Fun With Words and Phrases

08 Jun

This is an original work, based on internation...

Questions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to an IRS website, there are a number of publications that include the term “Federal Income Tax” and/or “federal income tax”.

What does the phrase “Federal Income Tax” mean?  I expect that, if asked, most people would agree that the phrase refers to a “Tax” on all “Income” that’s enforced by the “Federal” (Government).

But is it possible that “Federal Income Tax” instead refers to a “Tax” that only applies to “Federal Income”?  If so, what is “Federal Income” and who receives it and is therefore subject to the “Tax”?

I’m not betting that any of this speculation is true, but if there were a “Tax” on “Federal Income,” might that “Tax” only apply to whatever “Income” is received as a Federal Employee?  If you weren’t a “federal employee,” could you be liable for a tax on “Federal Income”

Given just three words (“Federal Income Tax”) we can find at least three potential meanings.

So, when the IRS Form 1040 is headed “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”  we have five words and an increased number potential meanings.

For example, the term “U.S.” is presumed to refer to “United States”–but does it?  If “U.S.” refers to the “United States,” does it refer to the several “United States” seen in the 13th Amendment or the singular “United States” seen in the 14th Amendment?  Does it refer to U.S. territories, States of the Union or both?

Does “U.S.” give implicit notice of the jurisdiction and authority of this tax?  I.e., does this tax only apply within the “U.S.” as opposed to Canada or France?

Or is “U.S.” most properly understood to not “stand alone” as a statement of jurisdiction, but to be part of the single term “U.S. Individual”?  If so, does the 1040 tax only apply to the income of “U.S. Individuals”?  If so, what, exactly is the legal definition of a “U.S. Individual”?  Is a “U.S. Individual” something other than a “U.S. citizen,” U.S. national,” or “U.S. resident”?  Am I presumed to be a “U.S. Individual”?  If so, what is the basis for that presumption?  If I’m not a “U.S. Individual,” am I exempt from paying income tax?

More than likely, the word “Individual” is not part of the term “U.S. Individual,” but signifies the status of the person using a 1040 form.  I.e., each 1040 is only for use by a single “Individual”.  Therefore, the 1040 might be improper for use by corporations, partnerships, or similar similar entities composed of more than one “individual”.

But, if the word “Individual” is used as a noun, what kind of “person” is meant by the “Individual”?  Are we talking about an “Individual (State citizen)”?  How ’bout “Individual (14th Amendment citizen)”?   “Individual (resident)”?  “Individual (taxpayer)”?  “Individual (man made in God’s image)”?  What kind of “Individual” are we talking about?  What evidence exists to show that I am a member of that kind of “Individuals”?

If it were true that 1040 is to be filed by only a single “Individual,” and if it were true that the name “Alfred Adask” signifies a man made in God’s image and the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies some other kind of entity–which one–“Adask” or “ADASK”–is the “Individual” deemed to file the 1040?  If “Adask” and “ADASK” are two different entities, can both legitimately participate in the filing of an “Individual” Income Tax Return?

What if the word “Individual” isn’t used as a noun (that’s modified by the adjective “U.S.”)?  What if “Individual” is used as an adjective to modify the noun “Income”?  Does that mean that the resulting tax applies only to “Individual Income”?  If so, again, what kind of “Individual” is being referenced?  Citizen, resident, taxpayer, occupant, inhabitant, legal-fiction or man-made-in-God’s-image?  If I’m not one of that kind of “Individuals,” am I obligated to pay income taxes?

If “Income” isn’t being used as a noun, but is instead an adjective modifying the word “Tax,” then what exactly is the definition of “Income”?  Is “Income” only measured in Federal Reserve Notes (fiat dollars which are debt-instruments)?  If so, how can my increased number of debt-instruments be construed to be “income”?  Wouldn’t it follow that by acquiring more debt-instruments, I’d be deeper in debt?  If so, do more debt-instruments actually constitute “income” in the sense of a growing mass of assets?  Or do more debt-instruments constitute “outgo” in the sense of becoming more indebted?

And then there are the words “Tax” and “Return”.  What do they mean?

We could learn an enormous amount if the IRS would merely tell us which of the five words (“U.S,” “Individual,” “Income,” “Tax” and “Return”) were used as nouns and which were used as adjectives.  It’s entirely possible that all of the first four words were all used as a series of adjectives to modify the only noun (“Return”).

And, finally, the phrase “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” may have no meaning whatsoever because it’s only used as a name or title for a particular form.  The IRS might just as easily call that form the “1040,” the “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”  or the “Sainted Babaloo”.  What difference do the definitions of the individual words make if the five-word phrase is only a name for the form rather than some sort of legal description or statement?

I can imagine raising questions like those previously suggested in a courtroom. I can imagine the judge dismissing my questions by saying something like, “Mr. Adask, we all know what ‘U.S. Individual Income Tax Return’ means–it’s common knowledge.  So the court will not entertain any more of your frivolous questions.”

I can imagine that the jury might agree.  They might reasonably suppose I was just screwing around with my endless questions about words and grammar for the purpose of obstructing justice rather than getting to the truth.

But my response might be something like this:

“OK, judge, if people can rely on our ‘common knowledge’ to know the meaning of ‘U.S. Individual Income Tax Return’–why do we need the ‘Internal Revenue Code (IRC)’?

“The IRC and/or Title 26 are roughly 4 million words long.  Why do we need 4 million words to explain a tax liability that which can be known by ‘common knowledge’?

“Conversely, if the IRC requires 4 million words, how can we reasonably presume to rely on ‘common knowledge’ to understand any part of the IRC?  If average Americans could rely on their mere ‘common knowledge’ to deduce their tax liabilities, why would anyone need to hire tax accountants and CPAs?  If ‘common knowledge’ is sufficient for average Americans to understand their tax liabilities and exemptions, why to do the courts advise most defendants to hire attorneys to defend them in tax court?

 “But isn’t it also ‘common knowledge’ that no one–not even tax attorneys–fully understands the IRC?

“Don’t courts recognize a ‘reliance defense’ whereby liability for allegedly criminal or penal conduct can be excused or at least mitigated if the defendant relied in the advice of his attorney when he committed the alleged offense?  Isn’t the ‘reliance’ defense based to some degree on recognition that the average person’s ‘common sense’ understanding of the law is likely to be flawed or incomplete?”

“If ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse,’ and if the average person is incompetent by reason of intellect or education to understand the law, doesn’t it follow that we must all be entitled to ask questions about the law in order to reduce our ignorance?  If so, why must our questions be addressed to our own attorneys when studies indicate that 70% of the American people can’t afford to hire an attorney–and most attorneys can’t or won’t answer our questions, anyway?  If it’s true that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse,’ it must also be true that a government that refuses to answer our questions about the law is compelling or ignorance and perhaps even relying on our ignorance to more easily exploit us?

“Ignorance may be no excuse, but a refusal to answer questions about the law constitutes a compelled ignorance which must is inexcusable!”

[Courtroom and jury break out in applause.  Irate judge slams gavel down and shouts “Order, order–or I’ll clear the court!”  The blond with the big bazooms (who’d given me a lot of trouble up to this point) looks at me with love and admiration and I know that she’ll soon be bearing my children.  The music swells, I leave the courtroom with blonde and head for the nearest Motel 6.]

OK, OK, OK.  Maybe my courtroom fantasy is a little over-the-top.  All of these “scripts” are always subject to a big unpredictability–the other people involved.  If I pose one of my brilliant questions and the judge or prosecutor offers an even more brilliant response that leaves me speechless, my script will collapse and I’ll be beat and the blond may leave with the prosecutor.

But my point remains that once you become adept at dissecting the words and the phrases that are used by the law to punish you, good things can happen.  This is especially true if you pose your questions at the administrative level, long before you ever reach a courtroom.

The worst thing you can do is try to “act smart” and pretend to “understand” everything said or written by your adversaries.  I guarantee you don’t really “understand”.  Why pretend otherwise?  Why not implicitly admit your ignorance and attempt to resolve that ignorance by asking questions of the very people who are trying to harass or oppress you?

Why not use your native ignorance (on which government relies) in the same way that a judo black belt uses his adversary’s momentum to throw him to the ground?  Make ’em answer your questions or admit that they don’t understand the law any better than you do.  If the government is ignorant of the law, they, too should have “no excuse” for proceeding against anyone.  It is conceivable that the government’s ignorance might be used as grounds to sue them for “false” or “malicious” prosecution.  If I ask a question that’s central to my being prosecuted and my adversary can’t answer may question and makes no effort to find the answer to my question, does his failure to seek the answer to my questions constitute evidence of his malice towards me?  Could his failure to seek the answers to my legitimate and relevant questions be grounds for alleging malicious prosecution?

If your governmental opponents refuse or otherwise fail to answer your questions, it may be that they thereby compel and sustain your ignorance.  If the gov-co subsequently brings charges against you in any court of equity, you might be able to argue that by compelling your ignorance, they approach the court with “unclean hands”.  In theory (or perhaps in fantasy), the case might therefore be dismissed.

Questions, questions, questions–based on nothing more than language, grammar and definitions of the words and phrases used by your adversaries to punish or exploit you–can be extremely helpful, educational and even fun.



Posted by on June 8, 2013 in IRS, Notice, Questions


Tags: , ,

19 responses to “Fun With Words and Phrases

  1. dasanco

    June 8, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    perhaps the answer IS — right in the 1040 instructions?

    starting on page 20 of the instruction we are told we must pay income tax on ALL sources of income … details to follow;

    the first of which is Foreign-Source Income and exactly what qualifies as Foreign-Source Income.

    the Domestic-Source Income detail is VERY interesting… everyone should read it for themselves!



  2. Mike

    June 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM

    Yep. It pretty much means that only monies paid by the Feds or personal gain from your exercise of a Federal prerogative are considered INCOME. This understanding has kept me tax free for twenty years this year. Pete Hendrickson did a fantastic job of showing the scam of definitions and the actual form the IRS provides for setting the record straight.

    • Mertensv16

      June 10, 2013 at 5:20 PM

      Hendrickson’s theory is bunk and resulted in his spending time in the pen. The exercise of a federal privilege has never been a condition to receiving income. This is best exemplified by the numerous Supreme Court decisions holding that money received from illegal activities is income. Pray tell, what federal privilege is involved in embezzlement or extortion?

      • RVC

        July 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM

        I am amused by the naivete of your interrogatory. ALL Federal privilege is embezzlement, and/or extortion. Seriously, though, Under the clear letter of Title 26, OSC, ALL Remuneration of ANY type or source whatsoever is considered as a result of the privilege of Federal employment, whether it be common law defined, or “in Service” to one dependent upon his or her status of Federal employment for their sustenance. Further, this is the VERY DEFINITION OF INCOME, which otherwise does not appear anywhere in the code. The Federal Income Tax, as it is applied, is a monstrous, constructive Fraud that has soaked trillions of dollars illegally in to the Federal maw since 1943. That the Fed would “include” (otherwise) illegal earnings should not be a surprise. Considering what they do, it is only just and proper.

        Pete Hendrickson went to Jail because of his PROOF of this fact, NOT his belief. The Federals have been trying for literally years, and were forced, eventually to resort to a purchased Judge. A reading of court transcripts proves this clearly. He was railroaded, plain and simple.

        Those who understand that the GOUS is the worlds largest continuing criminal enterprise will not be surprised.

  3. palani

    June 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM

    Ignorance is the want of knowledge. Ignorance might be of law and fact (object) or it might be voluntary or unvoluntary (origin) or then again it might be essential or non-essential (affairs of men). Bouvier has a good summary of each of these but it boils down to two salient points:

    1) Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

    2) Ignorance of a foreign law is classed ‘ignorance of a fact’ and as such is not criminal.

    Note that (1) establishes that there is a duty to understand and that this derives from either oath or contract. Citizenship is such a contract that makes all laws passed domestic. The last part of (1) narrows down the topic quite a bit for there are but few laws which every man is presumed to know. Principally these laws are written on stone tablets.

    Perhaps the trick is how to make (2) apply. How do you establish that you are foreign rather than domestic and you might then safely throw everything Congress passes as legislation into a bushel basket and store it in a deep, dark cellar where it will never see the light of day?

    • Yartap

      June 9, 2013 at 7:36 PM


      I have used “ignorance of the law” to my advantage. We know that this legal concept or principle used by the courts is based upon Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34) called the New Covenant, where the Lord said that He would put His laws in their minds and write it (laws) in their hearts. Once this is offered to the court and you have declared to be one of God’s people, then ask the court to show you the law which they intend to prosecute against you in the Holy Scriptures. Once they cannot provide the scripture as their law, then declare the state’s law to be of a “foreign nature.” Remember: before the New Covenant, Moses said that the law had to be read to the people once a year in public. Ask if the state has notified you about their law(s). Ignorance of the law can be permitted as a defense. You then work from a grand-fathering position due to lack of notice from the state and ask for dismissal.

  4. Peg-Powers

    June 8, 2013 at 7:33 PM

    Wow, I love this thought-provoking article.

    I collect old books, history books, accounting, and tax books. Back one hundred years ago the word “income” had only ONE meaning: PROFIT. Profit meant GAIN. If you had no gain you had no income to brag about. And to calculate to see if you had a profit you first deducted all expenses incurred for the time period; including your salary expense paid to yourself rather than paid to some other bloak.

    Aha, but something must have happened around 1933-34! Oh yes, a bankruptcy under FDR. The Republic disappeared. Since then the international creditors have taken in their hands complete control by “emergency administration”. In all, there is now 193 bankrupt members sitting on FOREIGN soil in New York City, in the United Nations building.

    The creditors now rely heavily on the “contributions” of we stupid silent slaves toiling under the TEN PLANKS of the COMMUNIST (democratic) MANIFESTO.

    Black is White. Good is Evil. Strong is Weak. Men are women. Women are Men. Freedom is Slavery. And words don’t mean anything much to we slaves.
    ad nauseam. Pardon my sarcasm.

  5. NDT

    June 9, 2013 at 1:07 AM

    Baron Parke’s maxim can be applied when there is ambiguity in statute. In my experience they _really_ don’t like it when you do this.

    “[it] is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the source itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no futher”

    Baron Parke, Becke v Smith (1836)

  6. Tadeusz Kościuszko

    June 9, 2013 at 10:41 AM

    Adask I figure this much. We are entitled to equal and fair protection under the law! Well that would have to be all laws. Corporations write off all their expenses first, so we have that right also.
    I would happily give 100% percent to the government after the expenses! If we have debt dollars that we don’t personally own legally, “the federal reserve owns them” how o how can we be taxed on a debt? I compel you to answer if we are taxed with a debt, and it takes more debt to pay the original debt, how can you escape? It would be equivalent of a person saying let me help you swim, or dog paddle, to stay a float. Then that same person continues adding a sinker in your pocket every couple of minutes! I must also say to you, why in the hell would congress put the former head of the IRS on national t.v. under oath and ask them if taxes are voluntary? Former IRS head directors answer” yes sir”. Again on the record for Americans yes we have a voluntary tax system. Well enough said!

  7. palani

    June 9, 2013 at 11:37 AM

    “If you can’t trust us we are going to have some problems”

    Question … does Obama occupy an office of trust or an office of profit?

  8. Anthony Clifton

    June 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    Justice is not a concern of the talmudic {legal} so-called court system in the hijacked land mass cartographers designate as the UNITED STATES…

    the so-called USGOV does not exist or operate in GOOD FAITH.

    Economic Terrorists are not interested in smart alec contrarians pretending that Truth or Justice is any concern of theirs..

    The so-called Republic ceased to exist DE FACTO in 1860.

    during the second trial after 3 grand jury indictments of Richard Simkanin the so-called IRS agent
    when asked the definition of EMPLOYEE replied…”actually there are 17 different definitions of the word “EMPLOYEE”….most rational people if given a choice would probably not choose to be an

    EMPLOYEE…naturally they should never have sought employment or surrendered any rights for benefits and or privileges offered by the Synagogue of Satan Talmudic Terrorists….running the so-called


    Jesus declared “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed”….

    Inscription on the Liberty Bell –

    Leviticus 25:10

    Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

    2 Corinthians 3:17

    Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty…

    there are only two kingdoms…and “we” have a choice as to which one we inhabit

    mentally, spiritually & physically….

  9. pop de adam

    June 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM

    I’ve been quite curious as to how anyone can be forced to sign any of these forms. I’ve heard the forms have no value without a signature, which might make them a pledge/vow to be subscibed to.
    Most if not all of these forms include the phrase to the effect: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” By signing under “the penalties of perjury” those prosecuting someone might presume the defendant had already sworn or taken an oath. Those executing some agency of government are those who in fact had already take an oath or pledge. When someone who hasn’t taken this oath signs under it, they may actually be perjuring themselves by doing so. From the governments perspective you might have done one of two things (1) you are actually a government employee in deriliction of his duties (2) you are not a government employee and by using a form specificly for government use you are impersonating one.

    It is probably best not to sign paperwork you don’t fully understand.

  10. bandit

    June 11, 2013 at 8:04 AM

    sorry i cant rewrite this Italian blog in English but im sure Google translate can give help.
    the double speak that is prevalent in society as a whole, does have a root and this root is in the character from mythology called Janus. If you could research this further you will find that the sacrificing of a “lamb” is needed to further the aim of mankind as being the master of his destiny. something to think about is that this knowledge is held as secret yet right in front of peoples noses. Maybe one can correlate the religious scripts with the story of Janus and how these festivals held are the beginning of a conscious effort by “Satan” to become the world ruler at some later date.

  11. dan

    June 12, 2013 at 1:11 PM

    i know they get pissed if you sign 1040’s appended “All Rights Reserved”. for a word search of the tax code….you’ll find it enlightening


    September 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM

    Hi there I am so excited I found your weblog, I really found you by accident,
    while I was looking on Digg for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible
    post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added in your
    RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more,
    Please do keep up the awesome work.

  13. Debra Bryant

    April 9, 2014 at 5:44 PM

    I am not one smidgin as smart as the rest of you that comment on here, but I found this article and was wondering what you all make of it:
    “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions”

    By Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
    Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General

    Imagine you are sitting in a packed movie theater waiting for Titanic to begin, with one aisle running down the middle, separating the seats into two wings. The theater owner thinks you are all in his theater, but you know otherwise. Those who hold popcorn in their right hands, sit in the right wing; those who hold popcorn in their left hands, sit in the left wing. No? Well, just imagine it’s that way, okay? Titanic the movie is just a fiction, albeit a magnificent one.

    Now, each person in the right wing looks across the aisle and sees nothing but foreign lefties. They are domestic types, these righties, and they stick together. Oddly, the lefties are no different in this regard. They look across the aisle and see nothing but foreign righties, because lefties stick together too. It’s all a question of where you’re sitting (or standing), during intermission. Please don’t stand during the movie, okay?

    Now, in courts, the issue of standing has a very special meaning. Where you might be standing has immense bearing on the laws which apply, and don’t apply, to you. We chose the theater analogy above, because it helps to illustrate a very important concept in federal law, and that is the distinction between foreign and domestic jurisdictions.

    The key which unlocks a great deal of confusion, and deception, is to know that the laws of every other State are foreign with respect to the one State you now inhabit. Thus, if you live in California, the laws of Maine, Florida, and Oregon are foreign to your home State’s own laws. You are like those people who prefer the right wing in theaters: everyone who sits in the left wing is somewhat foreign to everyone who sits in the right wing. The aisle running down the middle is the border, or boundary line dividing both wings into truly distinct groups.

    Once you understand this relative distinction, you only need to take one more leap, and you will become a budding expert in federal law. Here it is: the laws of the District of Columbia are also foreign with respect to the local, domestic laws of California, Maine, Florida, Oregon, and every other State in the Union. Likewise, the laws of every State in the Union are foreign with respect to the local, domestic jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

    But, you argue, Congress makes laws for the entire country, and the States of the Union are certainly part of our country, aren’t they? Yes, that is true. However, Congress passes laws in one of two modes, or roles. In one role, Congress can make laws for the entire country, which encompasses all 50 States. This is just one hat that Congress wears.

    In another role, Congress can make laws only for the District of Columbia, because Congress is the “state” legislature for that area of land. When Congress makes laws which apply only inside the District of Columbia, these laws are called “municipal” laws, and these domestic, “municipal” laws are just as foreign to the 50 States, as the laws of those 50 States are foreign with respect to D.C., and to each other. This is another hat which Congress wears.

    Now that you understand this important distinction between foreign and domestic, as those terms are used in American law, you are now ready to tackle a more difficult problem. Here goes: if a corporation is domestic by law, does that mean it was chartered by Congress? Answer: not necessarily. The correct answer depends on where you and it are standing.

    If you are standing in California, and if the corporation was chartered by the State of California, then the corporation is, indeed, domestic, because it is on the same side of the aisle as you. But, if you cross the aisle and join the lefties, then that corporation becomes foreign with respect to your new situation. If you are standing in Nevada, that corporation is foreign to you.
    Similarly, if a corporation was originally chartered in the District of Columbia, and you are standing in California or Nevada, then that corporation is likewise foreign with respect to where you are now standing. Foreign and domestic are relative concepts, in law.

    The key which unlocks this whole matter of corporations is to appreciate that Congress can only charter a corporation in its capacity as the legislature for the District of Columbia and for other areas which are not States of the Union. Collectively, these other areas are now called the “federal zone,” and the States of the Union are collectively called the “state zone.”

    Here’s a real easy way to remember this: the stars on the American flag are each States of the Union (the state zone). The blue field behind the stars is the federal zone. The stripes symbolize the original thirteen colonies. Gold fringes are really superfluous.

    Because of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, Congress is prevented from creating a truly national corporation. The Tenth Amendment reserves to each of the 50 States a right to charter their own local, domestic corporations. These State corporations are, in turn, foreign with respect to all federal corporations chartered by Congress, without exception.

    Now, think back to our theater analogy. The theater owner thinks that all of you are in his theater (read “under his jurisdiction”). In one sense, that is true. He owns the theater, and he can demand that customers leave if they are damaging the seats, for example.

    But, in another sense, when movies are showing, he really needs to stay in the projection booth, because that’s what his customers have paid him to do. In a sense, his “jurisdiction” is then limited to the projection booth when movies are showing, and movie goers occupy the larger area where the seats are situated. That larger area is their “jurisdiction,” not his.

    To be technical about it, the projection booth is foreign with respect to each wing of seats; the left wing is also foreign with respect to the right wing AND to the projection booth; the right wing is foreign with respect to the projection booth AND to the left wing. Each pair-wise relation defines a separate foreign/domestic relationship, depending on where one is seated, or “standing” in law. The land where you are now standing is always domestic, extending up to, but not beyond, your State’s border. Hence, everything outside is foreign in this context.

    There is one more facet to this analogy which we need to explore. The theater owner does have certain vested rights of ownership. He can evict offensive customers, and those who might trespass into the theater during off-hours. But, he cannot violate their fundamental Rights.

    Congress has been vested with certain “national” responsibilities, and these comprise a very limited set of authorities which Congress can exercise inside the state zone. Outside the state zone and inside the federal zone, Congress can create lots of local, municipal laws that are enforceable only inside the federal zone. But, Congress cannot wear both hats at once.

    The most surprising, and even stunning discovery we made in 1992, was to prove that the Internal Revenue Code is a local, municipal Code for the federal zone, and only for the federal zone, as far as federal income taxes are concerned. A federal court in Texas has even agreed.

    If you really want to read the rest of this story, you will have to buy your own copy of “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue,” eighth edition, soon to be published in hard copy. Please avoid any electronic copies that were posted on the Internet. Every one of those copies was stolen, modified, and then placed on the Internet without this author’s prior permission. If you want to see the movie, please buy a ticket. Oh, one last thing: “internal” means “municipal”. Municipal Revenue Code? YES! Film at 11. Please take a seat.
    # # #

    Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., is a Counselor at Law, qualified Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, and a Citizen of California State. He is also the creator and webmaster of the Supreme Law Library and Supreme Law Forum at Internet URL:

    Thanks you for any attention you give this submission.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s