MEMO to U.S. Department of the Treasury (9/10/2007)

MEMO

TO: Dale Underwood

Deputy Director

Disclosure Services

Department of the Treasury

Washington 20220

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

DATE: September 10, 2007 A.D.

SUBJECT: FOIA Request for credentials of Tax Court judges

Greetings Mr. Underwood:

Thank you for your timely and professional letter dated August 29, 2007. In the course of doing a routine investigation of the U.S. Tax Court, we did discover two (2) Fifth Circuit cases which held that the Tax Court was, at one time, an agency of the Executive Branch:

Tax Court is an independent agency in the executive branch.

[West v. C.I.R., 150 F.2d 723 (5^th Cir. 1945)]

Tax Court is an executive agency.

[Greer v. C.I.R., 334 F.2d 20 (5^th Cir. 1964)]

We did submit an identical FOIA Request to the U.S. Department of Justice, chiefly because they are the designated legal custodian of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS required of all Tax Court judges. However, DOJ is now taking up to ten (10) months to answer such routine FOIA Requests.

We hoped that your administrative records might be more timely responsive to an identical FOIA Request, due to the historical evidence that the Tax Court was an executive agency prior to enactment of the current IRC section 7441, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 730.

And we do understand that the latter statute does identify the Constitutional origin of the Tax Court as Article I. On this point, it is interesting that Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 does authorize Congress to establish “Tribunals” but not “Courts”.

Strictly speaking, “Courts” can only be established under Article III. Therefore, it appears that Congress has erred by naming it the “United States Tax Court” when it is a Tribunal, as a matter of Law, and not a Court. That Tribunal’s judges are not appointed for life terms, and that is another reason why it is not a Constitutional Court.

Thank you also for referring us to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. Tax Court. However, we have already reviewed prior correspondence from that office. Our NOTICE OF REBUTTAL, BY AFFIDAVIT is enclosed, for your information. The latter REBUTTAL should speak for itself.

If you wish further clarification of any points made in that REBUTTAL, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Copy: Chester E. Davis, Clackamas, Oregon

Enclosure: NOTICE OF REBUTTAL, BY AFFIDAVIT (Aug. 30, 2007 A.D.)