Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim
c/o 5150 Graves Avenue, Suite 12-C
San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Donald E. Wishart, )
Docket No. CR-00-20227-JF
)
Cross-Plaintiff, ) FIRST
SUPPLEMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
v. ) FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
) AND
DAMAGES:
United States, )
Billy Brown, ) FRCP
Rules 64, 65;
Paul Camacho, ) IRC § 7809;
Don Hallenbeck, ) 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2);
Mel Steiner, ) Article I, Section 8, Clause 1;
Dan Sutherland, ) Article I, Section 9, Clause 7
Colbert Tang, )
Brian Watson, )
Ken Whitmore, )
Bay View Federal Bank, )
Internal Revenue Service, )
and Does 2 thru 100, )
)
Cross-Defendants.)
This is a civil action for declaratory and
injunctive relief, and damages, arising under the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties of the United States,
specifically Rules 64 and 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; section (“§”) 7809 of the Internal
Revenue Code; and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,
and Article 1, Section 9,
Clause 7, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully
amended (hereinafter “U.S.
Constitution”).
Mounting evidence recently confirmed by Cross-Plaintiff appears to indicate that named Cross-Defendant Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is systematically violating section 7809 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Said section clearly mandates that:
… collections of whatever nature received or collected by authority of any internal revenue law, shall be paid daily into the Treasury of the United States under instructions of the Secretary as internal revenue collections, by the officer or employee receiving or collecting the same, without any abatement or deduction on account of salary, compensation, fees, costs, charges, expenses, or claims of any description.
[IRC § 7809(a), bold emphasis added]
Statements verified under 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), and filed under the instant docket number supra, now suggest that monies being collected by IRS personnel are being deposited in a “quad zero” account and left there for at least one (1) full year, without proper accounting. See, for example, Treasury Order 91 (Rev. 1), May 12, 1986.
Monies collected by IRS have also been used in recent years to make cash awards, under color of the Internal Revenue Manual and of a now defunct federal program formerly called the Performance Management and Recognition System (“PMRS”).
PMRS abuses reportedly became so severe, Congress repealed this incentive system in 1993, but the abuses continued.
A FOIA request for records of all PMRS awards was met with a written admission –- by an IRS Tax Law Specialist -- that few records exist because the awards were paid in cash! See 5 U.S.C. 552; and Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq. This admission also raises the spectre of widespread federal income tax evasion (a felony) by every recipient of these cash awards, e.g. $25,000 per indictment of each “TC-148” a/k/a “illegal tax protester” [sic].
Other mounting evidence, recently confirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), at footnote 23, makes it clear that IRS was never created by any organic Act of Congress. See 31 U.S.C. in toto, for further confirmation. After tracing IRS genealogy all the way back to 1862, the high Court still failed to find any organic Act for the IRS. Compare 1 Stat. 65.
In 1994, the General Accounting Office (“GAO”) reported it was unable to audit $4.3 billion of the $6.7 billion -– a staggering sixty-four percent -- of its operating funds that IRS reported spending in FY 1992, because IRS could not account for all the money. See “Financial Management: IRS Does Not Adequately Manage Its Operating Funds,” Report to the Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, February 1994 (Chapter Report, 02/09/94, Report Number GAO/AIMD-94-33).
The situation has not improved since then. In March of 1999, GAO found that pervasive weaknesses in the design and operation of IRS’ financial management systems, accounting procedures, documentation, recordkeeping, and internal controls prevented GAO from rendering an unqualified opinion on five of IRS’ six principal financial statements. Put simply, they flunked. See “Internal Revenue Service: Results of Fiscal Year 1998 Financial Statement Audit,” March 1, 1999 (Report Number T-AIMD-99-103).
The worst shock of the last century was a startling admission in the final report of the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, commonly known as the Grace Commission (named after Chairman J. Peter Grace). The Grace Commission concluded that none of the federal income taxes collected by the IRS were being used to pay for any government services!
Instead, those collections are, evidently, being used to service the massive federal debt owed to banks, many of which are foreign banks, and to make income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs, e.g. federal pension plans. See “War on Waste: President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control,” New York, MacMillan Publishing Company, January 12, 1984 (ISBN 0-02-074660-1).
It
is extremely doubtful, if not impossible, that so much money would show up
missing, if IRS were not also violating IRC § 7809, daily and as a matter of
institutional policy. Can it be
trillions?
Further proof of IRC § 7809 violations can be found on the cancelled checks which untold numbers of taxpayers have submitted to pay federal income taxes, along with their completed Form 1040’s -- the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (not Individual Income [sic]).
Invariably, IRS endorses these checks payable to “Any F.R.B … in Payment of U.S. Oblig.”, and not to the Treasury of the United States. See 27 CFR 70.11: definitions of “Commercial bank” and “Treasury Account”; also Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982), holding that Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned entities and not federal agencies; 27 CFR 250.11: “Revenue Agent”, “Secretary” etc. defined; §§ 3(c), 6, 10 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, 59 Stat. 512, P.L. 171, July 31, 1945, in “A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941-49,” prepared at the request of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the Staff of the Committee and the Department of State, Washington, D.C., U.S. GPO (1950); 22 U.S.C. 286a; 31 U.S.C. 5341: national strategy.
Thus, Cross-Plaintiff argues that all IRS collections should be paid daily into the Treasury of the United States, as required by Law.
If this is not the case, no matter how large or small the sums of money may be, this Court has the power, authority, and legal obligation to issue a preliminary ORDER, with all deliberate speed, enjoining Cross-Defendant IRS from depositing collections of whatever nature into any account(s) other than the Treasury of the United States. See IRC §§ 7809(a), (b), and (d); FRCP Rule 65.
For the purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in this action, Cross-Plaintiff hereby also seeks an immediate ORDER freezing all assets of Cross-Defendant IRS, pursuant to FRCP Rule 64 and executed by other appropriate ORDER(s).
Cross-Plaintiff now formally names IRS –- believed to be an alias for Trust #62 domiciled in Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration -- as a formal Cross-Defendant in the instant case, and hereinafter substitutes “Internal Revenue Service” in place of formerly unnamed Cross-Defendant “Doe 1”. 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).
Cross-Plaintiff offers to prove that the links between the IRC, 26 CFR, and Title 27, U.S.C., have their historical roots in Prohibition (the Volstead Act), which permitted the petroleum cartel to establish a monopoly in automotive fuels, and permitted the United States to field a federal police force inside the States of the Union.
Once the monopoly was in place, Prohibition was lifted, leaving alcohol high and dry as the preferred fuel for automobiles, and leaving the federal police force in place -- to extort money from the American People. See, e.g. Pogue Carburetor patent (an efficient fuel vaporizer utilized in Allied tanks fighting field marshal Erwin Rommel in the North Africa campaign during World War II).
Cross-Plaintiff formally objects, in advance, to any and all attempts by duly appointed officers of the U.S. Department of Justice to appear on behalf of IRS, to answer the instant CROSS-COMPLAINT.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), only the duly appointed IRS Chief Counsel has been delegated proper power(s) of attorney to appear on behalf of named Cross-Defendant IRS. Title 31, U.S.C., has been enacted into positive law; 26 U.S.C. has not, however.
Similarly, the Solicitor General also appears to lack any lawful power(s) of attorney to appear on behalf of Cross-Defendant IRS.
All premises having been duly considered, and in light of the demonstrable national urgency which exists for the above stated reasons, Cross-Plaintiff respectfully petitions this honorable Court for the following immediate relief:
(1) an ORDER freezing all assets of Cross-Defendant IRS for the purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in this action, pursuant to FRCP Rule 64; and,
(2) a preliminary ORDER enjoining Cross-Defendant IRS from depositing monies, received or collected by authority of any internal revenue law, into any account other than the Treasury of the United States, pursuant to FRCP Rule 65;
and all other relief which this Court deems just and proper, under the apparently urgent circumstances which have occasioned this COMPLAINT.
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, 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).
Dated: September 28, 2000 A.D.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim (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 SUPPLEMENT
TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
AND DAMAGES:
Article
I, Section 8, Clause 1;
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7
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 S. First Street, Ste. 371 312 North Spring Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] Los Angeles [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Department of Justice, Tax Div. Department of Justice, Tax Div.
West. Criminal Enforcement Sec. West. Criminal Enforcement Sec.
600 “E” St., N.W., Room 5712 600 “E” St., N.W., Room 5712
Washington [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Federal Public Defender’s Office Internal Revenue Service
160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 575 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Paul Camacho Don
Hallenbeck
Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service
55 South Market Street 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Mel Steiner Colbert
Tang
Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service
55 South Market Street 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Brian
Watson Ken Whitmore
Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service
55 South Market Street 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Dan Sutherland Solicitor General
Internal Revenue Service U.S. Dept. of Justice
55 South Market Street 10th & Constitution, N.W.
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Bay View
Federal Bank Chief Counsel
Attention: Legal Department Internal Revenue Service
2121 South El Camino Real 1111 Constitution Ave., N.W.
San Mateo [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA,
USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Executed on September 29, 2000 A.D.
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim (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