Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State
and Federal Witness [sic]
c/o 5150 Graves Avenue, Suite 12-C
San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona and
by Special Appearance Only
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic],)
Case Number CR-00-20227-JF
)
Plaintiff [sic], ) FIRST CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY
& INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
v. )
)
4 U.S.C. 101;
DONALD E. WISHART [sic], )
5 U.S.C. 551,
552; 3331;
) 28 U.S.C. 547, 1746, 2201;
Defendant [sic] ) 31 U.S.C.
301;
_______________________________) Article VI, Clause 3.
COMES NOW Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State, expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic], and Defendant in the above entitled matter (“Defendant”), to petition this honorable Court: for declaratory and injunctive relief as to whether the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has any power(s) of attorney to represent the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in federal courts; whether IRS is an “agency” as that term is used in the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”); and whether IRS employees are mandated by Law to execute the Oath of Office required by Article VI, Clause 3 (“6:3”) in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”); and for all other relief which the Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances.
This honorable United States District Court (“USDC”) has original jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief in the instant case, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act at 28 U.S.C. 2201.
Defendant specifically complains that newly found evidence appears to indicate DOJ does not have general power(s) of attorney to represent the IRS in federal courts.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), the President may appoint, by and with the advice of the U.S. Senate, an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, who shall be the Chief Counsel for the IRS.
Said Chief Counsel is the chief law officer for the IRS, and shall carry out duties and powers prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
Titles 1 and 31 of the United States Code have been enacted into positive law, pursuant to the requirements in Title 1, U.S.C.
Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to conclude that the chain of command, as far as power(s) of attorney are concerned, reaches the IRS from the Congress, via the President, directly to said Chief Counsel.
No chain of command, or delegation of authority, appears to exist from the Congress or from the President, directly to DOJ, except for those powers of attorney specifically delegated by 28 U.S.C. 547. Title 28, U.S.C., has also been enacted into positive law.
Defendant specifically denies that 28 U.S.C. 547 authorizes DOJ to appear in federal courts on behalf of IRS or IRS employees.
Defendant specifically denies that employees of the IRS are “collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs”, as those terms are used at 28 U.S.C. 547(3). See also 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
There is no statute anywhere within Title 31, U.S.C., which specifically created the IRS as a department, agency or bureau authorized to exist within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. See Title 31, U.S.C., Subtitle I, Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Organization.
Defendant specifically requests this Court to declare whether or not the IRS is an “agency”, as that term is defined in the FOIA.
Defendant also requests this Court to declare whether or not IRS employees are required to execute the Oath of Office mandated by 6:3 supra; whether employees of the IRS are required by any federal statute(s) to execute said Oath; and, if employees of the IRS are required by federal statute(s) to execute said Oath, to identify said statute(s), in the particulars, by appropriate citations to the Statutes at Large (“Stat.”), Public Laws (“P.L.”), and corresponding United States Code section(s) (“U.S.C.”), if any. See 4 U.S.C. 101.
Defendant needs declaratory relief because Defendant has recently submitted requests, under the FOIA, for the Appointment Affidavits of several IRS employees. Said requests were mailed, via first class U.S. Mail, to the “Disclosure Officer” [sic] at IRS in San Jose, California.
If the IRS is not an
“agency” as that term is defined in the FOIA, then it would
necessarily follow that Defendant cannot, and should not, utilize the FOIA to request such a
document from the IRS, in the first instance.
Lex non cogit impossibilia.
Likewise, if IRS employees are not required by any constitutional provision, or any federal statute(s), to execute a valid Oath of Office, then it necessarily follows that Defendant cannot ever hope to obtain any Oaths of Office properly executed by employees of the IRS. Such Oaths would, in that case, simply not exist as a matter of Law.
INCORPORATION OF
EVIDENTIARY EXHIBITS
To support Defendant’s claim that it is the Chief Counsel of the IRS who is delegated power(s) of attorney to represent IRS in federal courts, Defendant attaches a certified copy of RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS in the case of Rodney W. and Lynnell R. Frazier v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, U.S. Tax Court, Docket No. 12644-97, Washington, D.C.
A true and correct copy of said RESPONSE is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
In said RESPONSE, one STUART L. BROWN is identified as the Chief Counsel [sic] for the IRS, who appears to have delegated his power(s) of attorney to one ALAN FRIDAY, Senior Attorney, Tax Court Bar No. FT0140, Birmingham, Alabama, i.e. an attorney in private practice.
Defendant submits that this evidence is entirely consistent with Defendant’s argument above that said Chief Counsel has power(s) of attorney to represent the IRS, and DOJ does not.
Defendant also attaches a document entitled “BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud” (aka “The Cooper File”) as Exhibit “B” and incorporates same by reference, as if set forth fully herein. Exhibit “B” contains verifiable evidence that IRS is an alias for Trust #62, domiciled in Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration [sic]. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C), i.e. “does not include” territories.
REMEDY REQUESTED
All premises have been duly considered, Defendant respectfully requests an interlocutory ORDER declaring, as a matter of Law, that:
(1) IRS was never created by any specific Act of Congress, either in Title 31, U.S.C., or elsewhere;
(2) DOJ enjoys no general powers of attorney to represent IRS, or IRS employees, in any federal courts;
(3) IRS is not an “agency” as that term is used in the FOIA at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1) and 552(f);
(4) IRS employees are not required to execute the Oath of Office mandated by Article VI, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution;
(5) IRS employees are not required by any existing federal statutes to execute the Oath of Office mandated by Article VI, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution;
(6) the President has appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Assistant General Counsel who is presently the Chief Counsel for IRS;
(7) the IRS Chief Counsel has no authority to delegate general power(s) of attorney to DOJ for purposes of appearing in federal court on behalf of IRS, or IRS employees;
(8) employees of the IRS are not “collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs” [sic], as those terms are used at 28 U.S.C. 547(3);
and all other relief which this honorable Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances.
I, Donald E. Wishart, 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, and that the attached documents are true and correct copies of their corresponding originals, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause in pari materia with all provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are supreme Law of the Land).
Dated: September 14, 2000 A.D.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State and
Federal Witness (18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513)
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
See Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914; 42 USCS 1983;
and Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (CC Cal, 1905)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
I, Donald E. Wishart, 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):
FIRST
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR
28 U.S.C. 547, 1746, 2201; 31 U.S.C. 301;
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:
Office of the U.S. Attorney Office of the U.S. Attorney
280 South First Street, Suite 371 312 North Spring Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] Los Angeles [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice
Western Criminal Enforcement Sec. West. Criminal Enforcement Sec.
P.O. Box 972, Ben Franklin Stn. P.O Box 972, Ben Franklin Stn.
Washington [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Federal Public Defender’s Office
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 575
San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
Executed on September 14, 2000 A.D.
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State and
Federal Witness (18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513)
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice