Time: Mon Oct 27 04:04:33 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA26809;
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 04:00:06 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA16948;
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:58:09 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:59:01 -0800
To: "Dale Robertson" <habeascorpus@hotmail.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: proper IRS Form 23C mandatory for assessment
Good work, Dale. With Brafman as an anchor,
or foundation, you can branch into delegation
of authority, oath of office, IRC 6065, and,
of couse, my favorite -- the U.S. Constitution
which any completed Appointment Affidavits
are required to mention, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3331.
The U.S. Constitution was not correctly published
in the federal depository libraries, nor in the
law books upon which the court relied, then and
now, for conclusive evidence of the supreme Law;
therefore, said Appointment Affidavit was an
unconscionable contract, because it was touched
by fraud. See Dyett v. Turner for unrebutted
evidence concerning the 14th amendment [sic].
Finally, the Appointment Affidavit is an
OMB-approved form, invoking the Paperwork
Reduction Act against any which did not exhibit
a valid OMB control number AND expiration date
in the upper right-hand corner; thus, the
Affidavits in question are bookleg forms, even
if they are completed properly, pursuant to the
public protection clauses in the PRA. Some of
these concepts are developed fully In Re Grand Jury
Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company,
now loaded in the Supreme Law Library, at the URL
just below my name here:
I hope this helps. Keep up the good work, Dale.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 02:54 PM 10/26/97 PST, you wrote:
>Paul:
>
>Your point is absolutely correct - and - as you can see from the first
>sentence of my brief that I have quoted the Brafman case and indeed the
>brief is built around the Brafman's principles and concepts.
>
>Dale
>===============================
>
>>From pmitch@primenet.com Sun Oct 26 01:00:00 1997
> 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: quoted-printable
>
>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:
>>--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D987654321_0=
>=3D=3D_
>>
>>TO: LLAW COUNSELLORS - ALL & OTHER FRIENDS
>>FROM: DALE ROBERTSON
>>SUBJECT: PROPER IRS FORM 23C IS MANDATORY FOR ASSESSMENT OF TAX
>>
>>COUNSELLORS: (Distribution list suppressed)=20
>>
>>This is a hypertechnical and somewhat punctillious subject - but an=20
>>important one none the less.
>>
>>Form 23C is an IRS form which is required to be signed by an
>assessment=20
>>officer prior to a declared or voluntarily derived deficiency or tax
>due=20
>>can be properly reduced to lien and subjected to collection
>procedures=20
>>by the IRS. Further, District Court jurisdiction for collection and=20
>>reducing assessments and liens to judgement is predicated, in part,
>on=20
>>the existence of a proper assessment and thus the Form 23C.
>>
>>Pardon the precision here but it is important to distinguish the=20
>>deficiency claimed - or tax which is claimed as being due - from its=20
>>assessment. Assessments and Deficiencies - They are two very
>different=20
>>and important steps in the process of making your revenue taxable to
>the=20
>>government under the present scheme of tax laws - which ostensibly
>are=20
>>about to undergo some significant changes to listen to the
>congressmen=20
>>and women who smell opportunity - for what its worth.=20
>>=20
>>In short the deficiency claimed must be properly and lawfully and=20
>>exactly "assessed". To achieve assessment the deficiency must be=20
>>subjected to either a self assessment process or the due process of
>a=20
>>deficiency 30 day or 90 letter notice which gives you either the=20
>>alternative to pay the tax declared against you or to petition the
>tax=20
>>court for a "redetermination" of the deficiency declared against
>you.=20
>>Now this is where the Form 23C becomes crucial. When the deficiency=20
>>claimed by the IRS is redetermined by the tax court - as it
>inexorably=20
>>is - then the deficiency must be assessed on Form 23C and the form
>must=20
>>be signed by the authorized assessment officer to make the deficiency
>in=20
>>tax assessed and then collectable. Deficiencies are mere claims that=20
>>there is a tax due. Assessments are a fact that the amout claimed due
>is=20
>>now subject to enforced collection activity pursuant to 26 USC 6331
>-=20
>>ie: Levy and Distraint by any means. Read the statute - - - =20
>>
>>In recent years there has been a move on at the IRS to make the=20
>>mechanical handeling (ie: computer produced Form 23C) as all that is=20
>>necessary for the legal steps to be required for assessment - that is
>to=20
>>say absent a real signature in lieu of a mechnaical or computer
>produced=20
>>signature. The regulations ie: 301-6203-1 - - may specifiy this at
>the=20
>>present time but, I understand, that it is not the subject of
>uniform=20
>>practice over the US but rather changes from district to district=20
>>depending on where you are. And you thought that due process was
>uniform=20
>>and equal under the rule of law - - ta ta ta!=20
>>
>>Now the important point to all this is that the Form 23C is essential
>to=20
>>a proper assessment. Have you requested yours lately? Or how about
>your=20
>>friends who have tax liabilities. If you/they have already paid, an=20
>>invalid 23C forms gives rise to valid Federal District Court suits
>for=20
>>refund and the case law supports that the courts grant the refunds
>from=20
>>the IRS when the 23C form is not proper. Check it out.=20
>>
>>Following here is a recent brief on the subject in an actual ongoing=20
>>case before a Federal Court of Appeals.=20
>>
>>Further attached is the same brief in MS Word for Windows 95.
>>
>>Enjoy - - - and, I will appreciate some feedback from others who
>have=20
>>interest, comment, criticism, complaints and/or experience in the
>same=20
>>matters! What say you? - - guys.
>>
>>Constitutionally,
>>
>>Dale Robertson
>>habeascoprus@hotmail.com
>>
>>\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=
>=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\
>>"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=20
>>cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of=20
>>immemorial antiquity... ."
>>
>>"It's root principle is that in a civilized society,=20
>>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=20
>>individual is entitled to his immediate release."
>>
>>Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963)
>>\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=
>=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\=3D\
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dale Robertson
>>habeascorpus@hotmail.com
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>>=20
>>CONTRARY TO THE APPELLEE=92S CONTENTION THE UNDERLYING ASSESSMENT IS=20
>>INVALID IN THAT THE PROPER STEPS REQUIRED BY LAW, INCLUDING FORM
>23C,=20
>>HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. =20
>>=09
>>Thirty years ago, in the case of Brafman v US, 384 F.2d 863, this
>court=20
>>(5th Cir - Justices Tuttle and Wisdom) reviewed the practices of
>IRS=20
>>assessments including the here hotly disputed Form 23C. Despite
>Form=20
>>23C having been reviewed by this court in Brafman, the Appellee
>clearly=20
>>shows by its brief that it has other and demonstrably inconsistent=20
>>views. However, the underlying assessment at issue in this case is=20
>>invalid as measured by Brafman, supra.
>> The Appellee insist without case law support that "[t]he IRS,
>however,=20
>>followed the appropriate procedures in determining the amount of the
>tax=20
>>liabilities and assessing the tax liabilities of the taxpayer, and=20
>>taxpayer has failed to establish that the assessments were
>improper."=20
>>See Appellee=92s Brief at page 18, paragraph 2.
>> The Appellee=92s prevarications go further and proffer without any
>case=20
>>law support the proposition that "[t]he only evidence with which the=20
>>United States must come forward is evidence of the making of the=20
>>assessment itself. (Appellee=92s Br at p. 18 para 2) =20
>>In other words, the Appellee now contends directly to this court -
>in=20
>>its brief - that the United States neither has to conform with the
>law=20
>>or the procedural pronouncements respecting the law made by this
>very=20
>>court of appeals. However, Appellant is left to specifically observe=20
>>that the Government is simply wrong, and should be pronounced as
>being=20
>>utterly wrong, in both law and in fact.
>> As to the law, "[t]he Treasury Regulations are binding on the=20
>>Government as well as on the taxpayer: Tax officials and taxpayers
>alike=20
>>are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank of Seattle
>v.=20
>>Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1987, 91 F.2d 103, 10; [See also: Miller v=20
>>Commissioner, 8 Cir.,1964, 333 F.2d 400; McCord V. Granger, 3 Cir.
>1952,=20
>>201 F.2d 103; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Westover, S.D. Cal.
>1947,=20
>>70 Supp. 111.] Even the instructions on the reverse side of the=20
>>assessment certificate, Form 23C, specify that the original form "is
>to=20
>>be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after which
>it=20
>>will be returned to the Accounting Branch for permanent filing=85.".
>See:=
>=20
>>Brafman v United States 863 F.2d 863(1967) @ 866.
>> And, as to the fact, the record is clear, the United=20
>>States has failed to produce any Form 23C whatsoever when it was=20
>>properly the subject of Appellant=92s persistent discovery efforts
>aided=20
>>ultimately by court ordered and enforced discovery efforts. As was
>noted=20
>>by the magistrate, the government has conceded that there is no form=20
>>23C. See: # "9" of the Record Excerpts of Appellant=92s opening
>brief.=20
>>Appellant notes that there is probably good reason for the
>Appellee=92s=20
>>failure to respond to discovery as to Form 23C and that reason is
>that=20
>>it doesn=92t exist - and in any event it simply was not produced when
>it=20
>>was proper, lawful and timely to do so. Thus, the Government=92s
>failure=20
>>to produce the relevant Form 23C flies in the face of the directory=20
>>pronouncements of this court of appeals as well as the United States=20
>>Congress. See: Brafman, supra at page 867, footnote 10. =20
>>"The Secretary is directed to furnish to the taxpayer, upon request,
>a=20
>>copy of the record of the assessment of the taxpayer=92s liability."
>And,=
>=20
>>"What is important in any case is that assessment is not automatic
>upon=20
>>recordation; it requires the action of an assessment officer. That=20
>>action as defined explicitly in the Treasury Regulations, is the
>signing=20
>>of the certificate." See: Brafman, supra @ page 867. In this case,=20
>>Appellant observes that the Government has failed to produce any
>Form=20
>>23C, whether signed by the assessment officer or by some other method;
>=20
>>The omission of which strongly suggests that Form 23c either is not=20
>>properly signed or simply doesn=92t exist. =20
>> In light of this court of appeal=92s pronouncements in Brafman,
>supra,=20
>>for the Appellee to now present an argument countervailing to this=20
>>court=92s opinion 30 years after the fact is disingenuous at best.
>Notice=
>=20
>>is made that this character of "representation" to this court, as
>has=20
>>been proffered by Appellee, may be in specific violation of Rule 11
>of=20
>>the FRCivP as well as the corresponding rules against
>misrepresentations=20
>>before this court. =20
>>The representations are particularly disingenuous considering the =20
>>content of Internal Revenue Service official Memorandum pertaining
>to=20
>>form 23C dated April 12, 1990. See attached to this brief
>Appellate=92s=20
>>"Exhibit A" which is included here as a matter of convenience to the=20
>>court having been previously placed, by reproduction of the same,
>into=20
>>the evidence tendered in the trial before the District Court below.
>The=20
>>IRS Memoranda is thus already a part of the record properly before
>this=20
>>court of appeals. The IRS Memorandum of April 12, 1990 allows that:
>>"The omitted signatures on both the manual and Martinsburg Computing=20
>>Center (MCC) generated documents are considered administrative errors
>in=20
>>nonconformance with Section 301.6203-1 of the regulations on
>Procedure=20
>>and Administration. We are in the process of having the Regulation=20
>>amended to redefine a valid assessment as one that is authorized by
>a=20
>>controlled mechanical or manual signature. Until the Regulation is=20
>>modified, we again want to impress on you the importance of the=20
>>Assessment Officer=92s signature and the need for us to rectify the=20
>>current problem originating from this oversight."
>>The Appellate has repeatedly and persistently raised the omission of=20
>>form 23C error on the part of the government to no avail. The IRS as=20
>>well as the District Court below have thusly treated this due
>process=20
>>error as technical. But, to the District Court in United States v=20
>>Lehigh, W.D. Ark 1961, 201 F.Supp 224, 234, this is both true and=20
>>immaterial. The court said:
>>"The procedures set forth in the Internal Revenue Code were
>prescribed=20
>>for the protection of both Government and taxpayer. Neglect to
>comply=20
>>with those procedures may entail consequences which the neglecting
>party=20
>>must be prepared to face whether such party be the taxpayer or the=20
>>Government."
>>Appellant again ask: "Where=92s the form 23C?". Where is it? Signed
>or=20
>>unsigned - mechanically produced or signed or otherwise - Simply,.
>where=20
>>is it? The government has persistently and arrogantly failed to
>produce=20
>>the form and then hides behind the arrogant and invidiously false=20
>>accusation that the Appellant "=85has failed to establish that the=20
>>assessments were improper=85". See Appellee=92s brief at page 18,
>paragraph=
>=20
>>2. =20
>> As this court stated in Brafman, supra at 864, "[t]he threshold
>issue=20
>>of the validity of the assessment is crucial." And "[w]e reverse
>(in=20
>>Brafman) on the ground that a valid assessment against the
>transferor=92s=
>=20
>>estate was not made, because of an assessment officers failure to
>sign=20
>>the certificate of assessment. The Government=92s claim against the=20
>>transferee is proscribed by the statue of limitations governing this=20
>>action." Appellant ask: Can the assessment challenged in this case
>be=20
>>any different when the Government arrogantly fails to produce any
>Form=20
>>23C at all - signed or no?
>>Appellant has not failed to take note that the Appellee has
>carefully=20
>>failed to cite the relevant IRS code sections to support its illicit=20
>>contentions as to a valid assessment in this case. As a relevant
>example=20
>>Appellant makes reference to 26 USC 6203. Although not cited by
>the=20
>>Appellee, 26 USC 6203 sets forth the procedure by which an
>assessment=20
>>gains its lawful and proper authority in law. Likewise not cited is=20
>>Treasury Regulation 301.6203-1 (1955) which sets forth procedure for=20
>>compliance with Section 6203. This too is not invoked by the
>Government=20
>>in any manner. But nevertheless, thus far, the Appellee continues to=20
>>stubbornly insist, and persist, in the utter fiction that it has a
>valid=20
>>assessment notwithstanding the law as well as the pronouncements of
>this=20
>>court to the contrary.=20
>>Predicated on the rule of law observed by this court of appeals in=20
>>Brafman, supra, this court should recognize the assessment at issue
>in=20
>>this case to be invalid. Accordingly, this court should reverse the=20
>>judgment of the District Court below as being wholly unsupported by
>any=20
>>valid assessment. In the alternative, should the court have found
>that=20
>>the statutory requirements for a valid assessments may be satisfied
>by=20
>>purely mechanical means, and thus wholly absent any actual signature=20
>>from an authorized IRS assessment officer, then under those=20
>>circumstances, Appellant will observe that 1) the assessments in
>this=20
>>case do not comply with even the mechanical requirements since none
>has=20
>>been produced at all, and 2) that the Government has in any case
>wholly=20
>>failed comply with the requirements to produce any valid Form 23C in
>any=20
>>manner whatever.=20
>> In sum, for a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, a valid=20
>>assessment must be made. A federal tax lien securing the taxes and=20
>>interest owed =85 arose "at the time the assessment [was] made," 26
>U.S.C.=
>=20
>>6322, and reached "all property and rights to property, whether real
>or=20
>>personal, belonging to [=85 the taxpayer=85] at that time. 26 U.S.C.
>6321.=
>=20
>>See: US v. Williams, ___ U.S. ___ (1995). (emphasis added to the=20
>>original text of the United States Supreme Court in Williams, supra)
>=20
>>That is the law. The law was, arrogantly, not followed by the
>Government=20
>>in this case. The so called assessment against the Appellant now at=20
>>issue in this case is deficient as a matter of law. The attendant
>liens=20
>>are therefor also deficient as a matter of law. The same should be
>so=20
>>pronounced by this court of appeals without equivocation. Both the=20
>>assessment and lien should be vacated. This court should on this
>appeal=20
>>grant a reversal of the judgment of the District Court below; And=20
>>following the procedure in Brafman, this cause should be remanded with
>a=20
>>firm directive for dismissal and the Appellant so urges this court.
>>Appellant takes note that absent a valid assessment the jurisdiction
>on=20
>>which the District Court relies to proceed will reducing a
>concurrent=20
>>tax lien to judgment and foreclosure on that judgment is=20
>>jurisdictionally barred. Likewise, it follows that the
>Government=92s=20
>>argument as to Appellant=92s alleged fraudulent transfers of property -
>or=
>=20
>>no - must fail as being moot. =20
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>>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
>>--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D987654321_0=
>=3D=3D_
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode
>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=3D"23C.doc"
>>
>>
>>Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\23C.doc"
>>--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D987654321_0=
>=3D=3D_
>>
>>--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D987654321_0=
>=3D=3D_--
>>
>>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>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
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 12
>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>13
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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 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