Time: Mon Apr 14 10:26:43 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA11338;
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:44:21 -0700 (MST)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA03324;
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:44:11 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:09:36 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: No Tax Liability (was "Tax Liability" [sic])
At 09:07 AM 4/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Why would anyone make a FOIA request for tax liability
>when everything they need to know is as plain as day
>in the IRC and CFR?
... in order to compel an admission from them,
in a court of law, that they do NOT have
the law(s) in question. Without the court
to compel the document(s), or their admission
that the document(s) don't exist, they can
ignore you with total impunity, and they have
done just that, time and time again.
That's why!
Moreover, things are just NOT as plain as day.
Let me give you a simple example:
IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) states:
General rule. The provisions of subtitle F shall
take effect on the day after the date of enactment
of this title ....
What does that say to you? I would appreciate
an honest answer from you. I want to hear your
honest answer, before I tell you what it means
to me, so as not to prejudice your answer
in any way.
Finally, the FOIA does not bind local libraries,
because it is a federal law, and it can only
be used to compel production of documents by
executive agencies; Congress has enacted
blanket FOIA exemptions for itself, and for
the entire federal judiciary, including clerks
and janitors.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>I doubt that "I quit!" letters will get you anything
>but more demanding letters, at a minimum. The IRS
>will, quite justifiably, just continue with whatever
>their applicable procedure is.
And what is the applicable procedure,
when there are no liability statutes,
except for the ones listed in the
definition of "withholding agent"
at IRC 7701(a)(16)?
BTW, courts have ruled that "doubt"
should be resolved in favor of those
upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.
If you are entirely sure there is a
liability statute which requires you
to pay, then put it on the table,
right here and now, please.
I am waiting ...
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>In a nutshell, they will presume you are liable unless
>you prove otherwise.
And the way we have chosen to "prove otherwise"
is precisely by submitting a proper FOIA request
for certified copies of the liability statutes
in question. I would hate to be wrong about
my finding that the only liability statutes
are those listed in the definition of "withholding
agent" at 7701(a)(16). Therefore, I am hereby
rebutting their presumption, because it is only
a presumption, and it is certainly not a conclusive
presumption, particularly when they fall silent
in the face of a proper and timely FOIA request
and appeal for same. If I am wrong, then it is
now up to THEM to prove that I made an error.
BTW, the regs don't count, because Congress never
gave Treasury authority to legislate overly broad
extensions of the existing liability statutes,
so, there is no statutory authority for imposing
the federal income tax on "citizens of the United States"
and "residents of the United States", as is done
at 26 CFR 1.1-1 et seq. The doctrine of "implied
legislative consent" for these regs is just so
much hogwash. People can rationalize anything;
look at what the Nazi's rationalized in WWII.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
Just saying "I quit" doesn't cut
>it in any legal setting.
>
>-- Lynda
I know that, Lynda. I have submitted over 100
documents to various government agencies, and
the vast majority of responses have been silence.
I now have 5 gigabytes of accumulated research
and related text files.
I have now chosen the path of the peaceful warrior.
The grand jury case we litigated authored 25
different pleadings alone, submitted to the
foreperson, and every one was intercepted
by the judge and the Assistant U.S. Attorney.
So, I now feel that "I quit!" is entirely
appropriate, particularly in light of all the
cases which have defined the legal meaning of
silence, e.g. U.S. v. Tweel, and Carmine v.
Bowen.
So, take this, IRS: "I quit!"
We will see you in court, when the Quo Warranto
is soon filed.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>Liability for Subtitle A income taxes can be
>found in the statutes listed in the definition
>of "Withholding agent" at IRC 7701(a)(16).
>
>Treasury has now refused to supply certified copies
>of any other liability statutes, in response to a
>FOIA request for same. They told us to go to the
>local library (which is surely subject to the
>Freedom of Information Act?)
>
>The beat goes on. We have a nice, short letter
>you can write to IRS and/or SSA:
>
> "I quit!"
>
>Try it. It works. No copyright hassles.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
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