-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Private Attorney General comments re: "Fight over income tax could get costly, nasty," by Andrew Garber, Seattle Times Olympia bureau |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:04:10 -0700 (PDT) |
| From: | Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com> |
[Attachment(s) from Supreme Law Firm included below]
Greetings Association of Washington Business:
I thought these socialists were joking when they resurrected their unbridled lust
for a State income tax in Washington State. If at first you don't succeed,
fail fail again, eh?
The first thought that occurred to me was their "fraud in the inducement"
which never appears outright, but always remains lurking between the lines.
If you want to see what happens when a Union State imposes a State income tax
ON TOP OF the Federal income "tax-tortion", take a very close look at this
study which we did for a private client when our offices were in San Diego:
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/ftb.htm
And, want to place your money on a bet that a similar extortion racket
will surely develop here in Washington, after the State government gets in bed
with the Internal Revenue Service doing business as Trust #62 now domiciled in
San Juan, Puerto Rico, under color of the former Federal Alcohol Administration?
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
(follow the links, then follow the money!)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31Q&A.in.evidence.htm
(no rebuttal(s) by any opposing party(s) )
Can you say "money laundry" with a straight face?
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/erath/injunction.htm
(Ninth Circuit is infiltrated, by the way! Guess who?)
And, the IRS just failed ANOTHER audit by the GAO:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10565r.pdf
... because they have been "greasing" Federal judges
and Federal Prosecutors:
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kickback.htm
You see, the IRS was never created by any known
Act of Congress: see 31 U.S.C. 301-313:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_I_10_3_20_I.html
The U.S. Supreme Court admitted as much at Footnote 23
in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=441&invol=281#f23
The IRS is now what was left over of "The Untouchables"
after alcohol Prohibition (aka Volstead Act) was finally repealed.
They can't even use "Department of the Treasury"
on any of their correspondence, or Forms, without
also violating 31 U.S.C. 333 (because they have no
authority to do so: we asked, and they always fell silent):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/333.html
Their own Regulations tie them directly and expressly to Puerto Rico here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/27/27cfr26.11.htm#revenueagent
http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/27/27cfr26.11.htm#secretary
http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/27/27cfr26.11.htm#delegate
We sincerely believe the petroleum cartel secretly financed the
Women's Temperance Movement, to perfect a monopoly in
automotive fuels. Once that monopoly was in place,
Prohibition was repealed -- leaving alcohol high and dry
as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks, and leaving
a Federal police force inside the several States --
to continue extorting money from the American People.
This is the very same petroleum cartel that just
brought you the "Well from Hell" in the Gulf of Mexico!
These are not nice people; they are Big People who refer to us as "small people."
If Americans would only learn from their history,
they would already know that the Federal income tax
was also sold, back in 1913, on the false and rebuttal premise
that it would be imposed ONLY on "the rich".
HA HA!! HO HO!! HE HE!! Joke's STILL on Us, 97 years later!
There is much more to this story than meets the eye,
and certainly a WHOLE LOT MORE than ATTORNeys*
like William H. Gates Sr. will ever admit in public:
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
One necessary solution to the problems alleged by these rabid socialists
is to inform all Washington State employees that they are legally
NOT required to execute IRS Form W-4, because "State" has been
specially defined in the Public Salary Tax Act so as NOT to include
any of the 50 States of the Union. Incredible, isn't it?
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/psta/memo.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-b.htm
(search for 'special definition of "State" ')
And now, from the horse's mouth (read "legal experts"):
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif
Therefore, they are NOT "employees" as defined at IRC 3401(c)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/3401.html (c)
because Washington is just not a "Federal State" as defined; and,
they should NOT be executing that Form in the first place,
all the while IRS is suborning perjury by requiring them to do so --
a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1622:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1622.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6065.html
(NOT limited to tax returns: ignore the heading!)
That one change will -- all by itself -- keep an enormous amount of money
INSIDE Washington State: you can do the numbers yourself!
* p.s. To ATTORN is to supervise the transfer of an estate
from the old lord to the new lord; it is a term from Feudal laws,
circa the Middle Ages (Dark Ages, maybe?)
--
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
I thought these socialists were joking when they resurrected their unbridled lust
for a State income tax in Washington State. If at first you don't succeed,
fail fail again, eh?
The first thought that occurred to me was their "fraud in the inducement"
which never appears outright, but always remains lurking between the lines.
If you want to see what happens when a Union State imposes a State income tax
ON TOP OF the Federal income "tax-tortion"
study which we did for a private client when our offices were in San Diego:
http://www.supremel
And, want to place your money on a bet that a similar extortion racket
will surely develop here in Washington, after the State government gets in bed
with the Internal Revenue Service doing business as Trust #62 now domiciled in
San Juan, Puerto Rico, under color of the former Federal Alcohol Administration?
http://www.supremel
(follow the links, then follow the money!)
http://www.supremel
(no rebuttal(s) by any opposing party(s) )
Can you say "money laundry" with a straight face?
http://www.supremel
(Ninth Circuit is infiltrated, by the way! Guess who?)
And, the IRS just failed ANOTHER audit by the GAO:
... because they have been "greasing" Federal judges
and Federal Prosecutors:
http://www.supremel
You see, the IRS was never created by any known
Act of Congress: see 31 U.S.C. 301-313:
http://www.law.
The U.S. Supreme Court admitted as much at Footnote 23
in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown:
http://caselaw.
The IRS is now what was left over of "The Untouchables"
after alcohol Prohibition (aka Volstead Act) was finally repealed.
They can't even use "Department of the Treasury"
on any of their correspondence, or Forms, without
also violating 31 U.S.C. 333 (because they have no
authority to do so: we asked, and they always fell silent):
http://www4.
Their own Regulations tie them directly and expressly to Puerto Rico here:
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
We sincerely believe the petroleum cartel secretly financed the
Women's Temperance Movement, to perfect a monopoly in
automotive fuels. Once that monopoly was in place,
Prohibition was repealed -- leaving alcohol high and dry
as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks, and leaving
a Federal police force inside the several States --
to continue extorting money from the American People.
This is the very same petroleum cartel that just
brought you the "Well from Hell" in the Gulf of Mexico!
Part 1: http://www.youtube.
Part 2: http://www.youtube.
These are not nice people; they are Big People who refer to us as "small people."
If Americans would only learn from their history,
they would already know that the Federal income tax
was also sold, back in 1913, on the false and rebuttal premise
that it would be imposed ONLY on "the rich".
HA HA!! HO HO!! HE HE!! Joke's STILL on Us, 97 years later!
There is much more to this story than meets the eye,
and certainly a WHOLE LOT MORE than ATTORNeys*
like William H. Gates Sr. will ever admit in public:
http://www.supremel
One necessary solution to the problems alleged by these rabid socialists
is to inform all Washington State employees that they are legally
NOT required to execute IRS Form W-4, because "State" has been
specially defined in the Public Salary Tax Act so as NOT to include
any of the 50 States of the Union. Incredible, isn't it?
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
(search for 'special definition of "State" ')
And now, from the horse's mouth (read "legal experts"):
http://www.supremel
Therefore, they are NOT "employees" as defined at IRC 3401(c)
http://www4.
because Washington is just not a "Federal State" as defined; and,
they should NOT be executing that Form in the first place,
all the while IRS is suborning perjury by requiring them to do so --
a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1622:
http://www4.
http://www4.
(NOT limited to tax returns: ignore the heading!)
That one change will -- all by itself -- keep an enormous amount of money
INSIDE Washington State: you can do the numbers yourself!
* p.s. To ATTORN is to supervise the transfer of an estate
from the old lord to the new lord; it is a term from Feudal laws,
circa the Middle Ages (Dark Ages, maybe?)
--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
http://www.supremel
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Supreme Law Firm
1 of 1 Photo(s)
0 comments:
Post a Comment