Time: Fri Dec 12 06:28:06 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA13865
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:22:23 -0700 (MST)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA04087;
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:23:07 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd004030; Fri Dec 12 06:22:49 1997
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:17:04 -0800
To: Jay Robbins <han-wi@ri.ultranet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: no Act of Congress created "IRS"
References: <3.0.3.16.19971212055754.3f6f19d6@pop.primenet.com>
FYI:
The IRS genealogy is documented, and published,
in "The Cooper File" in the Supreme Law Library,
at the URL just below my name here:
These historical facts have remained unrebutted
by anyone in the federal government!
/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com
At 08:07 AM 12/12/97, you wrote:
>I know that and you do also, and they said it in their letter! That is why
>I posted that!
>
>
>
>
>At 05:57 AM 12/12/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
>>Counselor at Law, and Relator
>>c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
>>Tucson, Arizona state
>>zip code exempt
>>
>>Under Protest, Necessity, and
>>by Special Visitation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>>
>> JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTANA
>>
>> BILLINGS DIVISION
>>
>>
>>People of the United States ) Case No. CV-96-163-BLG
>>of America, ex relatione )
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION
>> ) FOR LEAVE TO INSTITUTE QUO WARRANTO
>> Petitioners, ) PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
>> ) "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" [sic]
>> vs. )
>> ) This is a 60-day letter.
>>United States et al., )
>> ) All Writs Statute:
>> Respondent. ) 28 U.S.C. 1651
>>____________________________)
>>
>>COME NOW the People of the United States of America (hereinafter
>>
>>"Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,
>>
>>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law
>>
>>(hereinafter "Relator"), to provide formal Notice to all
>>
>>interested party(s), and to demand mandatory judicial notice by
>>
>>this honorable Court, pursuant to Rules 201(d), 301, and 302 of
>>
>>the Federal Rules of Evidence, of Petitioners' intent to petition
>>
>>this honorable Court for leave to institute Quo Warranto
>>
>>proceedings against the organization known as the "Internal
>>
>>Revenue Service" (hereinafter "IRS"), and to do so at the end of
>>
>>sixty (60) calendar days, which day is Friday, April 4, 1997.
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 1 of 5
>>
>> In 1972, Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both
>>
>>the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin (see 37 Fed. Reg.
>>
>>20,960; 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836). The very first page of the
>>
>>Bulletin's "Statement of Organization and Functions" includes the
>>
>>following admission concerning the lawful creation of the IRS:
>>
>> (3) By common parlance [sic] and understanding of the time,
>> an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of
>> Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the
>> Treasury, in his report at the close of the calendar year
>> 1862 stated that "The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been
>> organized under the Action of the last session ...." Also
>> it can been seen that Congress intended to establish a
>> Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the
>> act of March 3, 1863, in which provision was made for the
>> President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy
>> Commissioner of Internal Revenue "who shall be charged with
>> the duties in the bureau of internal revenue as may be
>> prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be
>> require by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of
>> Internal Revenue in the absence of that officer, and
>> exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents
>> pertaining to the office of internal revenue." In other
>> words, "the office of Internal Revenue," was the "Bureau of
>> Internal Revenue," and the act of July 1, 1862, is the
>> organic act of today's Internal Revenue Service.
>>
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>> This statement clearly admits the absence of any specific
>>
>>statute or other legislation creating the Bureau of Internal
>>
>>Revenue and its present day alter ego -- the IRS -- as a duly
>>
>>constituted agency of the United States (federal government).
>>
>>The Act of 1862 cited supra only created the Office of the
>>
>>Commissioner, not the Bureau of Internal Revenue, nor the IRS.
>>
>> Furthermore, the Acts of July 1, 1862, and March 3, 1873,
>>
>>were both repealed and were not re-enacted by the Revised
>>
>>Statutes of 1873. If there were a specific Act creating the
>>
>>Bureau, the publication would have so stated, rather than to rely
>>
>>upon the claim that Congress "thought they had created the
>>
>>Bureau".
>>
>>
>> Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 2 of 5
>>
>> Thus, the IRS was not established by the Constitution, has
>>
>>never been created by any Act of Congress, and is not a duly
>>
>>constituted office of the United States (federal government).
>>
>>See United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v.
>>
>>Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) ("there can
>>
>>be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office
>>
>>to fill"); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505
>>
>>(1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595, 607,
>>
>>21 S.Ct. 891 (1901) ("The law creates the office, prescribes its
>>
>>duties"); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39
>>
>>S.Ct. 137 (1919) ("Primarily we may say that the creation of
>>
>>offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative
>>
>>function .... And we think the delegation must have clear
>>
>>expression or implication"); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S.
>>
>>512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchel,
>>
>>269 U.S. 513, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola
>>
>>Bottling Co. Of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383
>>
>>(1956) ("'Officers' normally means those who hold defined
>>
>>offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other
>>
>>agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the
>>
>>trade-union movement."); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F.
>>
>>851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir.
>>
>>1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.New. 1910)
>>
>>("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly
>>
>>speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution
>>
>>itself, or by an act of Congress"); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80
>>
>>F.2d. 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp.
>>
>>495 (E.D. Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 E.2d 513,
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 3 of 5
>>
>>515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006,
>>
>>1009 (6th Cir. 1943).
>>
>> Furthermore, neither the Respondents, nor the IRS, nor any
>>
>>of their agencies, assigns, or instrumentalities, may claim
>>
>>standing without first alleging facts to show the standing to be
>>
>>true:
>>
>>
>> Standing cannot be inferred argumentatively from averments
>> in the pleadings, but rather must affirmatively appear in
>> the record; it is the burden of the party who seeks the
>> exercise of jurisdiction in his favor clearly to allege
>> facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke
>> judicial resolution of the dispute; the parties must allege
>> facts essential to show jurisdiction, and if they fail to
>> make the necessary allegations, they have not standing.
>>
>> [FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215]
>> [110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d. 603]
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>>
>> Unlike most state courts of general jurisdiction, in which
>> jurisdiction is generally presumed unless contrary is
>> demonstrated, in federal district courts absence of
>> jurisdiction is generally presumed unless party invoking
>> federal jurisdiction clearly demonstrates that it exists.
>>
>> [State of La. v. Sprint Communications Co.]
>> [892 F.Supp. 145]
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>>
>>Dated: February 4, 1997
>>
>>Respectfully submitted,
>>
>>/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>>
>>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
>>and Counselor at Law
>>All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 4 of 5
>>
>> PROOF OF SERVICE
>>
>>I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state,
>>
>>federal witness, and Counselor at Law, do hereby certify, under
>>
>>penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
>>
>>America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years
>>
>>of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
>>
>>that I personally served the following document(s):
>>
>> NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE
>> TO INSTITUTE QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
>> THE "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE":
>> This is a 60-day letter.
>> All Writs Statute: 28 U.S.C. 1651
>>
>>by placing one true and correct copy of same in first class U.S.
>>
>>Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
>>
>>Attorney General William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
>>Department of Justice Supreme Court of the U.S.
>>10th and Constitution, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E.
>>Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
>>
>>Solicitor General Warren Christopher
>>Department of Justice U.S. Secretary of State
>>10th and Constitution, N.W. Department of State
>>Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
>>
>>James M. Burns LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer
>>United States District Court c/o Yellowstone County Jail
>>316 North 26th Street 3165 King Avenue, East
>>Billings, Montana state Billings, Montana state
>>
>>Office of the U.S. Attorneys Judge J. Clifford Wallace
>>United States District Court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
>>Federal Building c/o P.O. Box 193939
>>Billings, Montana state San Francisco, California
>>
>>Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski
>>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
>>c/o P.O. Box 193939 125 South Grand Avenue, #200
>>San Francisco, California state Pasadena, California state
>>
>>
>>Executed on February 4, 1997:
>>
>>/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
>>
>>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
>>Counselor at Law, and Relator
>>
>>
>> Notice of Intent to Quo Warranto the IRS: Page 5 of 5
>>
>>
>> # # #
>>
>>===========================================================================
>>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
>>
>>
> Jay Robbins
> 4 Your Information
> PO Box 672
> Woonsocket, RI 02895
> Email:
han-wi@ri.ultranet.com
> Voicemail:1-800-947-1902
> Website:
>http://www.ultranet.com/~han-wi
> IRS: We've got what it takes, to take what
>you've got.
>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
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