Time: Wed Sep 24 20:34:18 1997
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA21140;
	Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:30:45 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:30:22 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: Need Help with IRS Problems

Submit FOIA requests for certified copies of
the credentials of all IRS personnel who are
now hassling you.  These credentials must 
include a valid Appointment Affidavit (an
OMB-approved form), with the correct oath 
executed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3331.  Do not
accept any uncertified photocopies.  

The Citizen's Guide to the FOIA and Privacy Act
is the last document in USA v. Gilbertson,
in the Supreme Law Library: Court Cases; 
this Guide is an appendix in that particular
pleading.  It has sample forms for almost 
all possible cases (see the Appendices in
that Guide).  

While you are at it, include in your FOIA 
request(s) a demand for exhibition of the 
IRC's specific liability statutes which apply
to you.  Hint:  see the statutes listed in the
IRC definition of "withholding agent".  If you
are not a withholding agent, then there is 
very likely no liability statutes which applies
to you (unless you are engaged in alcohol,
tobacco and/or firearms).

I hope this helps.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

At 08:12 AM 9/23/97 +0000, you wrote:
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>                                        David C. Treibs
>                                        Fredericksburg, TX 78624
>                                        sirdavid@ktc.com
>We are in trouble with the IRS, and we need help.
>For religious reasons (explained below), we do not have Social Security
>numbers for our children, the oldest of 4 being 5 years old.
>Last year we sent in our return, as we have always done, without SSNs
>for our children. My wife and I do have social security numbers, and we
>sent those. IRS sent us a letter saying they were disallowing our
>exemptions since we had no SSNs for them. They gave us the opportunity
>to contest their disallowance, which we did by sending them our
>children's birth certificates; and letters from our parents, and a letter
>from our pediatrician, stating the children we claimed were indeed our
>children and our dependents. We don't have a problem proving that we are
>claiming legitimate dependents.
>IRS accepted the information we sent them, and accepted our exemptions.
>This year we again sent IRS our return without numbers for our children,
>but this time we included the letter of acceptance for last year's
>return, and again they said they are disallowing our exemptions, and
>they want $1,175.79. I called the telephone number on the letter and
>spoke with the lady who answered, explaining what we did last year and
>how the IRS accepted our tax return. The lady said "now we have new
>rules." She asked, "What religion are you," as if it mattered. When I
>told her we were Christians, she paused as though to consult some
>paperwork, and then she said, "those children need social security
>numbers or you cannot claim them." She mentioned the Tax Reform Act of
>1996 and Publication 553 as being the enabling documents that brought on
>this change.
>That same day I called U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith's office and explained the
>situation. The nice lady in the San Antonio office said she would pass
>the information to the Kerrville office, and they would do what they
>could. The lady in the Kerrville office made several inquiries. She
>repeatedly said we had the right to appeal, and she sent us a copy of:
>--Internal Revenue Code: Income, Estate, Gift, Employment and Excise
>Taxes ss 1001-End As of Sept 15, 1996, Volume 2. Subtitle F, Ch. 61B,
>Sec 6109(a)-6109(h).
>    Sec. 6109(e)--Repealed
>    Is the rather odd heading for the only part I could find in the
>    portion of the Code they sent me that says you must have a SSN or
>    you will not be allowed an exemption. I wonder if that means the
>    section is repealed? But then, the probably have it in some other
>    section that the SSN is required. See IRC Sec. 151 (97) below.
>--What appears to be a news release titled:
>Valid Taxpayer Identification Numbers Needed For Returns
>1996 IRB LEXIS 344; IR-96-50
>--Internal Revenue Code...This section is current through 105-15,
>approved 5/15/97.
>Subtitle A. Income Taxes
>Chapter 1. Normal Taxes and Surtaxes
>Subchapter B. Computation of Taxable Income
>Part V. Deductions for Personal Exemptions
>    IRC Sec. 151 (1997)
>    (e) says no exemption will be allowed unless the Taxpayer
>    Identification Number is included on the return.
>At present we are awaiting a letter from IRS, which we assume will state
>that we must either provide SSNs for our children or pay up, and they
>will probably give us 60 days or less to do either.
>Having received the above distressing information, we called a San
>Antonio, Texas, CPA, Ken Flint, a former IRS agent who now specializes
>in helping people in trouble with the IRS. He said it would cost us more
>to fight them than to simply pay the extra money. He sounded
>sympathetic, if somewhat busy, and told us we could do the appeal if we
>knew the law and IRS procedures. Unfortunately, I know neither.
>Perhaps at this stage you could help us. I need to hear from someone who
>has successfully appealed this sort of thing and won.
>What are the applicable laws?
>What is the case law in this matter?
>What are the IRS procedures in these matters?
>Are there any laws that might give us an out, such as the Religious
>Rights Restoration Act, and other such high sounding laws?
>Is there an attorney out there who wants to make a precedent out of this
>for us and all the other like-minded folks?
>If you have no direct knowledge of IRS laws and procedures, perhaps you
>could pass this to a forum or organization or individual who could.
>While we are aware of the various movements such as the sovereign
>citizen, the patriots, tax protesters, and so on, we prefer to work
>within the system to win our case. This is simply our preference.
>We don't have a problem with proving that we are not making bogus claims
>on our tax returns. We'd be happy to give them whatever reasonable proof
>they want. We do have a big problem with giving our children a
>government number.
>The Bible gives the responsibility of raising children to parents, not
>to the government or any other entity.
>Forcing Social Security Numbers on children represents a major violation
>of parents' God-given responsibility.
>The SSN's powers can be divided into two basic categories: monitoring
>and control; neither of which is within government's purview in dealing
>with children. These are entirely the parents' job, Hillary Clinton's
>postulations that "It Takes a Village" notwithstanding.
>Once a child has a SSN, they are forever a blip on the government radar,
>to be tracked, and to be the recipient of whatever government decides it
>must foist upon children and their families.
>SSN's are already used in our public school district to track students.
>Much of their test scores and who knows what personal data is in the
>district's computers, including a SSN. The district told us it probably
>won't be long before all this data is sent to the state, and how long
>will it be before this information ends up with the federal government?
>The Clintons are working to push us into nationalized health care,
>including government health care for children. Did you ever wonder how
>they plan to track all these children, to ensure they are receiving all
>the "benefits" of their plans? Very likely, the SSN. The "benefits"
>might include "inoculations" against pregnancy, which amounts to
>powerful birth control/abortifacient drugs, parental consent not needed
>or desired. Then, of course, there is the "education,"
>accompanying this government intrusion into child health, which is
>irreconcilably opposed to my beliefs.
>The Clintons are also working to push us into the UN Rights of the Child
>Treaty, which shifts many parental rights and responsibilities to the
>government. The Clintons want to bypass parents and directly access
>children. How do you think they plan to monitor and enforce compliance
>with this horrible treaty? The SSN, in my opinion.
>Once every child has a SSN, it will also be easier for the state to
>nose in on the parent's job. With the recent birth of our fourth child,
>we were told that a state social worker from the welfare department
>would be visiting our home, and the home of everyone who has a child. If
>our child had a SSN, they could easily computerize all her data and then
>link it to any other data from us, our other children, and so on. It
>could be done without SSNs, but it would be more difficult and time
>consuming, and on a large scale, next to impossible.
>The state of Texas provides a good example of what a state will do when
>given access to the power of the SSN. Starting this year Texas requires
>SSNs to issue a driver's license. Now that they have linked the
>driver's license with a SSN, they can easily access a person's records,
>including court records, and anyone not paying child support may be
>denied a driver's license. This is just one example of the power of the
>SSN, and how government can use it to force its agenda on the populace.
>Whatever government grants or allows, it can withhold or restrict based
>on whatever is politically correct at the time, if they have the tools
>to do so. When people who disagree with you hold power over you, and
>when they want to extend that power to your children, you better be
>ready for trouble.
>The SSN enables anyone with access to the right data bases to know every
>address you ever had; details about your job, income, and taxes; school
>records; all financial transactions not made with greenbacks; probably
>all your telephone and utility details, including all your phone calls;
>doctor, hospital, and other medical details; all court and police
>records; and on and on and endlessly on.
>This is all your personal information, available to government at the
>snap of a finger, and this information is power. Now imagine if every
>child has a SSN, that power will extend down to the womb even more than
>it does now.
>We are not willing to give the government power over our children. Why
>should we, when children are none of government's business until they
>reach adulthood? Why tempt government with all that power, when they
>have already proven they will abuse it?
>                   For Liberty,
>                   David C. Treibs (sirdavid@ktc.com)
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: "David C. Treibs" <sirdavid@ktc.com>

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