Time: Mon Nov 17 04:20:18 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA01258;
	Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:12:32 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA26877;
	Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:11:32 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd026875; Mon Nov 17 04:11:26 1997
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:11:45 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: IRS-day report (fwd)

>       Report on IRS "PROBLEM SOLVING DAY", Nov. 15, 1997
>                          INTRODUCTION
>    IRS "Problem solving day" is being held in all 33 IRS
>districts.  This was billed in the press as a "national day of
>redress" [Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 1997].  Many IRS employees
>attended, all wearing 3-inch buttons proclaiming in colored
>            "At the IRS
>             We Work For You
>             Problem Solving Days"
>A large colored poster with the same message adorned the waiting
>                             SUMMARY
>    For me, the event was a complete waste of time.  Absolutely
>nothing was accomplished that could be called "problem solving".
>    The hearing officer was officious, insolent, irritable,
>pushy, and did not give me a chance to present my case.
>    She grasped at the fact that the IRS is suing me (for some of
>the years) to foreclose on my home, taking the position that "we
>can't handle it" because the Justice Dept. "is controlling the
>                         INTERVIEW NOTES
>    The interview was with Miss G. Reed, IRS Collections (?).
>    She had a computer printout of my file, and a handwritten
>memo which may have been of my phone conversation setting up the
>    She said that there was mention of a suit (on the memo) but
>nothing on the computer printout about a suit.  She immediately
>began to question me about the suit.  She asked several times if
>I had brought any documents about the suit.  I answered that I
>did not.
>    She continued to question me about the suit, repeatedly
>asking for documents pertaining to the suit.  Finally she phoned
>the US Attorney's office.  She said that they confirmed that
>there was an IRS civil suit against me (to foreclose on my home
>for taxes in certain years).
>    She said that since "the case" was in the hands of the
>Justice Dept., "we can't handle it", because the Justice Dept.
>"are controlling the case" and "have jurisdiction".
>    I asked if that was true even though she hadn't looked at my
>documents which show IRS procedural irregularity.  She repeated
>that "the case" is being "controlled" by the Justice Dept.
>    I showed her the substitute return for 1973 prepared by the
>IRS.  She admitted that it contained no financial numbers and no
>signature.  I pointed out that the law requires financial
>information [Florsheim v US, 280 US 453 at 460 (1930), etc.] and
>the signature of an IRS official [IRC 6020(b)(2); 6061; 6065]
>[cf.  Phillips v CIR, 86 TC 433 at 437-8]
>    I asked if she would pass on the information about this
>procedural irregularity to the Justice Dept.  She said no.
>I tried to show her some documents pertaining to other years
>beyond 1980.  She refused to look at then, declaring the meeting
>at an end.
>    (End of interview.)
>    NOTE:  The Justice Dept. civil suit against me involves taxes
>only for the years 1973-80.  The Justice Dept. does NOT in fact
>have any "jurisdiction" over the years 1981-96, and there is no
>reason why the IRS hearing officer "can't handle" those years.
>I was prepared to discuss those other years but she refused to
>listen and terminated the hearing.
>    In Phillips v CIR, cited above, the Tax Court stated:
>"We cannot accord the status of a 'return' to a [dummy return]
>form filed simply to facilitate respondent's [IRS] processing
>procedures.  See FTR 301.6020-1(b)(1) and (b)(2)."  [bracketed
>words added]
>                             COMMENT
>    This interview illustrates the IRS attitude that the IRS is
>under no obligation to correct its mistakes.
>    By refusing to point out to the Justice Dept. the procedural
>irregularities which might have the effect of rendering the
>government's case untenable, the IRS compounds the injustice
>caused by the original filing of the suit based on false "facts"
>(which the IRS certified to the Justice Dept. as "true").  By
>refusing to correct the information, the IRS lets stand a lie:
>"information" that the IRS knows to be false.
>    By its action, the IRS in effect claims the right to violate
>the law with impunity, disregarding and trampling on the right of
>a citizen to fundamental due process, to the facts and to a
>hearing.  By its action, the IRS protects its rear at the expense
>of the citizen's rights.
>    If the IRS violates the law in the course of imposing a tax,
>as in the present case, justice requires that the IRS should be
>held accountable and should make amends.  Instead, it offers the
>lame excuse that one IRS error (filing suit based on faulty
>information) makes it "impossible" for the IRS to correct that
>very error.  Catch-22 or cover-up?
>    Thus it appears to be IRS policy to file suit against the
>victim of IRS irregularity and lawlessness, in order to cover up
>that very irregularity and lawlessness.
>    It appears that there is no mechanism within the IRS for
>correcting mistakes or information once that false "information"
>becomes part of an IRS-instigated suit.  This puts an intolerable
>burden on the target of such a suit.
>    Some procedure or process should be set up whereby corrected
>IRS information could be transmitted to the US Attorney, so that
>needless litigation would be avoided, and justice served.
>    For example, when the prosecutor of an accused hears
>convincing evidence that a different person committed the crime
>in question, he does not IGNORE that evidence and press on
>willy-nilly to convict the innocent, but instead he drops the
>charges against the wrongly-accused.
>                            QUESTION
>    Should the IRS, when it finds evidence of IRS procedural
>irregularity or factual error, in a civil suit initiated by the
>IRS, pass on this information to the Justice Dept., where the
>said information might be favorable to the defendant?
>    Justice demands that the IRS be required to provide to the
>Justice Dept. any exculpatory evidence relating to any suit that
>originated with the IRS.
>Paul Stout
>150 N. Main St., Lombard IL 60148
>E-mail: PaulStout@juno.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