is a just, fair, and utterly clear law;
>> even color blind people know, from the position of
>> the lights!
>>
>> Compare this:
>>
>> "Includes" and "including" shall not be construed
>> to exclude other things otherwise within the
>> meaning of the term defined. See IRC 7701(c).
>>
>> Are you a thing? :) Am I a thing? 8-) If you want
>> to start a very long-lasting debate, ask your friends
>> and relatives the meaning of this latter "definition."
>> Get ready for lots of long wind.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>> At 01:37 AM 10/6/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >Paul,
>> >
>> >Everywhere else in Title 26, it means "Title 26", as far as I can
>> >tell. Within any "title" or "section" or "chapter" or "subchapter"
>> >when those terms are used, logic would dictate that they refer to
>> >themselves when "Within this" precedes the term.
>> >
>> >Is that what you were thinking, too?
>> >
>> >Harold
>> >
>> >> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 15:39:08 -0700
>> >> To: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
>> >> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> >> Subject: Is the IRC plain English?
>> >
>> >> So, then, what is meant by the term "this title",
>> >> in your opinion (humble or not)? :)
>> >>
>> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> http://supremelaw.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At 01:25 PM 10/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >> >Paul,
>> >> >
>> >> >It's already in plain English. It is impossible to make it more
>> >> >clear. One can only expand it into redundancy!
>> >> >
>> >> >Harold
>> >> >
>> >> >> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 07:21:59 -0700
>> >> >> To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>> >> >> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> >> >> Subject: Is the IRC plain English?
>> >> >
>> >> >> Dear Friend,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like you to tell me what you think
>> >> >> the following statute says, in plain English:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect
>> >> >> on the day after the date of enactment of this title ...."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am particularly interested in hearing your opinion
>> >> >> as to the meaning of the term "this title", with
>> >> >> supporting authority and citations, if possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks! I am doing this experiment with a
>> >> >> number of separate individuals, and would
>> >> >> like your permission in advance to publish
>> >> >> your answer in a compendium of the most
>> >> >> exemplary answers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> >> http://supremelaw.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> copy: Supreme Law School
>>
>Harold Thomas
>harold@halcyon.com
>http://www.halcyon.com/harold/
>
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail