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 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 SUPPLEMENT
TO MOTION TO
) DISMISS
COUNTS FOUR THRU SEVEN,
v. ) BY
AFFIDAVIT:
)
DONALD E. WISHART [sic], )
IRC
3121(e) (for example);
)
28
U.S.C. 1746(1).
Defendant [sic]. )
________________________________)
COMES NOW Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State and Defendant in the above entitled matter (“Defendant”), to submit this, His FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FOUR THRU SEVEN, BY AFFIDAVIT, which MOTION was previously filed and served in the instant case.
Defendant chooses to supplement said MOTION by attaching the following documents and formally incorporating same by reference, as if set forth fully here, to wit:
(1) Appendix “A” from “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue,” electronic ninth edition: with author’s letter to John Knox and the winning brief in Knox v. U.S. et al., USDC San Antonio, Texas, Case No. SA-89-CA-1308;
(2) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, as filed in U.S.A. v. Knudson, USDC Nebraska, Case No. 4:CV-96-3275: with author’s careful re-write of the decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, in light of municipal nature of IRC’s income tax provisions;
(3) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROVING THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, as filed in Gilbertson v. United States et al., DCUS Minnesota, Case No. CR-4-96-65;
(4) Press Release entitled “Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion,” August 28, 1996, with copy of letter from Rep. Kennelly to Mr. John Randall, January 24, 1996, constructing IRC section 3121(e).
Defendant will now briefly discuss the relevance and materiality of each document in the order listed above:
(1) The intentional vagueness which is evident throughout the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) is due, in large part, to unlawful dominion by the federal government -– by attempting to enforce its municipal laws inside the territorial jurisdiction of the 50 States. “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 12:22
The entire nation owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the late John H. Knox, who pioneered perhaps THE most detailed explanation of the IRC’s municipal nature, for its time. The matter is res judicata.
Mr. and Mrs. John Knox won their law suit. That is the reason why we refer to this document as their “winning brief.”
(2) The second document is a careful re-write of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (“UPRR”). That decision was also written in complex, convoluted language which only served to obfuscate the most important issues in that case.
Notably, the UPRR was not a corporation chartered by the State of Utah; it was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress, at a time when Utah was a federal territory, and not a Union State.
In this context, the Court is respectfully requested to take formal judicial notice of the holdings in Daly v. The National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America, Indiana Supreme Court (1878). Headnotes from that decision are reproduced at the very end of (1) above. The most of important of those holdings was this:
An act of Congress creating a private corporation is the act of Congress as the local Legislature of the District of Columbia; as Congress can not, under the federal constitution, as the Congress of the United States, create a private corporation.
In the context of the instant case, this Court must also take formal judicial notice of the statute at 36 U.S.C. 1101, sections 70 thru 72, which contains an odd reference to “United States of America, Incorporated” in a subsection which was, evidently, never enacted.
Defendant hereby specifically
denies that the United States of America, Incorporated [sic], is
a federal corporation in good standing.
Defendant also denies that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a federal
corporation in good standing.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs in the instant case must, necessarily, be the 50 States of the Union, because a second “United States of America” simply does not exist, because it can not exist. Why?
Answer: Congress is prohibited from re-defining any terms which are found in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189. The term “United States of America” is found in the Preamble, and at Article II, Section 1, Clause 1.
It follows, therefore, that the attorneys for the government do not, and can not, have valid power(s) of attorney to represent an entity which simply does not exist, as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. They may as well be here to represent Humpty Dumpty.
If the moving “party” in the instant case is masquerading as a federal corporation in good standing, then it is a fraud upon this Court, and upon Defendant, to name it without also appending either “Incorporated” or “Inc.” to its proper name.
If the moving “party” is the 50 States which are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution, then the Plaintiffs (plural) have failed to prosecute the instant case: not a single State Attorney General, or his delegate(s), have ever made proper appearances in this Court.
Defendant specifically denies that any of the government’s attorneys, who have already filed pleadings in the instant case, ever did so with any valid power(s) of attorney to represent any of the 50 States of the Union (California or otherwise). This is an utterly classic misrepresentation.
Thus, the United States of America (plural) have failed to prosecute, and this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(3) The third document listed above speaks for itself. Notably, in 1953, when he was the head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a Mr. Dwight Avis made the following remarkable statement to a subcommittee of the Committee of Ways and Means, in the U.S. House of Representatives:
Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as day and night.
In light of all the cross-linkages and inter-dependencies which the instant record has already established between the Internal Revenue Code and Title 27 of the United States Code, it is no surprise to discover that the IRS must depend upon legitimate excise taxes to sustain the ruse that federal income taxes are mandatory.
Also in document (3) above, IRS Publication 21 is quoted with emphasis. This Publication is widely distributed to high schools in America. It acknowledges that compliance with a law that requires the filing of returns is voluntary. At the same time, it suggests that the filing of a return is mandatory. For our purposes here, the following sentence is pivotal:
You must decide whether the
law requires you to file a return.
(4) Lastly, see the Press Release entitled “Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion” and the attached copy of U.S. Representative Barbara Kennelly’s letter to Mr. John Randall, dated January 24, 1996. Defendant appreciates the need to certify such documents, in order to render them admissible.
Accordingly, Defendant hereby notifies all interested parties of His specific intent to subpoena Rep. Barbara Kennelly, and the staff members of the Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service who advised her during the preparation of said letter.
Rep. Kennelly is reported to have written that those staff members are (or were) “legal experts.” If they are, indeed, legal experts, then Defendant fully intends to qualify them as expert witnesses to the municipal nature of the IRC’s income tax provisions.
Most notably, the term “State” at IRC 3121(e) specifically includes ONLY the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa; it does NOT include any of the 50 States of the Union. When Congress wishes to include also those 50 States, it knows how to do so. For example, see IRC 4612(a)(4)(A): “United States” means the 50 States etc.!!
More importantly, if the legal
experts construct IRC 3121(e)
in this fashion, then Defendant argues that all other federal statutes which
exhibit similar language must be constructed in the same way.
Confer at “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: what was omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted, or excluded.
AFFIDAVIT
DENYING CORPORATE EXISTENCE
The Undersigned hereby formally testifies, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) -– that available evidence of which this Court must take formal judicial notice, provides conclusive proof that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are decidedly not a federal corporation in good standing, in part because the statute at 36 U.S.C. 1101 never enacted subsection (71) whereby the juristic entity “United States of America, Incorporated” might have been created, were it not for the Prohibition against re-defining terms which are expressly used in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, which Prohibition is found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189; and in part because Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone, as held by the Indiana Supreme Court in Daly v. The National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America (1878).
REMEDY REQUESTED
For all of the supplemental reasons stated herein, and in the original MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS FOUR THRU SEVEN, this honorable Court should dismiss Counts FOUR thru SEVEN with prejudice as to the Plaintiffs, but without prejudice as to Defendant’s FIRST CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, as now pending before this honorable Court, and without prejudice as to Cross-Plaintiff’s VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MONETARY DAMAGES, as currently lodged before the District Court of the United States under the instant docket number.
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 are supreme Law of the Land).
Dated: October 18, 2000 A.D.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, D.M.D., Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim
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 MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNTS
FOUR THRU SEVEN,
BY AFFIDAVIT:
IRC 3121(e) (for example); 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
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 St., 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
Jeremy Fogel Patricia V. Trumbull
c/o Clerk of Court c/o Clerk of Court
280 S. First Street, Rm. 2112 280 South First Street, Rm. 2112
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Executed on October 18, 2000 A.D.
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, D.M.D., Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Attachment “A”:
Appendix “A” from “The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code
of Internal Revenue”
electronic ninth edition:
with author’s letter to John H. Knox
and the winning brief in
Knox v. U.S. et al., USDC San Antonio, Texas,
Case No. SA-89-CA-1308
Attachment “B”:
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
as filed in U.S.A. v. Knudson, USDC Nebraska,
Case No. 4:CV-96-3275:
with author’s careful re-write of the decision in
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
in light of the municipal nature of
the IRC’s income tax provisions
Attachment “C”:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES PROVING
THE VOLUNTARY
NATURE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
as filed in Gilbertson v. United States et al.,
DCUS Minnesota, Case No. CR-4-96-65
Attachment “D”:
Press Release
entitled
“Congresswoman Suspected
of Income Tax Evasion”
August 28, 1996
with copy of letter from Rep. Kennelly
to Mr. John Randall, January 24, 1996,
constructing IRC section 3121(e)