William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Gadsden, Alabama state
non-domestic zip code exempt
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
STATE OF ALABAMA [sic] ) Case No. #CV-97-H-0022-M
)
Plaintiff [sic] ) 16th Cir. Case #CC-95-1083-DWS
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES PROVING
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP [sic], ) THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF
) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
Defendant [sic] ) (incorporating all attached
_____________________________) exhibits by reference)
COMES NOW William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris, Citizen of Alabama
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
citizen"), and Defendant in the above entitled action
(hereinafter "Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all
interested party(s), and to demand mandatory judicial notice by
this honorable Court, pursuant to Rules 201(d), 301, and 302 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence, of this, Defendant's MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROVING THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES, particularly for all 3 judges who have been
properly requested to issue a Warrant of Removal to this
honorable District Court of the United States ("DCUS"), and any
single judge who may be assigned to preside over preliminaries.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 1 of 11
1. Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) is controlling,
notwithstanding the so-called 16th Amendment, because said
"amendment" never repealed Article III, Section 1. Repeals by
implication are not favored, on authority of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. See U.S. v. Hicks, [cite omitted] (9th Cir.,
1991). Evans has never been overturned (see Shepard's
Citations), notwithstanding a UCLA Law Review article which
alleges the contrary. See Vol. 24, No. 2, December 1976, p. 308.
2. The 16th Amendment was effectively demolished by
respondent's total silence in People v. Boxer, California Supreme
Court, case number S-030016, December 1992. This case was a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus compelling Senator-elect Boxer to
witness the material evidence which the plaintiffs had assembled
against the ratification of that proposal. The California
Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals, for
an advisory opinion; that appellate panel denied the petition,
without explanation. However, respondent Boxer fell totally and
completely silent in the face of the affidavits of fact filed in
that case; those affidavits have now become the truth of the
case. Moreover, Boxer's silence is a fraud, pursuant to U. S. v.
Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977); and silence activates estoppel,
pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).
3. Title 26, United States Code ("U.S.C."), has never been
enacted into positive law. Therefore, Title 1, U.S.C., and
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") section 7851(a)(6)(A) both control;
specifically, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken
effect. Subtitle F contains all the enforcement provisions of
the IRC including, but not limited to, the grant of original
jurisdiction to prosecute alleged violations of the IRC. See 26
U.S.C. 7402. There are no regulations for this statute either,
thus limiting its application to federal officers, employees, and
contract agents of the United States (federal government),
pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1505(a). Title 44, U.S.C., has been
enacted into positive law.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 2 of 11
4. As far as the federal income tax is concerned, the only
liability statutes anywhere in the IRC (as distinct from Title
26) are found in the provisions for withholding agents [sic].
See IRC 1441, 1442, 1443, 1461, and the statutory definition of
"withholding agent" at IRC 7701(a)(16). One does not become a
withholding agent until and unless said agent accepts a valid W-4
"Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" (allowing
withholding). For many reasons like this, the federal income tax
is totally voluntary on compensation for services rendered.
5. The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) thru (c) are overly
broad for imposing liabilities which are not authorized by
statute, specifically, on "citizens of the United States" [sic]
and on "residents of the United States" [sic]. The doctrine of
"implied legislative approval" cannot prevail against all the
points supra. See Old Colony R. Co. v. C.I.R., 284 U.S. 552, 557
(1932), for example. Authorities must be expressly enumerated.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury was never authorized by any
Act of Congress to extend liability for the federal income tax in
such an overly broad fashion, as is the case in said regulations.
6. The term "citizen of the United States" has its
statutory origin in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and its
constitutional origin in the so-called 14th Amendment [sic],
which was never lawfully ratified, rendering section 4 of that
alleged amendment null and void ab initio, and permitting federal
judges, and all other federal employees, to question the validity
of the public debt. See the First Amendment; Dyett v. Turner,
439 P.2d 266 (1968); State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975).
Section 4 of the so-called 14th Amendment is one of the least
litigated provisions in the entire U.S. Constitution, unlike
other sections of that so-called amendment.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 3 of 11
7. The only basis remaining for taxing the compensation of
federal judges is the Downes Doctrine, which cannot be extended
into the state zone, nor to the judges who preside on federal
courts established for the state zone. The Downes Doctrine is
obsolete and unconstitutional, because Justice Harlan was correct
in his eloquent dissent in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
(1901), paraphrasing now: the limitations of the Constitution
extend to the farthest reaches of the known universe, as far as
United States (federal government) employees are concerned. The
Downes Doctrine has permitted a serious tear to rip the entire
fabric of Our constitutional Republic, as manifested by the
controversy now swirling about the proper distinction between the
USDC and the DCUS, their respective subject matter(s), and their
respective territorial jurisdiction(s).
8. The Downes Doctrine was attacked properly In re Grand
Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company, USDC,
Tucson, Arizona, case number GJ-95-1-6, but United States
District Judge John M. Roll exceeded his discretion in that case
by failing to rule on numerous proper and timely motions which
were before him, including a formal challenge to the
constitutionality of the Downes Doctrine. Judge Roll committed
over 100 felonies in that one case alone, and a proper judicial
complaint has been filed against Judge Roll, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 372(c). See Ninth Circuit docket number assigned to that
complaint, available from the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit in San
Francisco, California state. All pleadings, exhibits, and
related documents filed in that case are incorporated here by
reference, as if set forth fully herein, pursuant to Rule 201(d)
of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Full Faith and Credit
Clause. See Supremacy Clause; Seventh Amendment; FRCP Rule 38.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 4 of 11
9. Title 31, U.S.C., has been enacted into positive law,
pursuant to Title 1, U.S.C., but the "Internal Revenue Service"
[sic] ("IRS") is not listed in the organizational structure of
the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The only mention is an
authority for the President to appoint the General Counsel for
the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic]. This mention is
insufficient to identify the true organizational situs of the
"Internal Revenue Service."
10. The "Internal Revenue Service" has now been proven to
be an alias for Trust #62, which is domiciled in Puerto Rico
under the Federal Alcohol Administration ("FAA"), but the FAA was
declared unconstitutional in the year 1935 by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The FAA had its historical roots in Prohibition, which
was motivated by the goal of monopolizing automotive fuels for
the benefit of the petroleum cartel. See the Volstead Act and
the attached Affidavit of author Paul Andrew Mitchell,
summarizing this motive. See also "The Cooper File."
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 5 of 11
11. Taxing the compensation of federal employees creates an
unnecessary and deceptive bureaucracy, the primary purpose of
which is to skim money from the U.S. Treasury, for the benefit of
foreign banks and their alien owners. Congress should advertise
the "real" compensation paid to federal employees, and exempt
them from filing returns and from paying taxes on an "inflated"
salary, only a part of which the federal employee ever sees. For
this reason, the Public Salary Tax Act should be repealed,
because its deceptive purpose is unconstitutional.
12. The court of original jurisdiction to prosecute
violations of the IRC is defined in a statute which is found in
subtitle F. See 26 U.S.C. 7402. Subtitle F has never taken
effect because Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law.
For this reason alone, criminal prosecutions of alleged IRC
violations are legally impossible, and they create a massive tort
liability for the United States (federal government). See People
v. United States et al., DCUS, Billings, Montana state, as a
foundation for quantifying the real damages which have already
been done by the U.S. Department of Justice to untold numbers of
American Citizens (read "Citizens of one of the States United").
13. All United States (federal government) actions, civil
and criminal, which were done under authority of the Secretary of
the Treasury during Lloyd Bentsen's tenure in that office, were
ultra vires because he violated the U.S. Constitution when he
voted to increase the pay for that office, as a U.S. Senator, and
then he vacated his Senate seat to claim the office of Secretary.
However, Lloyd Bentsen was not eligible for that office until the
end of his last Senate term. See Article I, Section 6, Clause 2
("1:6:2").
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 6 of 11
A FOIA request for a list of all civil and criminal cases
which were brought under his watch has not been answered to date.
This, again, has created a massive tort liability for the United
States (see point 12 above). Failure to answer this FOIA is
tantamount to fraud and obstruction of justice, not to mention a
host of other criminal torts. See IRC 7401 for the implications;
see also USA v. One 1972 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, 355 F.Supp.
513, 515 (1973). Failure to place proof of requisite
jurisdictional facts in the court record, when specifically
denied, is fatal to any court action. However, IRC 7401 is also
found in subtitle F of the IRC (see discussion at point 3 supra).
14. Lloyd Bentsen was unable to delegate any authority
downwards during the period in which he claimed to occupy the
office of Secretary of the Treasury. This disability has meant
that all tax assessments which were made by the Internal Revenue
Service (as opposed to voluntary taxpayer self-assessments) were
ultra vires per force, because the assessment officers could not
exercise any delegated authority. See U.S. v. Brafman, 384 F.2d
863, 867 (5th Cir. 1967) for a court authority holding that
assessment officers must sign assessments before they can be
valid; without delegation of authority, the signatures are not
those of assessment officers. Lex non cogit impossibilia. The
IRC defines the term "Secretary" to mean the "Secretary of the
Treasury or his delegate"; without delegation, there can be no
delegates. Without an authorized officer to head the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, there can be no Secretary of the
Treasury, and hence no Secretary whatsoever, under any
circumstances. Delegation was, therefore, impossible.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 7 of 11
15. The Appointment Affidavits signed by IRS employees are
unconscionable contracts, because they express the employees'
contractual commitment to support the U.S. Constitution;
however, it is quite simply impossible for Citizens to enforce,
and it is also impossible for public employees to obey, their
solemn oaths to support the U.S. Constitution, if the weight of
material evidence now proves that the exact provisions of that
Constitution are still in doubt, for any reason. See discussion
of 14th and 16th amendments [sic] supra; also People v. Boxer
supra. This question concerning the equitable nature of Oaths of
Office was specifically raised in People v. Boxer.
16. Again, the respondents In re Grand Jury Subpoena supra
properly and timely raised this objection, when the first
Appointment Affidavit was produced by the so-called "Special
Agent" in that case, in response to a proper request brought
under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"); but U.S. District
Judge John M. Roll abused his discretion by failing to rule on
that motion and decided instead to commit over 100 felonies,
including but not limited to 28 counts of mail fraud, 28 counts
of jury tampering, 28 counts of obstruction of justice, and 28
counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above. Judge Roll did,
however, rule that the USDC is not the proper forum to bring a
request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). See
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). If the USDC is not the proper forum to
bring a request under the FOIA, then neither is it the proper
forum for prosecuting any criminal violations of Title 18, U.S.C.
See 18 U.S.C. 3231, and rules of statutory construction in Title
1, U.S.C. Singular and plural refer to the same entity always.
Title 1, U.S.C., has been enacted into positive law. See
Supremacy Clause. The Administrative Office of the United States
Courts has alleged, in writing, that U.S. District Judge John M.
Roll is an Article III judge.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 8 of 11
17. Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly has admitted, on House
stationery transmitted through the United States Postal Service
("USPS"), that the term "State" at IRC 3121(e) is restricted to
the named territories and possessions, and does not include the
several States of the Union. She put this admission in writing,
after first consulting with "experts" in the office of the
Legislative Counsel, and also in the office of the Congressional
Research Service. Rep. Kennelly's admission provides absolutely
stunning support for the main (and highly controversial) thesis
of a book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of
Internal Revenue, electronic fifth edition. Not long after
publication of the printed first edition in 1992, the Supreme
Court of the United States utilized the term "federal zone" as a
household word in their sweeping decision in U.S. v. Lopez, 115
S.Ct. 1624 (1995), Kennedy concurring. The term "federal zone"
now has a permanent place in the history of American
constitutional jurisprudence.
18. The Petitioner in the case of Burnett v. Commissioner,
KTC 1996-292, D.V.I. 1996, is reported to have prevailed against
the Respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on this
very same point, namely, the definition of "United States" is
restricted to the federal zone. The court in that case stated
that Subtitle A taxes apply only to the District of Columbia and
to the Territories of the United States. Referring to IRC
section 7701(a), Definitions, subsection (9), that court pointed
out that the term "United States" includes only the above. IRC
7701(a) reads "(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof --", and subsection (a)(9) reads "(9) United States. The
term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes
only the States and the District of Columbia." No other
definition of the term "United States" is offered anywhere in IRC
Subtitle A. A written request for a certified copy of that
court's written opinion was faxed to the Clerk of the USDC,
Virgin Islands, on Wednesday, January 22, 1997 (see attached).
For an authoritative discussion of these key definitions and
their proper construction, see the book The Federal Zone supra.
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 9 of 11
VERIFICATION
I, William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris, hereby declare, under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, without the "United States", and under knowledge of the
law forbidding false witness before God and men, attest and
affirm that I have read the foregoing and know the contents
thereof, and that the same is true of My own knowledge, except
those matters herein alleged on information and belief, and as to
those matters, I believe them to be true, so help Me God,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Executed on January 24, 1997:
/s/ Mike Kemp
________________________________
William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state
(expressly not a federal citizen)
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 10 of 11
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, without the "United States", that I am at least eighteen
years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s):
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PROVING THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF
FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
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:
Solicitor General William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
Department of Justice Supreme Court of U.S.
10th and Constitution, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
James E. Hedgspeth, Jr. Clerk of Court
Etowah County Offices District Court of the U.S. [sic]
c/o 800 Forrest Avenue c/o 1729 Fifth Avenue North
Gadsden, Alabama state Birmingham, Alabama state
Clerk of Court Attorney General
Circuit Court of Etowah County Department of Justice
c/o 800 Forrest Avenue 10th and Constitution, N.W.
Gadsden, Alabama state Washington, D.C.
Clerk of Court Chief Judge
Court of Criminal Appeals 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o P.O. Box 301555 c/o 56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Montgomery, Alabama state Atlanta, Georgia state
Executed on January 24, 1997:
/s/ Mike Kemp
_________________________________________________
William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state
(expressly not a federal citizen)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Memo of Points/Authorities, Federal Income Taxes on Judges:
Page 11 of 11
# # #
ATTACHMENT A:
"Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
# # #
ATTACHMENT B:
Fax Request to Clerk of USDC, Virgin Islands
# # #
ATTACHMENT C:
"Karma and the Federal Courts"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
# # #
ATTACHMENT D:
NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
APPEAL RESPONSE BY IRS DISCLOSURE OFFICER,
NOTICE OF PROBABLE FRAUD, AND
MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on
New Life Health Center Company
# # #
ATTACHMENT E:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND RECONSIDERATION,
AND CHALLENGE TO HOLDINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT:
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on
New Life Health Center Company
# # #
Attachment F:
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE:
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on
New Life Health Center Company
# # #
ATTACHMENT G:
Letter to Carol S. Sefren, Chief
Judges Compensation and Benefits Branch
Article III Judges Division
# # #
ATTACHMENT H:
FIRST AMENDMENT PETITION TO CONGRESS
FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
# # #
ATTACHMENT I:
"BATF/IRS -- CRIMINAL FRAUD"
by
William Cooper
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Alabama v. Kemp