Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris Citizen of Nebraska state c/o General Delivery Hastings [zip code exempt] NEBRASKA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved without prejudice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 4:CV96-3275 ) Plaintiff [sic], ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES PROVING v. ) THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF ) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES: VANCE E. KNUDSON [sic], ) ) Rules 201(d), 301, 302, Defendant [sic]. ) Federal Rules of Evidence; ________________________________) Full Faith and Credit Clause COMES NOW Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Nebraska state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"), and Defendant in the above entitled matter (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 judges who may attempt, or be assigned, to preside over proceedings before this United States District Court ("USDC") in the instant case, in violation of Defendant's fundamental guarantee to an independent and unbiased judiciary at Article III, Section 1, in the U.S. Constitution. Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 1 of 13 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Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) is controlling, notwithstanding the so-called 16th Amendment, because said "amendment" never repealed Article III, Section 1.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). See point 15. 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 Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 2 of 13 jurisdiction to enforce United States (federal government) internal revenue laws. See 26 U.S.C. 7402 [sic]. 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. 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], Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 3 of 13 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. 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, i.e. the DCUS. 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 fabric of Our constitutional Republic, as manifested by the controversy now swirling about the proper distinction between United States District Courts ("USDC") and the District Courts of the United States ("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 Arizona, Tucson, case number #GJ-95-1-6, but U.S. 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, Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 4 of 13 including a formal challenge to the constitutionality of the Downes Doctrine. Judge Roll committed over 112 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. 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] 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" (hereinafter "IRS"). See The Cooper File filed separately. 10. The IRS 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; said Affidavit is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 5 of 13 herein. See also The Cooper File, filed separately and concurrently by Defendant in the instant case. 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 enforce United States (federal government) internal revenue laws 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 IRS and 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 Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 6 of 13 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. 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 U.S.A. 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 IRS (as opposed to voluntary taxpayer self-assessments) were ultra vires per force during said term, 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. Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 7 of 13 Department of the Treasury, there can be no Secretary of the Treasury, and hence no Secretary whatsoever, under any circumstances. Delegation was, therefore, impossible. 15. Janet Reno is now unable to delegate any authority downwards either, due to her failure to produce certified evidence of her requisite Oath of Office and related credentials, upon receipt of a proper request for same, submitted under authority of the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"); upon receipt of a proper appeal for same, submitted under authority of the FOIA; and upon receipt of an additional 10-day courtesy notice for same, the latter of which is not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the FOIA. This failure has meant that all civil and criminal actions brought to enforce U.S. internal revenue laws during her alleged term were ultra vires per force, because IRC 7401 requires prior authorization of the Attorney General or her delegate; without delegation, there can be no delegates. Without an authorized officer to head the U.S. Department of Justice, there can be no Attorney General, and hence no law enforcement authority whatsoever, under any circumstances. Delegation was, therefore, impossible. Janet Reno is now estopped from producing her requisite credentials, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906), and her continued silence is a fraud upon all American People, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977). 16. 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, Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 8 of 13 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. 17. Again, the respondents In re Grand Jury Subpoena supra properly and timely raised this objection, when the first Appointment Affidavit was produced by the "Special Agent" ("SA") [sic] 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 obstructing mail, 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 P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 9 of 13 18. U.S. Rep. 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. 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. 19. In 1953, Mr. Dwight E. Avis, head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, made the following remarkable statement to a subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means in the 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. [Internal Revenue Investigation] [Committee on Ways and Means] [Feb. 3 thru Mar. 13, 1953, emphasis added] 20. In 1971, the following quote was found in the IRS instruction booklet for Form 1040: Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe. [emphasis added] Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 10 of 13 21. In 1974, Donald C. Alexander, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, published the following statement in the March 29 issue of The Federal Register: The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations .... [Vol. 39, No. 62, page 11572] [emphasis added] 22. One year later, in 1975, his successor, Mortimer Caplin authored the following statement in the Internal Revenue Audit Manual: Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. [emphasis added] 23. In 1980, yet another IRS Commissioner, Jerome Kurtz (their turnover is high) issued a similar statement in their Internal Revenue Annual Report: The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system. [emphasis added] 24. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the system of federal income taxation is voluntary: Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. [Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145] [emphasis added] The dictionary defines "distraint" to mean the act or action of distraining, that is, seizing by distress, levying a distress, or taking property by force. 25. IRS Publication 21 is widely distributed to high schools. 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, as follows: Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 11 of 13 Two aspects of the Federal income tax system -- voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax -- make it important for you to understand your rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer. "Voluntary compliance" places on the taxpayer the responsibility for filing an income tax return. You must decide whether the law requires you to file a return. If it does, you must file your return by the date it is due. [emphasis added] VERIFICATION I, Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without (outside) the "United States", that the above statements of fact and law are true and correct, to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Dated: ______________________________ Respectfully submitted, /s/ Vance Knudson _____________________________________ Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris Citizen of Nebraska state (expressly not a citizen of the United States) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 12 of 13 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Vance E. Knudson, 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 18 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: Rules 201(d), 301, and 302, Federal Rules of Evidence; Full Faith and Credit Clause 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: SALLY R. JOHNSON Office of U.S. Attorney 487 Federal Building 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln [zip code exempt] NEBRASKA STATE ROBERT D. METCALFE Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice c/o POB 7238, Ben Franklin Station Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dated: __________________________________ /s/ Vance Knudson __________________________________________ Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris Citizen of Nebraska state (expressly not a citizen of the United States) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice [See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.] Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes: Page 13 of 13 # # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Knudson