Time: Sun Mar 09 14:00:19 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA26448;
Sun, 9 Mar 1997 11:40:36 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 13:59:44 -0800
To: am-her@juno.com (Rusty Lee)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Brushaber & PLEASE HELP ME
References: <199703070427.XAA11209@teaminfinity.com>
At 08:50 AM 3/7/97 PST, you wrote:
>On March 7, Am-Her writes:
>
>Dear Ace, pmitch, et al.
>
>I agree with you, pmitch, about the issue of Brushaber being a
>stockholder and that he was liable
No, he wasn't technically the "person made liable."
That "person" was the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Treasury Decision 2313 said that the liability "attached"
to Brushaber, but, that is not the same as saying that
the real liability was imposed on the withholding agent.
The one who is holding the money which is payable to the
federal government, is actually the person made liable.
Follow the money, remember Deep Throat?
because the income involved in the
>case was from dividends, and was therefore taxable because its source
>was from within the federal zone, i.e. a "domestic" corporation created
>by an Act of Congress.
Yes, this is correct. The UPRR was (is)
a corporation involved in profit generation,
under authority of Congress. As such,
its profits can be taxed by Congress BEFORE
they are dispersed to stockholders. Congress
takes precedence over the stockholders.
>
>BUT, I'm like Ace as well.
>Brushaber was a NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL.
According to Treasury Decision 2313, yes.
To argue anything else is to assume facts
not in evidence, and to extend the T.D.
to those not parties to the action in that
particular case.
Like many of us in the
>"movement", there was a time when I thought most Americans not working
>for government fit the IRS definitions of nonresident alien individuals.
> Of course, I now know that any nonresident alien whose income is derived
>from U.S. sources (federal zone) is a person liable, and is legally
>subject to 30% withholding at the source.
Yes, because the "source" is outside
the restraints of the U.S. Constitution,
pursuant to Downes v. Bidwell. "The
Constitution of the United States, as such,
does not extend beyond the limits of the
states which are united by and under it."
This latter sentence is a very good abstract
of Downes v. Bidwell.
>It is my position that there is no term within the code applicable to our
>status or character.
You have just contradicted yourself here,
have you not? If the IRC is a municipal
statute, then it can use its own terms
to apply to those who are outside its
municipal jurisdiction. The regs make
it clear: you are an "alien" if you are
not a "citizen of the United States."
I don't know how they could have made that
any clearer. So, there is a term within
the code applicable to our status or character;
they just do not use the Constitutional term
("Citizen of the United States"), because they
are operating outside the Constitution, using
"foreign" law ("citizenship" is a term of
municipal law, and the municipal codes of the
several states are "foreign" with respect to
each other).
The code does not need to describe any term for
>those to whom it does not apply.
Yes and no. It DOES apply to People like Brushaber.
On the research I have done, American
>National may be the only term applicable to us.
Congress can amend and repeal statutes.
"American National" is a term that is
defined in federal statutes.
Congress cannot amend or repeal the Constitution.
"Citizen of the United States" is a term that is
used in several places in that Constitution,
specifically in the qualifications for serving
in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House.
I prefer to ground myself in the supreme Laws which Congress
cannot touch. So, I have chosen to stay away from terms
which are rooted in federal statutes, Supremacy Clause
notwithstanding. This will always force a federal or
state court back to the original "intent" of the term
"Citizen of the United States" as used in 1:2:2, 1:3:3,
and 2:1:5. This they do not like to do, however, because
this status obviously had to exist long before the
Civil War, and the Civil War did nothing to amend or
repeal these provisions, 14th amendment notwithstanding.
The later cases which held that there are two classes
of citizenship, did so long AFTER the passage of the so-called
14th amendment; this is VERY significant in my opinion.
Both before and after the 14th amendment, one can be a
Citizen of his state without also being a citizen of the
United States. See Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of
Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (see headnotes); State v. Fowler,
6 S. 602 (1889); and Gardina v. Board of Registrars,
48 S. 788, 791 (1909). Gardina is the real block-buster:
"There are, then, under our republican form of government,
two classes of citizens, one of the United States, and
one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist
in a person, without the other ...." !!!
Citizens of the states enjoy a status which is protected
by the U.S. Constitution; as such, it is unalienable;
citizens of the United States do not enjoy a status
which is protected by the U.S. Constitution, because
Congress is free to regulate, modify, and/or repeal
the statutes which have defined that franchise.
If you depend upon Congress for your protection,
Congress may decide to withdraw that protection.
Then where are you?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
The code does not apply
>to us unless the SOURCE of our "income" is from within, or effectively
>connected with that of U.S. sources.
You have just summed up the entire 2,000
pages of the Internal Revenue Code.
Bravo!!
>
>Mitch, please help me and Ace out here.
>
>Thanks,
See above. You are very welcome.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>Am-Her
>
>
>On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:27:08 -0500 ace@TeamInfinity.com (Andrew C. Earp)
>writes:
>>PLEASE HELP ME!!!
>>
>> IF Mr. Brushaber was personally responsible for the
>>income tax. And, IF he alone was involved in the particular
>>activity that made him liable. And, IF there was no one
>>indirectly involved in that liabilty, THEN WHAT WAS THE
>>PURPOSE AND INTENT OF TREASURY DECISION
>>2313 DATED MARCH 24,1916, WHERE IT STATES
>>"UNDER THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
>>...IT IS HEREBY HELD THAT INCOME ACCRUING
>>TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS..."
>>What am I missing? Thank you.
>>
>>Ace
>>
>
>
>>>Dear Rusty et al.,
>>>
>>>Just a clarification of a point of fact
>>>in the Brushaber case: Brushaber was the
>>>stockholder; it says so right in the
>>>decision. He was not a fiduciary for
>>>stock owned by someone else. Read the
>>>pleadings and the decision!
>>>
>>>"Brushaber ... brings this bill ... in his
>>>own behalf and on behalf of any and all of
>>>the stockholders of the defendant Union
>>>Pacific Railroad Company who may join in the
>>>prosecution and contribute to the expenses
>>>of this suit."
>>>
>>> [from Plaintiff's original Complaint]
>>>
>>>His dividend was taxable because its source
>>>was the federal zone, i.e. a "domestic"
>>>corporation created by an Act of Congress
>>>to build a railroad through the Utah territory.
>>>(Act of July 1, 1862, 37th Congress, 2nd Session,
>>>Statutes at Large, Dec. 5, 1859 to Mar. 3, 1863,
>>>Chapter CXX, page 489). Utah was a territory,
>>>not a Union state, on the day that Act became law.
>>>
>>>For a detailed exposition of this case, see
>>>Chapter 13: "16th Amendment Post Mortem"
>>>in "The Federal Zone," electronic fifth edition.
>>>
>>>I hope this helps.
>>>
>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail