Time: Sat Oct 25 16:37:26 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06185
for [address in tool bar]; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:33:07 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:27:12 -0700
To: pmitch@primenet.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: fast C program to modify PREFIX environment variable
Reed,
FYI:
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
Bud,
I am closing in here:
I have modified TESTPRED.BAT to
call a sub-batch file (aka subroutine).
Here is the new TESTPRED.BAT:
rem testpred.bat
rem
echo %1
rem
rem look thru wildcard list:
FOR %%a IN (%1) DO CALL PREEDIT.BAT %%a
Here is the PREEDIT.BAT subroutine:
ECHO PREEDIT parameter is %1
SET PREFIX=%1
ECHO PREFIX variable is %PREFIX%
TYPE %1
rem the preceding commands are merely
rem to confirm that variables have
rem the expected values
rem
rem now we would do our concatenation
rem followed by QEDIT to replace
rem the [filename] and [casename]
rem variables in PROLOG.HTML and EPILOG.HTML
Execute this sequence as follows:
TESTPRED.BAT *.ASC
Of course, we need to suppress
all the terminal output, but that
is easy.
What we need, then is a very fast
and very small program which will
simply truncate the last 4 non-blank
characters in the PREFIX environment
variable. This program can reside
in:
C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND
It can have a name like PRETRUNC,
meaning to TRUNCate the PREfix
environment variable.
I will check with Corbin on Monday,
to see if he has a hot programmer
who can do this in an hour or less.
If you would like to give it a try,
please do. I don't have any language
processors to speak of, on either of
these two machines.
A good C programmer could do this in a flash.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
I think I know how I want this PREFIX
function to work:
1. create the following string of
characters in a string variable,
inside a running program:
SET PREFIX=JUDNOT01.ASC
2. replace the last four characters
with blanks, so that the string
of characters is now:
SET PREFIX=JUDNOT01
3. pass this string of characters
to the DOS command processor,
directly from the executing program
4. when the batch file is finished
with this environment variable,
the batch file executes the
following command:
SET PREFIX=
which will remove this variable
from the DOS environment database.
Now, we need a language processor which
has access to a DOS CALL, to execute the
command string which we pass to DOS
via this CALL, e.g.:
STRING="SET PREFIX=JUDNOT01 "
CALL DOSCMD(STRING)
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
Try this at the DOS command prompt:
SET PREFIX=JUDNOT01
ECHO %PREFIX%
You will see that you have access to
value of the the variable %PREFIX%
in this manner.
PREFIX becomes an environment
variable, once you give it a non-blank
value via the SET command.
SET without anything following,
displays all non-blank environment
variables.
Try it!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
Okay, Rugsy!!
DIR is a pain. That's for sure.
I had to go to a used bookstore, to find
a copy of John C. Dvorak's masterpiece on DOS.
You and I presently have two problems to solve.
I have solved one of these two, as follows:
FOR %%a IN (%1) DO type %%a
in a batch file, will accept a wildcard
variable in a batch parameter, e.g.
%1 is "*.ASC" in the FOR command above (no quotes)
%%a is the required syntax for the loop counter
is the 1st matching filename, 1st time thru
is the 2nd matching filename, 2nd time thru
...
is the Nth matching filename, Nth time thru
where,
N = number of list entries
I will attach four files, which you can use to test
this logic:
a.asc contains "aaa" [no quotes}
b.asc contains "bbb"
c.asc contains "ccc"
testpred.bat test BATCH file
TESTPRED.BAT does a DOS TYPE command
on each filename with a .ASC suffix,
if you invoke it as follows:
TESTPRED.BAT *.ASC
For that matter, it will process any
wildcard whatsoever, but I am most
interested in filenames with a .ASC
suffix.
Now, I have NOT solved the other problem;
and that is to have a function which
can return the prefix portion of
a DOS filename, EXcluding the dot and
extension (or suffix).
The use of environment variables is
highly recommended by Dvorak, but
he has no examples for parsing a
filename and returning the prefix
portion.
So, we are half-way there!
What we need is a language which can
process characters, like FORTRAN or C,
and has access to the DOS routines
which read to and write from the
environment variable set. A DOS
routine which executes a DOS
command line would be nice also.
With this, we can do SET commands
inside the program, and environment
variable values can be manipulated
by surrounding them with percent
signs, e.g.:
SET PREFIX = XYZ
then %PREFIX% can be used as follows:
%PREFIX%.HTM
in our COPY command which concatenates
prolog + ASCII + epilog into %PREFIX%.HTM.
I feel like we're now closing in!! :)
Thanks so much for all the help.
I think you and I are moving a little
too fast for the others on the team,
but then Reed has enormous family
obligations, and a full-time job
on top of that. So, let's be grateful
for whatever work he can accomplish
in the time we are given.
Toney will probably be seeing all of
this stuff for the very first time,
but he has adamantly refused to accept
any money, because he is in this to
learn, and contribute what he can.
So, it's you and I, Rugsy!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
At 02:55 PM 10/25/97 -0600, you wrote:
>ARRGGHH!!! You torture me so with the dreaded DOS whip.
>
>I'm digging in my DOS 6 book and trying some of these things. Win95 = DOS
>7, with the exception of a few utilities they dropped, like deltree.
>
>Win95 still allows environmental variables.
>
>%1 sets a variable for batch files.
>%1% sets an environmental variable.
>
>I tried this:
>set one=1
>
>then typed:
>echo %one%
>
>which returned
>1
>
>Next I set T=time, and made a test.bat file, with only one line that says %T%
>
>Running test.bat displays the current time.
>
>Piping:
>
>This does work under Win95.
>
>mem | find "executable"
>
>takes the output from the mem command and then displays just the line
>containing the word 'executable'. So I tried set M="executable" and then
>ran the command mem | find %M% and got the same output.
>
>Now, just thinking here, as I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing:
>
>Is the "." in a filename an actual character? Why does the dir command not
>display the "."?
>
>So we've got 11 or 12 characters for each filename depending on the status
>of the "." character.
>
>Hmmmm...how to read the filename characters into environmental %1%
>variables is the problem. It would be handy to have a dos LEFT(x) command.
>
>
>
>At 12:27 PM 10/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>Yes, I found the discrepancy.
>>
>>NDOS, the Norton replacement for
>>the DOS command processor, has
>>the ability to "pipe" the output
>>of one command as input to
>>a second command, all on the
>>same command line.
>>
>>I have NDOS on my 586/100, which
>>is still running Windows 3.11.
>>
>>I cannot seem to find any documentation
>>whatsoever on "piping" with the DOS
>>command processor for Win95.
>>
>>This is VERY frustrating, yes?
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In Unix, you can "pipe" the results
>>of one operation into another. But,
>>when I try it with DOS, nothing happens:
>>
>>My test version of PREEDIT.BAT does this:
>>
>> DIR %1
>>
>>Then, I do this:
>>
>> DIR *.ASC /B | PREEDIT.BAT
>>
>>where "|" is the symbol for "piping",
>>but PREEDIT.BAT only executes
>>the DIR command once, without
>>any options.
>>
>>I am stumped. DOS is ugly.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>OOPS!! I just tried it myself,
>>and DOS does NOT recurse.
>>
>>AAAARRRGGGG!!!!!
>>
>>I must be confusing it with
>>the NDOS replacement for DOS,
>>from Norton Utilities.
>>
>>This is becoming quite a pain.
>>
>>There ought to be a way to get
>>DOS to repeat a batch file,
>>if a wildcard argument is
>>provided to it.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>Bud,
>>
>>I wasn't referring to you in my
>>remark about impostors, I hope you
>>realize.
>>
>>I had this much already (see below).
>>
>>But, for standardizing the entire
>>database, we begin with:
>>
>> MIDDY.ASC
>>
>>and we want to end up with:
>>
>> MIDDY.HTM
>>
>>So, it is very important to retain
>>the prefix portion of the filename.
>>
>>We want to be able to give DOS a
>>wildcard in conjunction with a
>>.BAT file to execute with it,
>>so that DOS recurses through the
>>same .BAT file, for each file which
>>matches the wildcard, e.g.
>>
>> D:\WEBSITE.DIR\BUDSTUFF.DIR> PREEDIT.BAT *.ASC
>>
>>DOS will search the current directory,
>>find the first match with a .ASC suffix,
>>and then execute PREEDIT.BAT, passing
>>in the matching filename, e.g.
>>
>> if FILE1.ASC is the first match,
>> then DOS executes the equivalent of:
>>
>> PREEDIT.BAT FILE1.ASC
>>
>> then DOS returns to search for the
>> next matching filename, which is
>> FILE2.ASC, so, DOS called PREEDIT.BAT
>> again, with this new filename, and so on.
>>
>>Now you see why PREEDIT.BAT, once it starts
>>executing, will see FILE1.ASC, and must
>>be able to pull the suffix out of the
>>full filename, so as to write FILE1.HTM.
>>
>>So, PREEDIT.BAT must do something like this:
>>
>>SET TEMP = GETPREF(%1)
>>COPY PRE.HTM + %1 + END.HTM %TEMP%.HTM
>>
>>where %TEMP% is "FILE1" during the first call
>> is "FILE2" during the second call
>>and so on.
>>
>>What we need, then, is a string function,
>>or program, which will do what GETPREF does
>>in the example above.
>>
>>IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE PRESERVE THE FILENAME
>>PREFIX, AND SIMPLY MODIFY THE EXTENSION
>>(OR SUFFIX, AS I CALL IT!)
>>
>>Got it?
>>
>>Your example below does not solve
>>the problem we are trying to solve,
>>because you rely upon %2!!!
>>
>>You also change MID. to FINAL.
>>In your example, you want to
>>concatenate PRE.HTM + MID.ASC + END.HTM
>>into MID.HTM <---!!!!!
>>
>>... because MID is the prefix which
>>identifies the contents of the file.
>>There are LOTS OF MID's in each
>>directory, remember?
>>
>>So, to expand your example, program
>>it with MID1.ASC, MID2.ASC, MID3.ASC,
>>and so on, using 10 files, say.
>>
>>The string function we need will
>>simplify things enormously, because
>>I can recurse with a DOS wildcard.
>>Try it with something simple, like:
>>
>> TESTPRED.BAT *.ASC
>>
>>and this .BAT file does this:
>>
>> DIR %1 >>LOG
>>
>>This should accumulate each successive
>>call to the .BAT file.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>At 12:12 PM 10/25/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>Paul,
>>>[I just reread the original request, and it seems you already know this.
>>>Oops, well here's what I found anyway.]
>>>
>>>The only version I've found of QB is a very old one released before it
>>>became a part of DOS. After 5 years of disks accumulated, Tom finally
>>>cleaned house. There is not a single set of pure DOS disks to be found.
>>>
>>>All is not lost however. I've been playing with the dos prompt under Win95,
>>>and reading an old DOS book. Here is a simple solution that a batch file
>>>guru such as yourself may be able to implement.
>>>
>>>All of the files you use are actually ASCII files. .HTM, .HTML, .ASC, and
>>>.TXT files are really all the same animal.
>>>
>>>If you copy one into another, and then save the result with a new name,
>>>your purpose is accomplished.
>>>
>>>COPY PRE.HTM + JUNO.ASC + END.HTM JUNO.HTM
>>>
>>>The dos command above results in one file named JUNO.HTM and is still just
>>>an ascii file.
>>
>>Yes, I have this much already,
>>but it requires a separate COPY
>>command for each file.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>DOS allows 10 variables in batch files, and automatically assigns one for
>>>each command. The batch file name used to run the commands, is assigned the
>>>first spot [%0].
>>>
>>>I created 3 files called pre.htm, mid.asc, and end.htm. Each was one line
>>>of text i.e.
>>>
>>>First line from pre.htm
>>>Second line from mid.asc
>>>Third line from end.htm
>>>
>>>And that was the output I finally got from the .bat below.
>>>
>>>
>>>My batch file, DOIT.BAT, looks like:
>>>
>>>copy pre.htm + %1 + end.htm %2
>>>
>>>The command to run it is:
>>>
>>>doit mid.asc final.htm
>>>
>>>The output file, final.htm, contains all the text from the three input
>files.
>>>
>>>This solution still requires you to type endless file names, the .asc
>>>filename and the new .htm filename for each.
>>>
>>>Each time uses 3 variables, so possibly you could add two more lines to the
>>>batch file and process 3 files at a time before you ran out of variables.
>>>
>>>Oh, according to Webster's, I'm not really an imposter. I have actually
>>>completed three applications, and sold one of them. I walk the walk.:)
>>>
>>>*****************
>>>puma@caverns.com
>>>*****************
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
>>B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
>>email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
>>website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
>>_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
>>======================================================================== 12
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
>>
>>
>*****************
>puma@caverns.com
>*****************
>
>
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\Preedit.bat"
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\A.asc"
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\B.asc"
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\C.asc"
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\Testpred.bat"
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13From ???@??? Sun Oct 26 06:31:29 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA15333;
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 01:59:54 -0700 (MST)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA04968;
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 01:59:32 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd004961; Sun Oct 26 01:59:23 1997
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 02:00:11 -0800
To: "Dale Robertson" <habeascorpus@hotmail.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: proper IRS Form 23C mandatory for assessment
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dale,
See the Brafman case, in which the court held
that an assessment is not valid unless it is
signed by an assessment officer. This question
is developed in full in Gilbertso's OPENING
BRIEF. To be an assessment officer, LOTS of
things must be done correctly, pursuant to
law, e.g. oath of office, delegation of
authority, appointment affidavit, and so on.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 01:04 AM 10/26/97 PDT, you wrote:
>--====================987654321_0==_
>
>TO: LLAW COUNSELLORS - ALL & OTHER FRIENDS
>FROM: DALE ROBERTSON
>SUBJECT: PROPER IRS FORM 23C IS MANDATORY FOR ASSESSMENT OF TAX
>
>COUNSELLORS: (Distribution list suppressed)
>
>This is a hypertechnical and somewhat punctillious subject - but an
>important one none the less.
>
>Form 23C is an IRS form which is required to be signed by an assessment
>officer prior to a declared or voluntarily derived deficiency or tax due
>can be properly reduced to lien and subjected to collection procedures
>by the IRS. Further, District Court jurisdiction for collection and
>reducing assessments and liens to judgement is predicated, in part, on
>the existence of a proper assessment and thus the Form 23C.
>
>Pardon the precision here but it is important to distinguish the
>deficiency claimed - or tax which is claimed as being due - from its
>assessment. Assessments and Deficiencies - They are two very different
>and important steps in the process of making your revenue taxable to the
>government under the present scheme of tax laws - which ostensibly are
>about to undergo some significant changes to listen to the congressmen
>and women who smell opportunity - for what its worth.
>
>In short the deficiency claimed must be properly and lawfully and
>exactly "assessed". To achieve assessment the deficiency must be
>subjected to either a self assessment process or the due process of a
>deficiency 30 day or 90 letter notice which gives you either the
>alternative to pay the tax declared against you or to petition the tax
>court for a "redetermination" of the deficiency declared against you.
>Now this is where the Form 23C becomes crucial. When the deficiency
>claimed by the IRS is redetermined by the tax court - as it inexorably
>is - then the deficiency must be assessed on Form 23C and the form must
>be signed by the authorized assessment officer to make the deficiency in
>tax assessed and then collectable. Deficiencies are mere claims that
>there is a tax due. Assessments are a fact that the amout claimed due is
>now subject to enforced collection activity pursuant to 26 USC 6331 -
>ie: Levy and Distraint by any means. Read the statute - - -
>
>In recent years there has been a move on at the IRS to make the
>mechanical handeling (ie: computer produced Form 23C) as all that is
>necessary for the legal steps to be required for assessment - that is to
>say absent a real signature in lieu of a mechnaical or computer produced
>signature. The regulations ie: 301-6203-1 - - may specifiy this at the
>present time but, I understand, that it is not the subject of uniform
>practice over the US but rather changes from district to district
>depending on where you are. And you thought that due process was uniform
>and equal under the rule of law - - ta ta ta!
>
>Now the important point to all this is that the Form 23C is essential to
>a proper assessment. Have you requested yours lately? Or how about your
>friends who have tax liabilities. If you/they have already paid, an
>invalid 23C forms gives rise to valid Federal District Court suits for
>refund and the case law supports that the courts grant the refunds from
>the IRS when the 23C form is not proper. Check it out.
>
>Following here is a recent brief on the subject in an actual ongoing
>case before a Federal Court of Appeals.
>
>Further attached is the same brief in MS Word for Windows 95.
>
>Enjoy - - - and, I will appreciate some feedback from others who have
>interest, comment, criticism, complaints and/or experience in the same
>matters! What say you? - - guys.
>
>Constitutionally,
>
>Dale Robertson
>habeascoprus@hotmail.com
>
>\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
>"We do well to bear in mind the extraordinary prestige of
>the great writ, Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum in Anglo-
>American jurisprudence: "The most Celebrated writ in the
>English Law." 3 Blackstone Commentaries 129. It is "a writ
>antecedent to statute, and throwing its root deep into the
>genius of our common law.... it is perhaps the most
>important writ known to the constitutional law of england,
>affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all
>cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of
>immemorial antiquity... ."
>
>"It's root principle is that in a civilized society,
>government must always be accountable to the judiciary for
>a man's imprisonment: If the imprisonment connot be shown
>to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the
>individual is entitled to his immediate release."
>
>Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963)
>\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
>
>
>
>
>Dale Robertson
>habeascorpus@hotmail.com
>
>============================================
>
>
>CONTRARY TO THE APPELLEE’S CONTENTION THE UNDERLYING ASSESSMENT IS
>INVALID IN THAT THE PROPER STEPS REQUIRED BY LAW, INCLUDING FORM 23C,
>HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.
>
>Thirty years ago, in the case of Brafman v US, 384 F.2d 863, this court
>(5th Cir - Justices Tuttle and Wisdom) reviewed the practices of IRS
>assessments including the here hotly disputed Form 23C. Despite Form
>23C having been reviewed by this court in Brafman, the Appellee clearly
>shows by its brief that it has other and demonstrably inconsistent
>views. However, the underlying assessment at issue in this case is
>invalid as measured by Brafman, supra.
> The Appellee insist without case law support that "[t]he IRS, however,
>followed the appropriate procedures in determining the amount of the tax
>liabilities and assessing the tax liabilities of the taxpayer, and
>taxpayer has failed to establish that the assessments were improper."
>See Appellee’s Brief at page 18, paragraph 2.
> The Appellee’s prevarications go further and proffer without any case
>law support the proposition that "[t]he only evidence with which the
>United States must come forward is evidence of the making of the
>assessment itself. (Appellee’s Br at p. 18 para 2)
>In other words, the Appellee now contends directly to this court - in
>its brief - that the United States neither has to conform with the law
>or the procedural pronouncements respecting the law made by this very
>court of appeals. However, Appellant is left to specifically observe
>that the Government is simply wrong, and should be pronounced as being
>utterly wrong, in both law and in fact.
> As to the law, "[t]he Treasury Regulations are binding on the
>Government as well as on the taxpayer: Tax officials and taxpayers alike
>are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank of Seattle v.
>Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1987, 91 F.2d 103, 10; [See also: Miller v
>Commissioner, 8 Cir.,1964, 333 F.2d 400; McCord V. Granger, 3 Cir. 1952,
>201 F.2d 103; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Westover, S.D. Cal. 1947,
>70 Supp. 111.] Even the instructions on the reverse side of the
>assessment certificate, Form 23C, specify that the original form "is to
>be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after which it
>will be returned to the Accounting Branch for permanent filing….". See:
>Brafman v United States 863 F.2d 863(1967) @ 866.
> And, as to the fact, the record is clear, the United
>States has failed to produce any Form 23C whatsoever when it was
>properly the subject of Appellant’s persistent discovery efforts aided
>ultimately by court ordered and enforced discovery efforts. As was noted
>by the magistrate, the government has conceded that there is no form
>23C. See: # "9" of the Record Excerpts of Appellant’s opening brief.
>Appellant notes that there is probably good reason for the Appellee’s
>failure to respond to discovery as to Form 23C and that reason is that
>it doesn’t exist - and in any event it simply was not produced when it
>was proper, lawful and timely to do so. Thus, the Government’s failure
>to produce the relevant Form 23C flies in the face of the directory
>pronouncements of this court of appeals as well as the United States
>Congress. See: Brafman, supra at page 867, footnote 10.
>"The Secretary is directed to furnish to the taxpayer, upon request, a
>copy of the record of the assessment of the taxpayer’s liability." And,
>"What is important in any case is that assessment is not automatic upon
>recordation; it requires the action of an assessment officer. That
>action as defined explicitly in the Treasury Regulations, is the signing
>of the certificate." See: Brafman, supra @ page 867. In this case,
>Appellant observes that the Government has failed to produce any Form
>23C, whether signed by the assessment officer or by some other method;
>The omission of which strongly suggests that Form 23c either is not
>properly signed or simply doesn’t exist.
> In light of this court of appeal’s pronouncements in Brafman, supra,
>for the Appellee to now present an argument countervailing to this
>court’s opinion 30 years after the fact is disingenuous at best. Notice
>is made that this character of "representation" to this court, as has
>been proffered by Appellee, may be in specific violation of Rule 11 of
>the FRCivP as well as the corresponding rules against misrepresentations
>before this court.
>The representations are particularly disingenuous considering the
>content of Internal Revenue Service official Memorandum pertaining to
>form 23C dated April 12, 1990. See attached to this brief Appellate’s
>"Exhibit A" which is included here as a matter of convenience to the
>court having been previously placed, by reproduction of the same, into
>the evidence tendered in the trial before the District Court below. The
>IRS Memoranda is thus already a part of the record properly before this
>court of appeals. The IRS Memorandum of April 12, 1990 allows that:
>"The omitted signatures on both the manual and Martinsburg Computing
>Center (MCC) generated documents are considered administrative errors in
>nonconformance with Section 301.6203-1 of the regulations on Procedure
>and Administration. We are in the process of having the Regulation
>amended to redefine a valid assessment as one that is authorized by a
>controlled mechanical or manual signature. Until the Regulation is
>modified, we again want to impress on you the importance of the
>Assessment Officer’s signature and the need for us to rectify the
>current problem originating from this oversight."
>The Appellate has repeatedly and persistently raised the omission of
>form 23C error on the part of the government to no avail. The IRS as
>well as the District Court below have thusly treated this due process
>error as technical. But, to the District Court in United States v
>Lehigh, W.D. Ark 1961, 201 F.Supp 224, 234, this is both true and
>immaterial. The court said:
>"The procedures set forth in the Internal Revenue Code were prescribed
>for the protection of both Government and taxpayer. Neglect to comply
>with those procedures may entail consequences which the neglecting party
>must be prepared to face whether such party be the taxpayer or the
>Government."
>Appellant again ask: "Where’s the form 23C?". Where is it? Signed or
>unsigned - mechanically produced or signed or otherwise - Simply,. where
>is it? The government has persistently and arrogantly failed to produce
>the form and then hides behind the arrogant and invidiously false
>accusation that the Appellant "…has failed to establish that the
>assessments were improper…". See Appellee’s brief at page 18, paragraph
>2.
> As this court stated in Brafman, supra at 864, "[t]he threshold issue
>of the validity of the assessment is crucial." And "[w]e reverse (in
>Brafman) on the ground that a valid assessment against the transferor’s
>estate was not made, because of an assessment officers failure to sign
>the certificate of assessment. The Government’s claim against the
>transferee is proscribed by the statue of limitations governing this
>action." Appellant ask: Can the assessment challenged in this case be
>any different when the Government arrogantly fails to produce any Form
>23C at all - signed or no?
>Appellant has not failed to take note that the Appellee has carefully
>failed to cite the relevant IRS code sections to support its illicit
>contentions as to a valid assessment in this case. As a relevant example
>Appellant makes reference to 26 USC 6203. Although not cited by the
>Appellee, 26 USC 6203 sets forth the procedure by which an assessment
>gains its lawful and proper authority in law. Likewise not cited is
>Treasury Regulation 301.6203-1 (1955) which sets forth procedure for
>compliance with Section 6203. This too is not invoked by the Government
>in any manner. But nevertheless, thus far, the Appellee continues to
>stubbornly insist, and persist, in the utter fiction that it has a valid
>assessment notwithstanding the law as well as the pronouncements of this
>court to the contrary.
>Predicated on the rule of law observed by this court of appeals in
>Brafman, supra, this court should recognize the assessment at issue in
>this case to be invalid. Accordingly, this court should reverse the
>judgment of the District Court below as being wholly unsupported by any
>valid assessment. In the alternative, should the court have found that
>the statutory requirements for a valid assessments may be satisfied by
>purely mechanical means, and thus wholly absent any actual signature
>from an authorized IRS assessment officer, then under those
>circumstances, Appellant will observe that 1) the assessments in this
>case do not comply with even the mechanical requirements since none has
>been produced at all, and 2) that the Government has in any case wholly
>failed comply with the requirements to produce any valid Form 23C in any
>manner whatever.
> In sum, for a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, a valid
>assessment must be made. A federal tax lien securing the taxes and
>interest owed … arose "at the time the assessment [was] made," 26 U.S.C.
>6322, and reached "all property and rights to property, whether real or
>personal, belonging to [… the taxpayer…] at that time. 26 U.S.C. 6321.
>See: US v. Williams, ___ U.S. ___ (1995). (emphasis added to the
>original text of the United States Supreme Court in Williams, supra)
>That is the law. The law was, arrogantly, not followed by the Government
>in this case. The so called assessment against the Appellant now at
>issue in this case is deficient as a matter of law. The attendant liens
>are therefor also deficient as a matter of law. The same should be so
>pronounced by this court of appeals without equivocation. Both the
>assessment and lien should be vacated. This court should on this appeal
>grant a reversal of the judgment of the District Court below; And
>following the procedure in Brafman, this cause should be remanded with a
>firm directive for dismissal and the Appellant so urges this court.
>Appellant takes note that absent a valid assessment the jurisdiction on
>which the District Court relies to proceed will reducing a concurrent
>tax lien to judgment and foreclosure on that judgment is
>jurisdictionally barred. Likewise, it follows that the Government’s
>argument as to Appellant’s alleged fraudulent transfers of property - or
>no - must fail as being moot.
>===================================
>
>end of bried
>
>attached is a copy of the same in MS word for Windows 95
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>--====================987654321_0==_
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="23C.doc"
>
>
>Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\23C.doc"
>--====================987654321_0==_
>
>--====================987654321_0==_--
>
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail