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