-----Original Message----- From: D Miller [ ]

advertisement

-----Original Message----- From: D Miller [ mailto:[email protected]

] Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Simplification Dear Panel Members; Your second order of business (since you appear not to be interested in the first) to simplify Title 26 USC is to address the "Liability At Law" condition precedent in bold print, right out front, "so to speak". As I am sure you understand that all laws do not apply to all people all the time. In other words there must be some sort of entry into the state of the forum. In the mid to late sixties BATF was formed and it appears that many of the old regulations did not get appropriately transferred to 27 CFR or eliminated from 26 CFR. Please do not delude yourselves into believing that your efforts are needed to finance the federal governments operations for to so do shows ignorance as to the workings of the fractional reserve monetary system. As for the first order of business - It is my understanding that you could care less about the constitutionality of the law emanating from you efforts. If it be true - that is a shame. You have nothing to fear by making a statement about the constitutionality of the current or any other tax system. The Gold Commission's Report to Congress in the 1980's said that to make the greenback legal tender was unconstitutional. Nothing changed. 2 April 2005 Daniel T. Miller P.O. Box 321 Geneseo, IL 61254

Download