Time: Fri Dec 12 06:17:02 1997
To: Jay Robbins <han-wi@ri.ultranet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: no Act of Congress created "IRS"
Cc:
Bcc: sls
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.
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail