Time: Fri Nov 08 10:12:41 1996 To: richard@caprica.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Wray Brief Cc: Neil Nordbrock, Dean Hines Bcc: attaching WRAY.DOC the updated Wray brief in MS-WORD for DOS Version 5.0B. .ZIP file has all other formats I have written to date. /s/ Paul Mitchell Charles Wray c/o P.O. Box 1527 Ojai, California state Post Office # 92034 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Charles Wray, ) Case No. CV-96-3819-DT(VAPax) Plaintiff ) ) PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND v. ) MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO THE KEITH ODELL, ) CALIFORNIA SMALL CLAIMS COURT; Defendant ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES ) ) Hearing Date: August 26, 1996 ) _________________________) __________ a.m, Courtroom No. 880 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on August 26, 1996, at ______ a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of United States District Judge Dickran Tevrizian, Jr., courtroom 880, United States Courthouse, Roybal Federal Building, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, Charles Wray, Plaintiff, a Citizen of California state, will and does move: 1. That this honorable Court remand the above entitled action back to the California Small Claims Court, on the grounds that Defendant Keith Odell (hereinafter "Defendant"), as an employee of the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic] (hereinafter "IRS"), has alleged, but not shown, that he is a duly constituted Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 1 of 8 federal employee who is entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity, and has failed to prove standing to remove this matter from the California Small Claims Court to the United States District Court. 2. In order to obtain removal of this action to the United States District Court, Defendant violated state law (California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), Section 116.540(i)). Motion for removal may only be made by a named Defendant. The grounds for this motion are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Wray Citizen of California state Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 2 of 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. DEFENDANT HAS NOT SHOWN ESSENTIAL FACTS THAT SUPPORT CLAIM OF BEING A DULY CONSTITUTED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO DEFENSES ASSERTED. Defendant claims to be an employee of "an agency of the United States acting under authority of an Act of Congress", (see Defendant's Notice of Removal of Civil Action, page 2, lines 25 and 26). In order to support Defendant's assertion that, as an employee of a federal agency, he is entitled to immunity from suit, and to transfer of this case to the United States District Court, he must first show which Act of Congress created his employer as a federal agency. Claiming that his employer's status is that of a federal agency is insufficient. As a matter of common practice, those who oppose Defendant's employer do not question or otherwise challenge the status of the IRS as a federal agency. However, Plaintiff hereby challenges Defendant's claim and places the question squarely before this honorable Court. In 1972, the Internal Revenue Manual 1100 (IRM 1100) was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin (see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960; 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 Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 3 of 8 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 federal agency. The Act of 1862 cited supra only created the Office of the Commissioner, not the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or the IRS. Furthermore, the Act of 1862 was repealed and not re-enacted by the Revised statutes of 1873. If there was 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". 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 Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 4 of 8 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, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943). Furthermore, Defendant may not claim standing without 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. 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. In this matter, Defendant has cited no Act of Congress which shows that his employer is a duly constituted federal agency entitling him to claims of sovereign immunity. As a result, Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 5 of 8 Defendant has not shown the necessary elements to entitle him to immunity from suit, which immunity is afforded to federal employees, or to a transfer to the United States District Court. This Court must remove this action back to the California Small Claims Court, inasmuch as Defendant has done nothing more than to claim he is a federal employee of a duly authorized federal agency. He has provided no specific legislation, statute, or Act of Congress creating the IRS as a federal agency. Indeed, no such legislation exists to cite in the first instance. II. DISTRICT COURT MAY NOT ALLOW CIRCUMVENTION OF STATE LAW AND THEREBY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION. California Civil Code ("CCC"), Section 116.540, states: Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an attorney to participate in a small claims action except as expressly provided in Section 116.530. Section 116.530 makes no provision permitting participation of Defendant's attorney in this matter to file motions of any kind. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not afforded any opportunities to oppose Defendant's motion for removal. The United States District Court may not permit the violation of state law, in order to acquire jurisdiction. REMEDY REQUESTED For the above stated reasons, this Court should remand the matter back to the California Small Claims Court. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Wray Citizen of California state Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 6 of 8 C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E I, _____________, under penalties of perjury, declare that I am a Citizen of California state, domiciled in California state, and a Citizen of the several States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, and I am not a citizen of the United States (District of Columbia) and a subject of Congress under the 14th Amendment (federal citizen), or a resident under the 14th Amendment in the federal State of California. It is hereby certified that service of this Notice of Motion and Motion for Remand Back to the California Small Claims Court have been made on the Defendant(s) and all interested parties by personal service, or by mailing one copy each thereof, on this _______ day of August, 1996, in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid and properly addressed to them as follows: Gregory A. Roth Assistant United States Attorney 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 2315 Los Angeles, California Postal Zone <90012> Janet Reno Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington D.C. "Internal Revenue Service" Keith Odell [address omitted] Oxnard, California Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Wray Citizen of California state Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 7 of 8 The Defendant's claim that the Anti-Injunction Act applies in this case is also without merit absent a showing by the Defendant that Plaintiff has a liability for unpaid taxes under the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 as presently revised. Defendant relies on Wages v. IRS. That case is distinguished from this action in that the Plaintiff in Wages conceded the fact as to obligation under the Act for taxes. Furthermore the Plaintiff was an artificial entity that does not possess the same rights and constitutional protections afforded a Citizen of a state. Motion to Remand Back to State Court: Page 8 of 8
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail