Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

c/o 501 West Broadway #A-332

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

Fax: (619) 232-2011 (use Cover Sheet)

In Propria Persona

without Prejudice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE P. GAKOUMIS, ) Case No. 07-CV-3341

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KATHLEEN SETTIMI, )

)

Defendant. )

------------------------------)

)

United States ) NOTICE OF INTERVENTION:

ex relatione )

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) 28 U.S.C. 530B, 547, 2403(a);

) 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 912, 1001, 1341,

Intervenor. ) 1621, 1622, 1961 et seq.; IRC 877,

) 6065, 7421; 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62);

) RRA98; and FRCP 24(a), (c)

______________________________) (United States not (yet) a Party).

COMES NOW the United States (“Intervenor”) ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness (hereinafter “Relator”) to notify this honorable Court of Intervenor’s intervention of right, effected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), and to provide timely written Notice to all interested Parties of same.

The following meritorious issues warrant formal intervention by the United States (Federal government), to wit:

(1) Ms. Anita B. Brody dba United States District Judge has issued a “NOTICE” dated August 13, 2008, alleging that the above captioned case was closed on June 5, 2008, by means of an “ORDER” issued by this Court on June 4, 2008. Both the latter “NOTICE” and latter “ORDER” are predicated upon the rebuttable presumption that Mr. Benjamin J. Weir had proper authority and proper powers of attorney to file a MOTION TO DISMISS on behalf of named Defendant Settimi.

(a) After retaining professional Counsel on this point, the Plaintiff submitted a proper Request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) for key credentials required of Mr. Weir by applicable Federal statutes and regulations. To date, those credentials have not been produced, and Plaintiff’s original FOIA Request is now PAST DUE. Each of those required credentials now assumes facts not in evidence before this honorable Court. See 5 U.S.C. 2906, for starters.

(b) Even if said credentials should be produced at some as yet unknown point in the future, Intervenor now possesses documentary proof that United States Attorneys have no powers of attorney legally to represent officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service. As Trust #62 domiciled in San Juan, Puerto Rico, under color of the former Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”), the Internal Revenue Service is not a de jure service, bureau, office or other subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. As such, its officers and employees are not “collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs” as the latter phrase occurs in the statute which confers general powers of attorney on U.S. Attorneys. See 28 U.S.C. 547(3).

In the “criminal” case captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] v. WISHART, Case Number CR-00-20227-JF, USDC/NDCA, this very point was raised by defendant Donald E. Wishart. When challenged to produce proof of his requisite power of attorney legally to represent IRS employees, the U.S. Attorney assigned to that case could only cite two (2) Federal Regulations: 28 CFR 0.70(b) and 28 CFR 0.13.

Willful misrepresentation here is a violation of the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B, if not also felony violations of the criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. §§ 912, 1001, 1341 and 1961 et seq. (racketeering).

As defendant Wishart subsequently explained in his REPLY to the Government’s response, neither Regulation grants any power(s) of attorney to DOJ, or to the Office of the U.S. Attorney (“OUSA”), to represent IRS or IRS personnel in Federal courts. The only mention of the IRS therein is the explicit exclusion at 28 CFR 0.70(b), to wit:

The following functions are assigned to and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division: ...

(c) Criminal proceedings arising under the internal revenue laws, except the following: Proceedings pertaining to the misconduct of Internal Revenue Service personnel ....

For the edification of this honorable Court, and also for the convenience of all interested Party(s), the pertinent pleadings are archived here in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wishart/cross.complaint.2.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wishart/reply.cross.complaint.2.htm

Accordingly, Plaintiff has concluded from all evidence presently available to Him, that Mr. Benjamin J. Weir does not enjoy any lawful powers of attorney legally to represent Defendant Settimi; and, therefore no MOTION TO DISMISS was ever filed, ever served, or properly before this honorable Court in the first instance.

(2) Plaintiff has already filed and served a body of pleadings sufficient to constitute a proper challenge to the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), with particular emphases on subtitle A of that IRC and on all of its implementing Regulations taken as a single group of text. Plaintiff can easily demonstrate one “tip of the iceberg” –- to use a colloquial phrase –- by highlighting the formal verification found on Page 3 of Defendant’s DECLARATION dated November 13, 2007. That verification conforms to the option for verifications made “without the United States” at 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Having signed that DECLARATION “without the United States” at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -- the historical Cradle of American Liberty -- Defendant Settimi correctly admitted that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is “without” or “outside” the “United States” (Federal government) and “within” or “inside” the “United States of America” (aka 50 States of the Union), as a matter of Law.

Moreover, the perjury jurat on IRS Form 1040 conforms to verifications that are made “within” or “inside” the “United States” (Federal government) as defined at IRC subsection 7701(a).

Furthermore, the conspicuous title on IRS Form 1040 is actual notice to all prospective signers that Form 1040 is legally intended only for “U.S. Individuals” [sic]. By simply combining the statutory definitions at IRC sections 7701(a)(1) and 7701(a)(30), it is very easy to deduce that a “United States Individual” is the living, breathing human variant of “United States person”. All other variants are artificial, juristic entities like corporations. See 7701(a)(30), and 26 CFR 1.1-1 in this very same context (making Federal citizens and resident aliens specifically liable for IRC subtitle A taxes).

Therefore, the latter definition at IRC 7701(a)(30) limits the meaning of “U.S. Individual” to Federal citizens and resident aliens. However, because Plaintiff has only recently obtained verifiable proof that He is not now, nor has He ever been, a Federal citizen or a resident alien, it is entirely inappropriate for Plaintiff to sign Form 1040 “under the penalties of perjury”. See IRC 6065 here.

Intentional perjury on Form 1040 is a serious felony Federal offense, violating the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1621. Likewise, the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1622 also imposes felony penalties for subornation of perjury. As Intervenor now argues Defendant may be implicated in either directly suborning perjury, aiding and abetting subornation of perjury, conspiracy to suborn perjury, and/or being an accessory after the fact to subornation of perjury. In this context, see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 3.

(3) The habitual confusion which U.S. Attorneys persist in maintaining between the terms “United States” on the one hand, and “United States of America” on the other hand, is another facet of the fraudulent vagueness of which Intervenor now formally complains. The statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only place in all of Title 28 of the U.S. Code where the term “United States of America” is used; and, there it is used in correct contradistinction to “United States”. As Relator has already explained in the Answer to Question #16 in his famous “31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service”:

Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer’s signature?

Answer: This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one’s signature.

This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications: (1) those executed outside the “United States” and (2) those executed inside the “United States”. These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively. What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed “outside the United States”. In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of the United States of America”.

Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of America” are both used in this same statute. They are not one and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.

It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”) if and when they are executed inside the 50 States of the Union (read “the State zone”). Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed inside the “United States”.

See: http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm (hyperlinked)

More to the point of this all important distinction, in the “ORDER” dated June 4, 2008, Ms. Anita B. Brody added this comment:

Because I dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, I do not reach whether the United States of America should be substituted for defendant Settimi. [emphases added]

Although seemingly innocuous and/or moot, this comment goes right to the heart of the manifold frauds that exist throughout IRC subtitle A, chiefly by deliberately confusing the “United States” and the “United States of America”. Under no circumstances could this honorable Court legally “substitute United States of America” for Defendant Settimi; this Court has absolutely no authority to substitute the 50 States of the Union, as such, for an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service who is a Named Defendant in Federal court litigation. The 50 States of the Union are not Proper Parties to the instant action. Quod erat demonstrandum! (That is what has now been demonstrated.)

Making matters that much more serious, with felony criminal implications, Intervenor has already cited a Federal “criminal” case in which the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic] attempted to appear as a Proper Plaintiff. Intervenor has now proven conclusively, both in and out of Federal courts, that “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” did incorporate twice in the State of Delaware; however, the Delaware Secretary of State subsequently revoked the charters of both foreign corporations.

Even if they were still in good standing and not revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State, Delaware corporations are “foreign” with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of the “United States” (Federal government); and, as such, they may not be represented legally by United States Attorneys. The latters’ powers of attorney simply do not reach legal representation of any “foreign” corporations. And, Congress has also never appropriated funds for U.S. Attorneys legally to represent any foreign corporations, like the two (2) that incorporated in Delaware with the name “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.

Insofar as any of its numerous sections is not unconstitutional, IRC subtitle A is Federal municipal law with no legal or territorial jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and also with no In Personam jurisdiction over Citizens of Pennsylvania who are not also Federal citizens by Right of election (also known as “Freedom of Choice”). Freedom! Quo vadis, freedom? Quo vadis?

In this context, please also see all pertinent IRC sections that recognize and authorize “expatriation to avoid the tax” e.g. IRC section 877. In point of fact, Plaintiff has no need to “expatriate” formally, because He was never a Federal citizen by birth or by election. There are two (2) classes of citizens under American Law.

(4) On a scale of difficulty from 1 to 10, the next important issue easily ranks in the upper half of that scale, depending on the reader’s level of prior knowledge and reading comprehension. The “ORDER” allegedly issued by this Court on June 4, 2008, made the following finding:

Because Gakoumis sought the withdrawal of the IRS Notices of Levy, and because the IRS has withdrawn these notices, this action is no longer ripe for adjudication. [emphasis added]

See the Defendant’s DECLARATION dated November 13, 2007, for each NOTICE OF LEVY which Defendant formally withdrew, allegedly for being “issued prematurely” [sic]. In particular, see Defendant Settimi’s transmittal letters also dated November 13, 2007, in that DECLARATION.

Intervenor has now received from Plaintiff true copies of the following NOTICES OF LEVY, each of which exhibits a date in the year 2008 i.e. proving each was issued after Defendant’s DECLARATION:

Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. K. Settimi 3/28/2008

Citizens Bank K. Settimi 7/10/2008

Bank of America K. Settimi 7/10/2008

The NOTICE OF LEVY to Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. is particularly important in this context because it was issued by the Defendant after November 13, 2007, and before this Court’s “ORDER” of June 4, 2008.

Whose legal responsibility was it to disclose this particular NOTICE OF LEVY to the Court? Benjamin J. Weir’s? Kathleen Settimi’s? Plaintiff’s? Morgan Stanley’s? There is still more relevant text in this Court’s “ORDER” of June 4, 2008, quoting again:

On November 13, 2007, the IRS sent letters to each of the recipients of the Notices of Levy releasing the levies that had been sent on August 6, 2007. Settimi moved to dismiss [sic] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because the IRS had already released the notices of levy, arguably rendering Gakoumis’s claims moot and stripping this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

[emphasis added]

Well now, is it not painfully obvious that at least one additional NOTICE OF LEVY was issued by the Defendant prior to the “ORDER” of June 4, 2008?

And, is it not also painfully obvious that at least three (3) additional NOTICES OF LEVY were issued by the Defendant after her DECLARATION dated November 13, 2007? More could be coming still!

Evidently, not one of these latter three (3) NOTICES OF LEVY was ever placed into evidence in the instant case, by Weir or Settimi.

Intervenor now argues that the facts as stated immediately above do strongly suggest an intent by the Defendant to conceal at least one of the latter three NOTICES OF LEVY from this honorable Court. Please confer now at “Fraud” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (i.e. fraud is a failure to disclose what should have been disclosed).

The fraud does not stop there. Plaintiff has also invoked the FOIA formally to request copies of all procedurally proper ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES for the various time periods in question. To date, Relator has received copies of documents provided to Plaintiff in reply to said FOIA Requests, and not one is a bona fide “CERTIFICATE” that has been duly “certified” under the penalties of perjury by an authorized Assessment Officer, as required by the clear Federal statute at IRC 6065. A “certificate” must be duly “certified”!

Furthermore, Plaintiff has also investigated 26 CFR 1.6065-1, the Federal Regulation implementing IRC section 6065: even though certain exceptions are listed in that Regulation, no exception is made there for ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES that are clearly mandated by IRC 6065, by pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) and by the Regulation implementing “Method of assessment” at 26 CFR 301.6203-1.

This Court will also kindly take formal judicial notice of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (“RRA98”), which rendered all IRM provisions legally enforceable: IRS officers and employees can now be disciplined or terminated for violating any provision of the IRM.

In particular, the IRM now mandates that a procedurally proper Assessment Certificate must be made before any tax collections may commence. See IRM sections 5.17.2.3 and 5.12.2.2. The former IRM section 5.17.2.3 reads as follows:

1. The federal tax lien arises when the Service meets the requirements of IRC § 6321, i.e., an assessment and a notice and demand for payment. ...

2. Prior to filing a NFTL, the Service should verify the outstanding liability and determine that the filing of the notice of lien is appropriate under the circumstances.

The latter IRM section 5.12.2.2 reads as follows:

1. A Federal Tax Lien (FTL) is created by statute and attaches to a taxpayer’s property and rights to property for the amount of the liability. This is the "statutory" or "silent" FTL. See IRC 6321. The following must occur for the FTL to arise:

A. An assessment must have been made. [emphases added]

In this context, please see the holdings in U.S. v. Brafman, 384 F.2d 863 (5^th Cir. 1967), which clearly explain that “assessment” has a binding technical meaning that is not open to a variety of diverse and conflicting interpretations. Likewise, the legal meaning given to “Date of Assessment” is also very well defined, and binding.

Notice also the term “verify” at IRM section 5.17.2.3 above. There should be absolutely no dispute that an ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE is a document that is required to be made under provisions of the internal revenue laws and regulations, as that latter nomenclature occurs expressly at IRC section 6065. Quod erat demonstrandum!

Further to the facts strongly suggesting fraud by the Defendant in this case, at times past Plaintiff has been served with a volley of NOTICES OF DETERMINATION. In each of five (5) different NOTICES OF DETERMINATION transmitted by IRS personnel via Certified U.S. Mail, the following two (2) identical statements are made:

“Assessment was made on the applicable Due Process Notice periods per IRC § 6201.”

“The Notice and Demand for payment letter was mailed to your last known address within 60 days of the assessment, as required by IRC § 6303.” [emphases added]

Due to all of the fraud now apparent in the Defendant’s actions, which should be under deliberate judicial review in this case, Plaintiff has supplemented His prior FOIA Requests with additional FOIA Requests for the requisite NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, proof of mailing the latter via Certified or Registered U.S. Mail, the procedurally proper ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES which were obviously alleged above, and the required NOTICE AND DEMAND for payment with proof confirming that the latter was served either in person or via U.S. Mail.

To date, none of the latter documents has been produced by the IRS personnel who originated the NOTICES OF DETERMINATION now in question here. This Court will also please give special scrutiny to the five (5) Certified U.S. Mail label serial numbers which occur conspicuously on the first page of each such NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. These label serial numbers have been confirmed by accessing the “Track & Confirm” system at the Internet website of the U.S. Postal Service. There is no question that these NOTICES were transmitted via U.S. Mail, but to date Plaintiff has still not received documents that are clearly required of the IRS by applicable statutes and regulations!

The relevant Federal court decisions that bear on the facts as summarized above are sampled as follows (emphases added infra):

Even if a taxpayer waives right to prepayment litigation in Tax Court by not acting within 90-day period after deficiency notice and taxpayer does not voluntarily pay tax, government must first send notice and demand letter and then wait ten days before it levies on taxpayer’s property in the normal, as opposed to jeopardy case.

[Schreck v. U.S., 301 F.Supp. 1265]

[USDC/D. Maryland 1969]

Appropriate remedy for federal government’s error in assessing tax deficiency without first issuing a required notice of deficiency to taxpayers was order voiding tax assessment itself, and not merely the government’s tax lien.

[Snyder v. IRS, 337 B.R. 542]

[USDC/D. Maryland 2005]

Where IRS disallowed certain miscellaneous itemized deductions claimed on income tax return and made assessment based thereon without issuing notice of deficiency, such assessment was invalid, and levy could not proceed.

[Freije v. C.I.R., 125 T.C. 14]

[U.S. Tax Court 2005, unreported]

Taxpayer could sue to enjoin IRS from seizing his wages, until it had first complied with statutory notice of deficiency requirements, under exception to Anti-Injunction Act authorizing injunction to prohibit assessment or levy when taxpayer has not received notice of deficiency.

[Heun v. Williams, 864 F.Supp. 169]

[USDC/W.D. Oklahoma 1994]

Unless government has first pursued formal deficiency procedures, no income tax deficiency can be assessed and no levy or court proceeding for collecting income tax deficiency may be begun or prosecuted, and if government essays to do so, the making of such assessment or levy may be enjoined by a proceeding in proper court ....

[U.S. v. Bonaguro, 294 F.Supp. 750]

[USDC/E.D. New York 1968]

Where no tax deficiency has been asserted against one whose property is seized, a suit against the government for injunctive relief seems peculiarly appropriate, for the aggrieved party, not being an alleged tax delinquent, would have no opportunity in the ordinary channels of tax litigation to contest the validity of the government’s assessment.

[Floyd v. U.S., 361 F.2d 312]

[(4^th Cir. 1966)]

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION BY STATUTORY RIGHT

Intervenor hereby notoriously exercises its statutory right to intervene, pursuant to the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), to wit:

In any action, suit or proceeding in a court of the United States to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The United States shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality.

[bold and underline emphases added]

Thank you for your professional consideration.

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: August 19, 2008 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

______________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION:

28 U.S.C. 530B, 547, 2403(a);

18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 912, 1001, 1341, 1621, 1622, 1961 et seq.;

IRC 877, 6065, 7421; 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62);

RRA98; and FRCP 24(a), (c)

(United States not (yet) a party)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

Clerk of the Court (3x) George P. Gakoumis, Plaintiff (1x)

Attn: Judge Anita Brody c/o 841 Edgehill Road

U.S. Courthouse Glenside 19038

601 Market Street, Room 2609 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Philadelphia 19106-1797

PENNSYLVANIA, USA

Kathleen Settimi (1x) Benjamin J. Weir (1x)

dba Revenue Officer U.S. Department of Justice

Internal Revenue Service P.O. Box 227

600 Arch Street, Room 3256 Washington 20044

Philadelphia 19106 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

PENNSYLVANIA, USA

Courtesy Copy:

Office of Chief Counsel (1x)

Internal Revenue Service

c/o U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington 20220

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Dated: August 19, 2008 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

______________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General