Time: Wed Jul 09 03:36:15 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA04272;
	Wed, 9 Jul 1997 03:29:41 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA24556;
	Wed, 9 Jul 1997 03:29:33 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 03:29:25 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: IRS and Emergency Powers (fwd)
Cc: <Pattisons@worldnet.att.net>

By now, clients of the Supreme Law School
should know to ask whether or not the
cases cited herein exhibit true judicial
power, or de facto lack of jurisdiction.

Let's investigate, shall we?

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>*Jus Dare*
>What War?
>Let me preface the following correspondence between Congressman 
>Gejdenson and Sandra Cote with the following  quote from the shortest 
>presidential administration in our history. 
>Harrison referred to the presidency, in his inaugural address: "as 
>the sole distributor of all the patronage of the government. The 
>framers of the constitution do not appear to have anticipated  at how 
>short a period it would become a formiddable instrument to control 
>the free operation of the state governments. But it is not by the 
>extent of its patronage, alone, that the executive department has 
>become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the 
>appointing power, to bring under its control the whole revenue of the 
>country. The constitution has declared it to be the duty of the 
>president to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the 
>commander in chief of the armies and navy of the United States. If 
>the opinion of the most approved writers upon that species of mixed 
>government, which, in modern Europe, is termed monarchy, in 
>contradistinction to despotism, is correct, there was wanting no 
>other addition to the powers of our chief magistrate to stamp a 
>monarchical character on our government, but the control of the 
>public finances. And to me it appears strange indeed, that any one 
>should doubt that the entire control which the president posseses 
>over the officers who have the custody of the public money, by the 
>power of removal with or without cause, does, for all mischievous 
>purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure also to his 
>That was meant for Jackson, but what of our own times? It appears 
>that Gejdenson approves of the monarchy.  - Dave
>From: "Steven Pattison" <Pattisons@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: what war?
>Sandra L.  Cote wrote:
>I just received the following letter from my Congressman:
>Dear Ms.  Cote:
>Thank you for contacting my office once again regarding the Internal
>Revenue Service.  I appreciate the opportunity to reply.  I have
>enclosed two Supreme Court decisions which affirm a principle I
>understand you spoke to one of my aides about.  In them you will see
>highlighted sections which outline the authority by which the IRS
>exists.  In effect, the Court says that the Congress affirms a
>Presidential delegation of power to an agency through the annual
>appropriations process.  Though the IRS is not specifically mentioned,
>this is one principle by which the Executive and Legislative Branches
>have cooperated over the past 50 years.  I hope this puts your
>concerns about the establishment of this agency to rest. Finally, let
>me say that if legislation were introduced abolishing the IRS or
>Federal Reserve, I would not support it.
>Thank you for contacting me.
>Membgr of Congress
>The two cases he included were:
>ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO.,INC.  v.  United States, 300 US 139
>FLEMING v.  MOHAWK, 331 US 111
>These are War Powers cases.
>Sandi Cote
>The following is by Steven Pattison
>Dated:	July 4, 1997.
>The following is from the Court Cases referred to in a letter from SAM
>GEJDENSON, Member of Congress, dated April 28, 1997.  The sections
>that were highlighted are between [[    ]].
>Title page:	Level 1 - 15 of 15 Cases							
>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139; 57 S. CT. 407; 1937
>U.S. LEXIS 1136; 81 L. Ed. 562	January 15,1937, Argued; 	February 1,
>1937, Decided.
>[[ 5. Abolition of the Shipping Board and transfer of its functions to
>the Department of Commerce, by Executive Order, if not authorized by
>Title IV of the Legislative Appropriation Act of June 30, 1932, as
>amended, was impliedly ratified by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936,
>which refers to the functions of the Shipping Board as "now vested in
>the Department of Commerce pursuant to Section 12 of the President's
>Executive Order No. 6166." P. 146. ]]
>[[ Whatever doubt may be entertained [***15]   as to the intent of
>Congress that the Shipping Board should be subject to transfer by the
>President, and, if so, whether the order lay before Congress the
>requisite number of days to satisfy the statutory mandate, Congress
>appears to have recognized the validity of the transfer and ratified
>the President's action by the appropriation acts of April 7, 1934, n13
>March 22, 1935, n14 and May 15, 1936, n15 all of which make
>appropriations to the Department of Commerce for salaries and expenses
>to carry out the provisions of the shipping act as amended and refer
>to the execution order.]]
>Title page:	Level 1 - 14 of 19 cases
>67 S. Ct. 1129; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2851; 91 L. Ed. 1375; 	April 1, 1947,
>Argued; 	April 28, 1947, Decided.
>(a) The war powers are adequate to deal with problems of law
>enforcement which arise during the period of hostilities but do not
>cease with them. P. 116.	(My note: So they say that the war powers do
>not cease with, the period of hostilities.  When do they cease?)
>(B) Section 1 of the First War Powers Act, authorizing the President
>to redistribute functions among executive agencies, authorizes the
>creation of a new agency and the consolidation within it of functions
>and powers previously exercised by one or more other agencies.  P.
>116.  ( My note: Is this what happen to the U.S. Post Office?  It is
>now the U.S. Postal Service.  What other agencies besides the IRS were
>created by the President of the United States?
>Section 1 of the First War Powers Act does not explicitly provide for
>creation of a new agency which consolidates the functions and powers
>previously exercised by one or more other agencies.  But the Act has
>been repeatedly construed by the President to confer such authority. 
>n8 Such construction by the Chief Executive, being both
>contemporaneous and consistent, is entitled to great weight.  See
>United States v. Jackson, 280 U.S. 183, 193; Billings v. Truesdell,
>321 U.S. 542, 552-553.  [[ And the appropriation by Congress of funds
>for the use of such agencies stand as confirmation and ratification of
>the action of the Chief Executive.  Brooks V. Dewar, 313 U.S. 354,
>361. ]]
>(My note: ... repeatedly construed ..., what is this all about?) 
>(Note from Ms. Cote: "These are War Powers cases.")  I have added part
>of the court case that was not highlighted, so you could see what  it
>is all about, "War Powers".  What war are we in that allows the
>President of the United States to continue to have the same power as
>if we were at war? Sounds like a dictatorship to me!
>Steven Pattison	pattisons@worldnet.att.net
>                              *JUS DARE*
>                   c/o Dave Delany's Freedom House
>                    PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>                               ========
>      Sponsored by Mike Goldman and By.Net (http://Names.By.Net)
>                               ========
>                 Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court
>            *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>     To subscribe or unsubscribe to *Jus Dare*, send a message to
>                   jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>       In the BODY, put the text "ADD" or "DELETE" respectively.

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