Time: Sat Jul 05 18:05:35 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA02980;
Sat, 5 Jul 1997 18:01:21 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18192;
Sat, 5 Jul 1997 18:01:10 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 18:01:06 -0700
To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Chief Judge defines "citizenship"!
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The Secretary's authority to operate outside
D.C. is found in the contracts which the
Union states have let to the IRS to assist
in tax collections. These are available
from the Commissioner. I can fax you the
one I got from Dan Meador for the Oklahoma
State Tax Commission. That Commission never
answered my letter, requesting proof that IRS
was truly in the U.S. Department of the Treasury,
as their contract alleges. Please be ready to
make a donation to support my fax overhead.
Otherwise, I will just decline your request.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 02:50 PM 7/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
> Type: Not Moderated
> Distributed on: 05-JUL-97, 14:50:22
>Original Written by: IN:t42usc@juno.com.
>=======================================================
>
>
> I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I am
>sovereign, my State is sovereign, and I am not a citizen of the U.S.!
> Chief Judge Voorhees, in Federal District, North Carolina,
>respectfully disagrees.
> The following is from an Order to Comply with IRS Summonses,
>responding to several "protestor" challenges, including those of
>jurisdiction and State sovereignty. Enjoy.
>
>>From David R. Myrland.
>
>
>BEGIN QUOTE OF ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IRS SUMMONSES.
>
> "A JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
>
> 1. The "Foreign State" of North Carolina.
>
> Respondent (Citizen/"taxpayer") claims that Petitioners (IRS and
>agent Kreizel) may enforce neither the Code nor the Summonses against him
>because he is a citizen of the State of North Carolina, "a foreign state
>with respect to the 'United States,' and . . . therefore . . . and area
>'abroad' or outside the 'United States.' This [i.e. North Carolina] is
>also considered a foreign country for U.S. revenue purposes." Motion to
>Vacate at 3-4. Apparently, as a citizen of the "foreign country" of north
>Carolina, Respondent neither resides in nor is a citizen of the United
>States of America. As a result, Respondent claims that he is not subject
>to an internal revenue tax, the Code, the Collection Summonses issued by
>Agent Kreitzel pursuant to § 7602, or the territorial jurisdiction of the
>Untied States. See id. at 4. No authority is cited by Respondent for this
>conclusory allegation of North Carolina's Foreign sovereignty.
> "Although the concept of federalism recognizes the dual
>sovereignty of the State of North Carolina and the United States of
>america, North Carolina is indeed on of the fifty states constituting the
>United States of America. (FOOTNOTE 9) See, e.g., Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S.
>386, 389-91 (1947); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604-05
>(1889); U.S. v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542, 550 (1876); Cohens v. Virginia,
>19 U.S. 264, 380-83 (1821). "This State shall ever remain a member of
>the American Nation; there is no power on the part of this State to
>secede . . . ." N.C.Const.art.I, § 4. "Every citizen of this State owes
>paramount allegience to the Constitution and government of the United
>States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or
>subversion thereof can have any binding force." Id. at art.I, § 5. "all
>persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
>jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
>wherein they reside." U.S.Const.amend. XIV, § 1.
> The fact that Respondent is a citizen of North Carolina does not
>relieve him of the rights and obligations created by the laws of the
>United States, including the Code. Dennis v. U.S., 660 F.Supp. 870, 875
>n.2 (C.D. Ill. 1987) ("[T]he taxing power of the United States of America
>extends to every individual who is a citizen or resident of this
>nation."); Sloan v. U.S., 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1073-74 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
>(Secretary may issue summonses to obtain information about ANY potential
>tax liability), aff'd. in part, dismissed in part, 812 F.2d 1410 (7th
>Circuit 1987), aff'd. 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.den. ___ U.S.
>___, 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); Channel v. U.S., No. C88-0118P(CS), 1988 U.S.
>Dost. LEXIS 16904 at *5 (W.D. Ky. August 9, 1988)(opinion by Magistrate
>Judge King). To paraphrase Justice Willis Van Devanter, when Congress, in
>the exertion of the power confided to it by the sixteenth amendment,
>(FOOTNOTE 10) adopted by the Code, it spoke for all the people and all
>the States, and thereby established a policy for all. That policy is as
>much the policy of North Carolina as if the Code had emanated from the
>North Carolina General Assembly, and should be respected accordingly by
>the citizens and courts of the State of North Carolina. Second Employers'
>Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912). See also, Claflin v. Houseman, 93
>U.S. 130, 136 (1876) ("The laws of the United States are laws in the
>several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts
>thereof as the State laws are.") Respondent's "foreign state of North
>Carolina" argument is patently frivolous, (FOOTNOTE 11) and is hereby
>rejected as a basis for quashing the Collection Summonses in question."
>
> 2. Respondent's Nonresident Alien Status.
>
> Respondent also challenges Petitioners' jurisdiction to serve the
>Collection Summonses and to assess a tax liability by asserting the
>nonresident alien status under 26 USC § 865(g)(1)(B).(FOOTNOTE 12) The
>"nonresident alien"status is actually defined in 26 USC § 7701(b)(1)(B)
>as "[a]n individual . . . [who] is neither a citizen of the United States
>nor a resident of the Untied States (within the meaning of subparagraph
>(A))." See also 26 CFR § 1.871-2(a).
> Respondent has failed to produce evidence demonstrating he is
>indeed a nonresident alien. First, as to Respondent's citizenship, the
>record is void of evidence showing that Respondent was born or
>naturalized somewhere other than the United States. U.S. Const.amend.
>XIV, § 1. (FOOTNOTE 13) Second, Respondent's "Declaration of Status" does
>not constitute a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of United
>States nationality under 8 USC § 1481. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S.
>252, 260 (1980); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 268 (1967); Kahane v.
>Secretary of State, 700 F.Supp. 1162, 1166 (D. D.C. 1988). (FOOTNOTE 14)
>Third, Respondent has failed to satisfy the "lawfully admitted for
>permanent residence," "substantial presence," or "first year election"
>residency tests under 26 USC § 7701(b)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii), thereby
>precluding his qualification as a nonresident alien. Because Respondent
>is admittedly both a citizen and a resident of North Carolina, and North
>Carolina is on of the United States, the Court can only presume, in the
>absence of any contradictory evidence, that Respondent is a citizen of
>the Untied States.
> Even if the Respondent could demonstrate that he was a
>nonresident alien, he would still be subject to the Code's nonresident
>alien individual provisions, 26 USC § 871 et seq. The uncontested
>evidence presented at the hearing established that Respondent had
>substantial income from real estate business in Florida, another one of
>the United States, between 1980 and 1982. That would constitute taxable
>United States source income under 26 USC § 871. Furthermore,
>
> every nonresident alien individual . . . who is engaged
> in business or trade in the United States . . . or who
> has [taxable] income . . . shall make a return on Form
> 1040NR, . . . even though (a) he has no income
> which is effectively connected with the conduct of a
> trade or business in the United States, (b) he has no
> income from sources within the United States, or (c)
> his income is exempt from income tax by reason of an
> income tax provision or any section of the Code.
>
>26 CFR § 1.6012-1(b). See also 26 CFR § 1.6015(i)-1(b) (requiring certain
>nonresident aliens to file declarations of estimated income tax). If, as
>set forth in his "Declaration of Status," Respondent has no taxable
>United States source income, he may still be subject to taxation on
>income derived from sources OUTSIDE of the United States. 26 USC §§ 862,
>863(b). Respondent has failed to explain how, if he is indeed a
>nonresident alien, these provisions would be applicable to him.
> Finally, the IRS is entitled to use its authority under § 7602 to
>determine the accuracy of Respondent's alleged nonresident alien status
>and any assertion that the Code's nonresident alien provisions do not
>apply to him. See e.g., Kis, 658 F.2d at 537; Sloan, 621 F.Supp. at 1074.
>The Court concludes that the Summonses may not be quashed on the basis of
>Respondent's alleged nonresident alien status."
>
>FOOTNOTE #9 reads:
>
> "So long as the separate organization of the members be not
> abolished, so long as it exists by a constitutional necessity for
> local purposes, through it should be in perfect subordination to
> the general authority of the Union, it would still be, in fact
>and in theory, an association of States,or a confederacy. The
>proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the
>State Governments, makes them constituent parts of the
>nationally sovereignty by allowing them a direct representation
>in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain
>exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This
>full corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the
>idea of a Federal Government.
>
> "The Federalist No.9, at 55 (A. hamilton) (J. Cooke ed.1961)
>(emphasis added) See also, "The Federalist" No. 33, at 208 (A. Hamilton)
>("CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only
>admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this
>branch of power, of the State authority to that of the Union.")."
>
>FOOTNOTE #10 quotes in full the Sixteenth Amendment.
>
>FOOTNOTE #11 reads:
>
> "The contention that appellants are not taxpayers because they are 'free
>born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law 'de
>jure' citizens of Kansas' is frivolous." U.S. v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746,
>750-51 (10th Cir.1989). See also U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th
>Cir. 1986) (an "absolute, freeborn and natural individual" is still a
>"person" under the Code and thus is subject to its provisions).
>
>FOOTNOTE #12 reads: "Respondent sets forth his residency status in the
>following statement:
>
> I, Joe Lunchbucket, declare that: I am an American inhabiting
> North Carolina State; I am a Non-Resident to the United States
> [26 USC 865(g)(1)(B)]; I have never worked for domestic
> corporation; I have never filed a Form 1078 or an equivalent as
> prescribed in 26 CFR 1.1441-5, that would rebut my
> non-resident status [26 CFR 1.871-4(b)]; I never had any
>gross income attributable to 26 CFR 872(a)(1) or (2); I am
>excluded from being required to obtain and submit and identifying
>number [26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)]; should I have income from sources
> within the Untied States, I am still not subject to a withholding
>of any kind as it is not deemed to be income.
>
> Therefore I am neither now nor ever been subject to the
> jurisdiction of the United States for "internal revenue."
>
>Asseveration, Declaration of Status, Dated September XXXXX, attached to
>Demand I."
>
>FOOTNOTE #13 reads:
>
> "See also Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 74 (1873) ("He must
>reside within a State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only
>necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to
>be a citizen of the Union."); Factor v. Pennington Press, inc., 230
>F.Supp. 906, 909 (N.D. Ill. 1963) ("But in order to be a citizen of a
>state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the
>united States."); Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lamson Bros. & Co., 42
>F.Supp. 1007, 1012 (S.D. Iowa 1941)("Under our system of government and
>individual citizen of a State is also a citizen of the untied
>States...").
>
>FOOTNOTE #14 reads:
>
> "Even if the "declaration of Status" is sufficient to relinquish
>Respondent's United States nationality, the Code provides for the fully
>graduated taxation of all United States source income for the ten years
>preceding the date of such expatriation, or September 19, 1991, unless
>Respondent can prove the avoidance of taxes was not one of the principal
>purposes for his expatriation. See Di Portanova v. U.S., 690 F.2d 169,
>176-78 (Ct.Cl.1982); 26 USC § 877. hence, Respondent's tax liability
>could date back as far as 1980, the first year questioned by the issued
>Collection Summonses."
>
>END QUOTE OF ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IRS SUMMONSES.
>
>Because I can identify profound protection within the Code itself, I
>don't make the challenges of jurisdiction and State sovereignty. I hope
>this look at the Federal view of the arguments has helped you. In Court
>twice now, the IRS has been unable to prove the Secretary of the
>Treasury's authority to operate outside D.C., as required under 4 USC 72.
>
>
>========================================================================
>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net
>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
> email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net
>For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net
>
>========================================================================
>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail