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