Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt
Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA      )  Case No. GJ-95-1-6
SERVED ON                      )
                               )  UPDATE TO MISCELLANEOUS
_______________________________)  EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED
COMES NOW  Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, Sui  Juris, Sovereign  Arizona
Citizen (hereinafter  "Counsel") and  Vice  President  for  Legal
Affairs of  New Life  Health Center  Company,  an  Unincorporated
Business Trust domiciled in the Arizona Republic (hereinafter the
"Company"), to  provide notice  to all  interested parties of the
attached  update   to  a  matter  of  material  evidence  in  the
AUTHORITIES previously  executed and  served on  May 14, 1996 and
filed in  the instant  case immediately  thereafter.  The updated
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 1 of 21

        Memorandum in Support of Administrative Appeals,
            Civil Litigation &/or Criminal Complaints
     This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely
to provide  all interested parties with sufficient information to
constitute notice, and thereby compel due diligence necessary for
determining law which governs the conduct of the various parties.
Each matter  at issue  is being  treated with  as much brevity as
possible.    Should  it  be  necessary  to  independently  pursue
administrative and/or  judicial remedies,  matters set out below,
anchored in  published law,  court cases,  and  other  government
publications, and  privately  published  material  to  which  the
Internal  Revenue  Service,  Department  of  Justice,  and  other
government agencies  have acquiesced, will be deemed accurate and
sufficient cause  for action,  should  Internal  Revenue  Service
officers or  agents and/or interested third parties fail to rebut
supporting contentions  with legal  authorities and other needful
documentation adequate to overcome assertions herein.
     This memorandum  will be construed to comply with provisions
necessary to  establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of
Evidence, and  attending State  rules) should  interested parties
fail to  rebut any  given allegation  or matter  of law addressed
herein.    The  memorandum  is  construed  as  adequate  to  meet
requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law.
Application of  matters established  herein will  be construed to
have general application.
            1.  IRS Identity & Principal of Interest
     In 1953,  the Internal  Revenue Service  was created  by the
stroke of  a pen  when the  Secretary of the Treasury changed the
name of  the Bureau  of Internal  Revenue (T.O.  No. 150-29, G.M.
Humphrey, Secretary  of the Treasury, July 9, 1953).  However, no
congressional  or  presidential  authorization  for  making  this
change has  been located,  so the  source  of  authority  had  to
originate elsewhere.    Research  to  which  IRS  officials  have
acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as
trustee of  Puerto Rico  Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC
Sec. 1321),  and as  will be demonstrated, the Secretary does, in
fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.
     The solid  link between the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of  the Treasury,  Puerto Rico, was first published in
the September  1995 issue  of Veritas Magazine, based on research
by William  Cooper and  Wayne  Bentson,  both  of  Arizona.    In
October, a  criminal complaint  was filed  in the  office of W.A.
Drew Edmondson,  Attorney General  for Oklahoma, against an Enid-
based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have
failed to  refute the  allegation that  IRS is  an agency  of the
Department of  Treasury, Puerto  Rico.    In  November,  criminal
sanctions were  filed simultaneously  with the grand jury for the
United  States  district  court  for  the  District  of  Northern
Oklahoma, Tulsa,  and the  office of  Attorney General Edmondson,
and both  the office  of  the  United  States  Attorney  and  IRS
principals have  yet to  rebut the  allegations in  that instance
(United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore et al., 95 CR-129C).
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 2 of 21

     By consulting  the index  for Chapter  3, Title  31  of  the
United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and  Firearms are  not listed  as agencies  of the United
States Department  of the Treasury.  The fact that Congress never
created  a   "Bureau  of   Internal  Revenue"   is  confirmed  by
publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971
- 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490;
and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.
     Implications are  condemning both  to IRS  and third parties
who knowingly  participate in IRS-initiated scams:  no legitimate
authority resides  in, or  emanates from, an office which was not
legitimately created  and/or ordained either by state or national
constitutions or by legislative enactment.  See variously, United
States v.  Germane, 99  U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S.  425, 441,  6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v.
Commissioner, 138  F.2d 1006,  1009 (6th  Cir., 1943);  where the
state is  concerned, the  most recent  corresponding decision was
State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
     Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR Sec.
1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.  The problem here is that
Congress promulgated  the Act  in 1935,  and the  same year,  the
United States  Supreme Court  declared the  Act unconstitutional.
Administration of  the Act  was subsequently  moved off-shore  to
Puerto Rico,  along with  the Federal Alcohol Administration, and
operation eventually  merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
Puerto Rico,  which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Philippines,  created  by  the  Philippines  provisional
government via  Philippines Trust  #2 (internal  revenue) (see 31
USC Sec.  1321 for  listing of  Philippines  Trust  #2  (internal
revenue)), administered  the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue
collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines).  This line
will be  resumed after  examining additional evidences concerning
IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.
     Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority
in  the  several  States  is  found  in  the  Parallel  Table  of
Authorities and  Rules, beginning  at page  751 of the 1995 Index
volume to the Code of Federal Regulations.  It will be found that
there are  no regulations  supportive of 26 USC Secs. 7621, 7801,
7802 &  7803 (these  statute listings are absent from the table).
In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal
Register, extending  authority to  the  several  States  and  the
population at  large:   (1) to establish revenue districts within
the several States,  (2) extending authority of the Department of
the Treasury  [Puerto Rico]  to the  several States,   (3) giving
authority to  the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants
within the  several States,  or   (4) extending  authority of any
other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.
     Authority  of   the  Internal   Revenue  Service,   via  the
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  is convoluted in regulations,
but makes  an amount  of  sense  by  citing  various  regulations
pertaining to  the Service  and application of the Commissioner's
authority.   General procedural  rules at  26 CFR Sec. 601.101(a)
provide a beginning point:
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 3 of 21

     (a)   General.   The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of
     the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction
     of the  Commissioner of  Internal Revenue.  The Commissioner
     has general superintendence of the assessment and collection
     of all  taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue.
     The Internal  Revenue Service  is the  agency by which these
     functions are performed ....
     The  fact   that  there   are   no   regulations   extending
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  or Department of the Treasury
authority to  the several  States  (26  USC  Sec.  7802(a)),  has
greater clarity  in the light of the general merging of functions
between  IRS   and  other  agencies  presently  attached  to  the
Department of  the Treasury.  The link between IRS and the Bureau
of Alcohol,  Tobacco and  Firearms is significant because the tie
with the  Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury,
Puerto Rico,  is through this door.  Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1940, Section 2, made the following change:
     Sec. 2.  Federal Alcohol Administration
     The Federal  Alcohol  Administration,  the  offices  of  the
     members thereof,  and the  office of  the Administrator  are
     abolished, and  their function  shall be  administered under
     the direction  and  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the
     Treasury through  the Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue  in  the
     Department of the Treasury.
     Again, the  Federal Alcohol  Administration Act  of 1935 was
declared unconstitutional  in 1935,  and the operation thereafter
transferred off-shore  to Puerto  Rico. The name of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue  was changed  to the Internal Revenue Service in
1953 (cite  above), then  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
Firearms,  a  division  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Service,  was
seemingly separated  from IRS  (T.O. 120-01,  June 6,  1972).  In
relevant part, the order reads as follows:
     1.   The purpose  of this order is to transfer, as specified
          herein,  the   functions,  powers  and  duties  of  the
          Internal Revenue  Service arising under law relating to
          Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the
          Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal
          Revenue Service,  to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
          Firearms herein  after referred  to as the Bureau which
          is hereby  established.   The Bureau shall be headed by
          the Director  of  the  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and  Firearms
          herein referred to as the Director ....
     2.   The Director  shall perform the functions, exercise the
          powers and  carry out  the duties  of the Secretary and
          the administration and the enforcement of the following
          provisions of law:
          A.   Chapters 51 and 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of
          1954 and  Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as
          they relate  to the  commodity subject to the tax under
          such chapters.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 4 of 21

          B.   Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue
          Code of  1954 insofar  as  they  relate  to  activities
          administered and  enforced with  respect to chapter 51,
          52, 53.  [emphasis added]
    Transfer of  functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to
Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important
where the  instant matter  is concerned  as the  only regulations
published in  the Federal  Register  applicable  to  the  several
States are  under 27  C.F.R., Part  70, and  other parts  of this
title relating  exclusively  to  alcohol,  tobacco  and  firearms
matters.     However,  the   charade  doesn't   end  there.    In
Reorganization Plan  No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC Sec. 903), the original
Bureau of  Customs, created  by Act  of  Congress  in  1895,  was
abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury.
     In a  Treasury Order  published in  the Federal  Register of
December 15,  1976, the  Secretary of the Treasury used something
of a  slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, "The
term Director,  Alcohol, Tobacco,  and Firearms has been replaced
with the term Internal Revenue Service."
     Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing
when it  comes to  administrative responsibility.   However,  the
order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely
operating with  interchangeable hats.  Therefore, definitions and
designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.
     In  definitions   at  27  CFR  Sec.  250.11,  the  following
provisions are fond:
     Revenue Agent.   Any  duly authorized  Commonwealth Internal
     Revenue Agent  of the  Department of  the Treasury of Puerto
     Secretary.  The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
     Secretary or  his delegate.  The Secretary or any officer or
     employee of  the Department  of the  Treasury of Puerto Rico
     duly authorized  by the  Secretary to  perform the  function
     mentioned or described in this part.
     In the  absence of  any other  definition describing revenue
officers and  agents, the  Secretary, or  the Department  of  the
Treasury, definitions  above are  uniformly applicable to all IRS
an BATF  departments, functions  and personnel.  In fact, it will
be found  that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the
Internal  Revenue   Code  applies   only  to  the  United  States
territorial jurisdiction  exclusive of the several States, and to
imported petroleum.   BATF  has authority  only with  respect  to
firearms, munitions,  etc., produced  outside the  several States
and the first sale of imports.
     To date, only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as  currently amended,  have been located that specifically
reference the  several States,  exclusive of  the federal  States
(District of  Columbia, Puerto  Rico, Guam,  the Virgin  Islands,
etc.):   26 USC  Secs. 5272(b),  5362(c) &  7462.   The first two
provide certain  exemptions to  bond and  import tax requirements
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 5 of 21

relating to  imported distilled  spirits for  governments of  the
several States  and their  respective political subdivisions, and
the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax
Court will  constitute evidence  of the  reports in courts of the
United States and the several States.  None of the three statutes
extends assessment  or collections  authority  for  IRS  or  BATF
within the several States.
    IRS is  contracted to  provide collection  services for  the
Agency for  International Development,  and case law demonstrates
that the  true  principals  of  interest  are  the  International
Monetary Fund  and the  World Bank  (Bank of the United States v.
Planters Bank  of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244;  U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242;   see  22 USCA Sec. 286, et seq.).  In other words, IRS
seemingly provides  collection services  for undisclosed  foreign
principals  rather  than  collecting  internal  revenue  for  the
benefit of  constitutional United  States government  operations.
To date,  IRS principals  have failed  to dispute  the  published
Cooper/Bentson allegation  that the  agency,  via  these  foreign
principals, funded  the enormous  tank and military truck factory
on the Kama River, Russia.
     The Internal  Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect
to the  several States,  is not  registered to do business in the
several States.
             2.  Preservation of Due Process Rights
     The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by
statutory courts  both of  the  United  States  and  the  several
States, with  the latter  operating in  the framework  of adopted
uniform laws  which ascribe  a federal  character to  the several
States.   Both operate under the presumption of Congress' Article
IV  jurisdiction  within  the  geographical  United  States  (the
District  of  Columbia,  Puerto  Rico,  etc.),  both  accommodate
private  international   law  under   exclusively  United  States
treaties on  private international  law, and  both operate in the
framework of  admiralty rules  to  impose  Civil  Law  (see  both
majority &  dissenting opinions  variously, Bennis  v.  Michigan,
U.S.  Supreme  Court  No.  94-8729,  March  4,  1996),  which  is
repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority
of Department  of  Justice  as  representative  of  the  "Central
Authority" established  by U.S. treaties on private international
law at  28 CFR  Sec.  0.49;    also,  "conflict  of  laws"  as  a
subcategory to  "statutes" in  American Jurisprudence).  However,
this house  of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism,
known as  Corporatism well  into the  1930s, has  been thoroughly
documented and  is rapidly  being exposed  via state  and  United
States appellate courts and in public forum.
     In reality,  the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process
rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 6 of 21

                         [Sec. 7804(b)]
     Nothing in  Reorganization  Plan  Numbered  26  of  1950  or
     Reorganization Plan  Numbered 1  of 1952 shall be considered
     to impair  any right  or remedy, including trial by jury, to
     recover any  internal  revenue  tax  alleged  to  have  been
     erroneously or  illegally  assessed  or  collected,  or  any
     penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or
     any sum  alleged to  have been  excessive or  in any  manner
     wrongfully collected  under the  internal revenue laws.  For
     the purpose  of any action to recover any such tax, penalty,
     or sum,  all statutes,  rules, and  regulations referring to
     the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for
     the internal  revenue district,  or the  Secretary, shall be
     deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to
     in the  preceding sentence  gave rise  to such  action.  The
     venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing
     The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via
the Internal  Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at
Large, and  codified as  title 26  of  the  United  States  Code.
Savings statutes  have been  in place  since the  beginning,  but
generally not  understood by  the general population or the legal
profession.   The statute  set out  above is easier to comprehend
when references  are consolidated.  Further, the dependent clause
"including trial  by jury"  relates to a constitutionally assured
right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location
in the  sentence   Finally, the  matter of  venue is important as
"existing law" is constitutional and common law indigenous to the
several States.   In  the absence of legitimate federal law which
extends to  the several  States, those who operate under color of
law, engage  in oppression,  extortion, etc.,  are subject to the
foundation law  of the States.  Venue is determined by the law of
legislative jurisdiction.
     Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of
due process  rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and
Fourteenth Amendments  to the  Constitution for the United States
of America  and corresponding  provisions in constitutions of the
several States.  The example represents the class.
     Additionally, note  that:   (1) actions  may  issue  against
bogus assessments  as well as collections, and  (2) Sec. 7804(b),
unlike Sec.  7433, does not presume that the complaining party is
a "taxpayer".   Finally,  there is  26 C.F.R.,  Part 1 regulatory
support for Sec. 7804 where there are no regulations published in
the Federal  Register in support of Sec. 7433 (see Parallel Table
of Authorities  and Rules,  beginning on  page 751  of the  Index
volume to  the Code  of Federal  Regulations).   Therefore,  Sec.
7804(b) preserves  rights and  determines  the  nature  of  civil
actions for  remedies in  the several  States.  When straightened
out, applicable portions of Sec. 7804(b) read as follows:
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 7 of 21

     Nothing in  [the Internal  Revenue Code] shall be considered
     to impair  any right,  [including trial by jury], or remedy,
     [**], to  recover any  internal revenue  tax alleged to have
     been erroneously  or illegally  assessed or  collected  ....
     The venue  of any  such action  shall be  the same  as under
     existing law.
The necessity  of due  process is  implicitly preserved by 28 USC
2463, which  stipulates that  any  seizure  under  United  States
revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject
solely to  disposition of courts of the United States with proper
jurisdiction.   In  other  words,  even  if  IRS  had  legitimate
authority in  the several  States, the  agency would of necessity
have to  file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment,
seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty
or property  of any  given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment
citizen-subject of  the United  States, or a Citizen principal of
one of  the several  States.  Due process assurances in the Fifth
and Fourteenth  Amendments do  not equivocate  --  administrative
seizures without  due process  can be equated only to tyranny and
barbarian rule.   Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct
acknowledge and  therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at
26 CFR Sec. 601.106(f)(1).
     (1)   Rule 1.   An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is
     not based  upon law,  statutory or otherwise, is a taking of
     property without  due process  of law,  in violation  of the
     Fifth Amendment  to the  U.S. Constitution.  Accordingly, an
     Appeals representative  in his or her conclusions of fact or
     application of  the law,  shall  hew  to  the  law  and  the
     recognized standards of legal construction.  It shall be his
     or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with
     strict  impartiality   as  between   the  taxpayer  and  the
     Government, and  without  favoritism  or  discrimination  as
     between taxpayers.
     Even  officers,   agents  and  employees  of  United  States
agencies are  assured due  process where garnishment is concerned
(5 USC  Sec. 5520(a)),  so the  notion that  IRS has authority to
execute garnishment  and other  seizures via  the private  sector
without due  process is  clearly absurd.  In the English-American
lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury
under rules  of the  common law indigenous to the several States;
the de  jure people  of America  are not  subject to admiralty or
administrative tribunals.
     In sum,  the mandate  for due  process,  meaning  initiative
through judicial  courts with  proper  jurisdiction,  is  clearly
antecedent to imposition of administratively issued liens, except
where licensing  agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether
by  garnishment,  attachment  of  bank  accounts,  administrative
seizure and  sale of  real or  private  property,  or  any  other
initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 8 of 21

                3. Current Internal Revenue Code
            & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same
     Consult 26  USC 7851  & 7852  to verify  that  the  Internal
Revenue Code  of 1954,  as amended  in  1986  and  since,  simply
reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.  Read Sec. 7852(b)
& (c),  then read  the balance  of Secs.  7851 &  7852  for  best
     The importance  of making  this connection rests on the fact
that the  Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely a codification
of the  Public Salary  Tax Act  of 1939.   There  was no  general
income tax  levied against  the population  at large  in 1939  or
since.   The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal
Revenue  Code  of  1939  incorporated  the  Social  Security  tax
activated after 1936, was premised on the notion that working for
the federal  government is a privilege.  Income and related taxes
prescribed in  Subtitles A  & C  of the  current Internal Revenue
Code have  never been  mandatory for  anyone other than officers,
agents and  employees of  the United  States, as identified at 26
USC Sec.  3401(c), and  agencies of the United States, identified
at Sec. 3401(d), particularized at 5 USC Secs. 102 & 105.
     The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the
Sixteenth Amendment,  fraudulently promulgated  in 1913,  did not
alter or  repeal  constitutional  provisions  which  require  all
direct  taxes   to  be   apportioned  among  the  several  States
(Constitution, Article  I  Secs.  2.3  &  9.4).    In  Eisner  v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and
numerous decisions  since, the  United States  Supreme Court  has
repeatedly affirmed  that, for  purposes of income tax, wages and
other returns  from enterprises of common right are property, not
income.   In fact,  returns from  enterprises of common right are
fundamental to  all property,  and the sanctity is preserved as a
fundamental common  law principle  dating to  the signing  of the
Magna Charta in 1215.
     The nature  of Subtitles  A &  C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR
Sec. 31.3101-1:   "The  employee tax is measured by the amount of
wages received  after 1954  with respect to employment after 1936
     In other  words, the  wage is not the object, but merely the
measure of  the tax.   This verbiage constitutes so much legalese
in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes
collected by  the Internal  Revenue Service  fall into the excise
category  was  confirmed  by  the  Comptroller  General's  report
following the  initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3).  It
is further  suggested at  26 CFR  Sec. 106.401(a)(2),  where  the
regulation concedes  that, "The  descriptive terms  used in  this
section to  designate the  various classes  of taxes are intended
only to indicate their general character ...."
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 9 of 21

     By referencing  the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules,
cited above, it is found that the definition of "gross income" is
still preserved  in Section  22 of  the Internal  Revenue Code of
1939, thus  cementing the  link between  the  Code  of  1939  and
Subtitles A  & C  of the  Code of  1954, as  amended in  1986 and
since.   The Internal  Revenue Code  of 1939  merely codified the
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.  This link is further confirmed in
Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and Means
reports on H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which Sec.
22 of  the Internal  Revenue Code  of 1939  and Sec.  61  of  the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked.
Both reports  stipulate that  the current  definition  of  "gross
income" is intended to be constitutional.
     This intent is articulated at 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(a):  "Gross
income means  all income  from whatever  source  derived,  unless
excluded by law."
     An "Act  of Congress" is policy, not law, and per definition
located in  Rule 54,  Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure, has only
local application  in the  District of  Columbia and other United
States  territories   and  insular   possessions  unless  general
application is  manifestly expressed:   "Rule  54(c)  --  Act  of
Congress includes  any act  of Congress locally applicable to and
in force  in the  District of  Columbia, in  Puerto  Rico,  in  a
territory or in an insular possession."
     Where the  Internal Revenue  Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol.
68A, Statutes  at Large,  page 3),  the legislation  is  in  fact
styled, "An  Act" "To  revise the  internal revenue  laws of  the
United States."
     As  demonstrated   above,  wages   and  other  returns  from
enterprises of  common  right  are  exempt  from  direct  tax  by
fundamental law,  and the  regulation for  the  current  Internal
Revenue Code definition of "gross income" clearly articulates the
fundamental law exemption.
     The exemption  as it  pertains  to  the  several  States  is
demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules (Index volume to the C.F.R., page 751 of the 1995 edition):
There are  26 C.F.R.,  Part 1 regulations listed for 26 USC Secs.
61 &  62, the  latter being  the definition  for  adjusted  gross
income, but there is no 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26
USC Sec. 63, the definition for taxable income.
     While definitions  for gross  and adjusted  gross income are
clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have
no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross
income which  is not  taxable within  the several States is of no
consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.
     Further, on examination of 26 CFR Sec. 1.62-1, pertaining to
"adjusted gross  income", it  is found that subsections (a) & (b)
are reserved  so the  published regulations  is incomplete,  with
"temporary"  regulation  Sec.  1.62-1T  serving  as  the  current
authority  defining   "adjusted   gross   income."      Temporary
regulations have no legal effect.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 10 of 21

     Definition at  Sec. 3401,  Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large
(the Internal  Revenue Code  of 1954),  make it clear that, (Sec.
3401(a)(A)), "a  resident of  a contiguous country who enters and
leaves  the  United  States  at  frequent  intervals  ..."  is  a
nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of
the several  States included),  and the  exclusion  from  "wages"
extends even  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  provide
services for employers "other than the United States or an agency
thereof" (Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)).
               4.  The Employer or Agent is Liable
     Volume 68A  of the  Statutes at  Large, the Internal Revenue
Code of  1954, makes  it perfectly  clear  who  is  "liable"  for
payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:
     In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control,
     receipt, custody,  or disposal  of, or  pays the wages of an
     employee or  group of  employees, employed  by one  or  more
     employers, the  Secretary or his delegate, under regulations
     prescribed  by   him,  is   authorized  to   designate  such
     fiduciary, agent,  or other  person to  perform such acts as
     are required  by employers  under this  subtitle and  as the
     Secretary or  his delegate  may specify.   Except  as may be
     otherwise prescribed  by the  Secretary or his delegate, all
     provisions  of   law  (including  penalties)  applicable  in
     respect to  any employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary,
     agent, or  other person  so designated,  but, except  as  so
     provided, the  employer for  whom such  fiduciary, agent, or
     other person  acts shall remain subject to the provisions of
     law  (including   penalties)  applicable   in   respect   to
The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d):
     (d)  TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation
     of the  provisions of  this chapter,  fails  to  deduct  and
     withhold the  tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax
     against which  such tax  may be credited is paid, the tax so
     required to  be deducted and withheld shall not be collected
     from the  employer;   but this  subsection shall  in no case
     relieve the  employer from  liability for  any penalties  or
     additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such
     failure to deduct and withhold.
     These provisions  from Vol.  68A of  the Statutes  at  Large
comply with  and verify liability set out at 26 C.F.R., Part 601,
Subpart D  in general. Further, territorial limits of application
are made  clearer by the absence of regulations supporting 26 USC
Secs. 7621,  7802,  etc.,  which  are  the  statutes  authorizing
establishment of  internal revenue  districts and  delegations of
authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 11 of 21

The fact  that the liability falls to the "employer" (26 USC Sec.
3401(d)) and/or  his agent,  with no  compensation for serving as
"tax collector," narrows the field to federal government entities
as "employers"  if for  no other  reason than  the population  at
large is  not subject to the edict of government officials.  As a
matter of  course, the government cannot compel performance where
the general  population is concerned.  The subject class that has
"liability" for  Subtitles A  & C  taxes is the "employer" or his
agent, fiduciary, etc., as specified above.
     The matter  is further  clarified in Sections 3403 & 3404 of
Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:
     The employer  shall be  liable for  the payment  of the  tax
     required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and
     shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such
     If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory,
     or  political   subdivision  thereof,  or  the  District  of
     Columbia, or  any agency  or instrumentality  of any  one or
     more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and
     withheld upon  any wages  may be  made  by  any  officer  or
     employee of  the United States, or of such State, Territory,
     or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or
     of such  agency or  instrumentality, as  the  case  may  be,
     having  control   of  the   payment  of   such   wages,   or
     appropriately designated for that purpose.
     The territorial  application, and  limitation, is made clear
by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
     Sec. 31.3121(3)-1.  State, United States, and citizen.
     (a)  When used  in the regulations in this subpart, the term
     "State" includes  the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
     of Puerto  Rico, the  Virgin  Islands,  the  Territories  of
     Alaska and  Hawaii before  their admission  as  States,  and
     (when used  with respect  to services  performed after 1960)
     Guam and American Samoa.
     (b)  When used  in the regulations in this subpart, the term
     "United States",  when used  in a  geographical sense, means
     the several  states (including the Territories of Alaska and
     Hawaii before  their admission  as States),  the District of
     Columbia, the  Commonwealth of  Puerto Rico,  and the Virgin
     Islands.   When used in the regulations in this subpart with
     respect to  services performed  after 1960, the term "United
     States" also  includes Guam and American Samoa when the term
     is used  in a  geographical sense.  The term "citizen of the
     United States"  includes a  citizen of  the Commonwealth  of
     Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1,
     1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 12 of 21

     Definition of  the terms  "includes" and "including" located
at 26 USC 7701(c) provides the limiting authority which the above
definitions, beyond constructive application, are subject to:
     (c)   INCLUDES AND  INCLUDING. --  The terms  "includes" and
     "including" when  used in  a definition  contained  in  this
     title shall  not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
     within the meaning of the term defined.
     Two principles  of law  clarify definition  intent:  (1) The
example represents the class, and  (2) that which is not named is
intended to be omitted.  In the definition of "United States" and
"State" set  out above,  all examples  are of federal States, and
are exclusive  of the  several States,  with  the  transition  of
Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving
the point.  This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regu-
lations which  extend authority to establish revenue districts in
the several  States (26 USC Sec. 7621), authority for the Depart-
ment of  the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC
Sec. 7801),  and no  grant of delegated authority for the Commis-
sioner of  Internal Revenue,  assistant commissioners,  or  other
Department of the Treasury personnel (26 USC Secs. 7802 & 7803).
  5.  Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax
     Here again,  the Parallel  Table of Authorities and Rules is
useful as  it demonstrates  that Subtitles  A &  C  do  not  have
general  application   within  the  several  States  and  to  the
population at  large.  The regulation for 26 USC Sec. 1 refers to
26 CFR  Sec. 301,  but that  amounts to a dead end -- there is no
regulation under 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the
several States  and the  population at large.  Further, there are
no supportive  regulations at  all for 26 USC Secs. 2 & 3, and of
considerable significance,  no regulations  supporting  corporate
income tax, 26 USC Sec. 11, as applicable to the several States.
     Where  the   instant  matter   is   concerned,   regulations
supporting 26 USC Sec. 6321, liens for taxes, and Sec. 6331, levy
and distraint, are under 27 C.F.R., Part 70.  The importance here
is  that   Title  27  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is
exclusively  under   Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and  Firearms
administration for  Subtitle E  and related  taxes.  There are no
corresponding regulations for the Internal Revenue Service, in 26
C.F.R., Part  1 or  31, which  extend comparable authority to the
several States and the population at large.
     The necessity  of regulations being published in the Federal
Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures
Act at  5 USC  Sec. 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at
44 USC  Sec. 1501 et seq.  Of particular note, it is specifically
set out  at 44  USC Sec.  1505(a), that  when regulations are not
published in  the Federal  Register,  application  of  any  given
statute is  exclusively to  agencies of  the  United  States  and
officers, agents  and employees  of the  United States, thus once
again confirming  application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated
above.   Further, the  need for  regulations  is  detailed  in  1
C.F.R., Chapter  1, and  where the  Internal Revenue  Service  is
concerned, 26 CFR Sec. 601.702.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 13 of 21

     The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the
Supreme Court  of the  United States,  as  stated  in  California
Bankers Ass'n  v. Schultz,  416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500,
39 L.Ed.2d  812 (1974):    "Because  it  has  a  bearing  on  our
treatment of  some of  the issues raised by the parties, we think
it important  to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties
attach only  upon violation  of regulations  promulgated  by  the
Secretary;   if the  Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself
would impose no penalties on anyone."
     Because  there  is  a  citation  supporting  these  statutes
applicable under  Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it
is important  to point  out that,  "Each agency shall publish its
own regulations  in full  text,"  (1  CFR  Sec.  21.21(c)),  with
further verification  that  one  agency  cannot  use  regulations
promulgated by  another at  1  CFR  Sec.  21.40.    To  date,  no
corresponding regulation  has been found for 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or
31, so  until proven  otherwise, IRS  does not  have authority to
perfect liens  or prosecute  seizures in  the several  States  as
pertaining to the population at large.
                 6.  Misapplication of Authority
     Regulations pertaining  to seized  property are  found at 26
CFR Sec. 601.326:
     Part 72 of Title 26 CFR contains the regulations relative to
     the personal  property seized  by officers  of the  Internal
     Revenue Service  or  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
     Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended
     to be  used, to violate certain Federal Laws;  the remission
     or mitigation  of such  forfeiture;   and the administrative
     sale or  other disposition,  pursuant to forfeiture, of such
     seized  property   other  than  firearms  seized  under  the
     National Firearms  Act and  firearms and  ammunition  seized
     under title  1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968.  For disposal
     of firearms  and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control
     Act of  1968, see 18 USC 924(d).  For disposal of explosives
     under Title  XI of  the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,
     see 18 USC 844(c).
     The only  other comparable authority thus far found pertains
to windfall  profits tax  on petroleum (26 CFR Sec. 601.405), but
once  again,   application  is   not  supported   by  regulations
applicable to the several States and the population at large.
     Where the  mandate for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the
only regulatory  reference presently  known is  at  26  CFR  Sec.
601.401(d)(4),  and   this   application   appears   related   to
"employees" who  work for  two  or  more  "employers",  receiving
foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States.
The mandate  is mentioned  in instructions  applicable to  United
States citizens  and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date
has not  been located  elsewhere.  Reference OMB numbers for Sec.
601.401, listed  on page  170, 26  C.F.R.,  Part  600-End,  cross
referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the
Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign applications.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 14 of 21

     The "notice  of levy"  instrument forwarded to various third
parties is  not a  "levy" which  warrants surrender  of property.
The Internal  Revenue Code  at Sec. 6335(a), defines the "notice"
instrument by  use --  notice is to be served to whomever seizure
has been  executed against  after the  seizure is  effected.   In
short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for
action.   The term "notice" is clarified by definition in Black's
Law Dictionary,  6th Edition, and other law dictionaries.  Use of
the "notice  of levy"  instrument to  effect seizure  is fraud by
     Proper  use   of  the   "notice"   process,   administrative
garnishment, et  al., is specifically set out in 5 USC Sec. 5514,
as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees
of agencies  of the  United States  (26 USC  Sec. 3401(c)).  Even
then, however,  the process must comply with provisions of 31 USC
Sec. 3530(d),  and standards  set forth  in Secs. 3711 & 3716-17.
In accordance  with provisions of 26 C.F.R., Part 601, Subpart D,
the employer,  meaning the  United States  agency the employee is
employed by,  is responsible  for  promulgating  regulations  and
carrying out garnishment.
             7.  Liability Depends on Taxing Statute
     General  demands  for  filing  tax  returns,  production  of
records, examination  of books,  imposition and  payment of  tax,
etc., are  of no  consequence to  the point  a taxing statute (1)
defines  what  tax  is  being  imposed,  and  (2)  the  basis  of
liability.   In other words, even if the Internal Revenue Service
was a  legitimate agency  of the  United States Department of the
Treasury and  had authority  in the  several States,  the Service
would have  to be  specific with respect to what tax was at issue
and would  have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute
with the  necessary elements  to establish  that any given person
was obligated to pay any given tax.
     This mandate  has been  clarified  by  the  courts  numerous
times, with  the matter  definitively stated by the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d
797, at p. 800 (1964):
     Without question,  a taxing  statute must describe with some
     certainty the  transaction, service,  or object to be taxed,
     and in  the typical  situation it  is construed  against the
     Government.   Hassett v.  Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559,
     82 L.Ed 858.
     In other  words, to  the point Service personnel produce the
statute which  mandates a  certain tax  and which specifies, "...
the transaction,  service, or object to be taxed ...", the burden
of proof  lies with  the Government,  with the consequences being
that no  obligation or  civil or  criminal liability can ensue to
the point  a taxing  statute that meets the above requirements is
in evidence.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 15 of 21

     This conclusion  is supported  by the statute which provides
the  underlying   requirements  for   keeping   records,   making
statements, etc., located at 26 USC Sec. 6001:
     Every person  liable for  any tax  imposed by this title, or
     for the  collection thereof, shall keep such records, render
     such statements,  make such  returns, and  comply with  such
     rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time
     prescribe.   Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is
     necessary, he  may require  any person,  by notice served on
     such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render
     such statements,  or keep  such records,  as  the  Secretary
     deems sufficient  to show  whether or  not  such  person  is
     liable for  tax under this title.  The only records which an
     employee shall  be required  to keep  under this  section in
     connection with  charged  tips  shall  be  charge  receipts,
     records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies
     of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).
     The control  statute for  Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter
A, Part  I, concerning  records, statements, and special returns,
clearly returns  the matter  to the  "employee" defined  at  Sec.
3401(c), and the "employer" defined at Sec. 3401(d).  In general,
however, (1) the Secretary must provide direct notice to whomever
is required  to keep  books, records,  etc. as  being the "person
liable," or  (2) specify the person liable by regulation.  In the
absence of  notice by  the Secretary,  based on  a taxing statute
which  makes   such  a  person  liable  according  to  provisions
stipulated in  United States v. Community TV, Inc. supra, Hassett
v. Welch  supra, and  other  such  cases,  or  regulations  which
specifically establish general liability, there is no liability.
     Sec. 6001  also exempts  "employees"  from  keeping  records
except where tips and the like are concerned.  This is consistent
with constructive  demonstration  that  "employers"  rather  than
"employees" are  required to  file returns,  as opposed to paying
deducted  amounts   as   income   tax   returns,   constructively
demonstrated  in  a  previous  section  of  this  memorandum  and
specifically articulated  in 26  CFR Sec. 601.104.  Clarification
via 26 USC Sec. 6053(a) is as follows:
     (a)   REPORTS BY  EMPLOYEES. --  Every employee  who, in the
     course of  his employment  by an  employer, receives  in any
     calendar month  tips which  are wages (as defined in section
     3121(a) or  section 3401(a))  or which  are compensation (as
     defined in  section 3231(e))  shall report  all such tips in
     one or  more written statements furnished to his employer on
     or  before   the  10th  day  following  such  month.    Such
     statements shall  be furnished  by the  employee under  such
     regulations, at  such other  times before such 10th day, and
     in such  form and  manner,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 16 of 21

     Unraveling Sec.  6001 straightens  out the  meaning of  Sec.
6011, which  requires filing  returns, statements,  etc., by  the
person made  liable (Sec.  3401(d)), as  distinguished  from  the
person required  to make  returns (payments)  at Sec.  6012 (Sec.
3401(c)).  Even though a person might be a citizen or resident of
the United States employed by an agency of the Unites States, and
thereby be  required to  return a  prescribed  amount  of  United
States-source income, he is not the person liable under Sec. 6011
and attending regulations.
     The "method of assessment" prescribed at 26 USC Sec. 6303 is
therefore dependent  on the  taxing  statute  and  must  rest  on
authority  specifically   conveyed  by  a  taxing  statute  which
prescribes  liability   where  the  Secretary  (1)  has  provided
specific notice,  including the  statute and  type of  tax  being
imposed, or  (2) supports  assessment by  regulatory application.
In the  absence of  one  or  the  other,  an  assessment  by  the
Secretary is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating.
           8.  The Necessity of Administrative Process
     The requirement  for a  specific taxing statute, with 26 USC
Sec.  6001   clearly  providing   the  first   leg  in  necessary
administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at
length in  Rodriguez v.  United States, 629 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ill.
1986).   Presuming (1)  the Secretary  has provided the necessary
notice, or  (2) a regulation prescribes general application which
makes any  given person  liable for a tax and requires tax return
statements to  be filed,  each  step  in  administrative  process
prescribed by 26 USC Sec. 6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must be
in place for seizure or any other encumbrance to be legal.
     Here again,  regulations published  in the  Federal Register
are significant,  with provisions  of 5  USC Sec. 552 et seq., 44
USC Sec.  1501 et  seq., 1 C.F.R., Chapter 1, and 26 C.F.R., Part
601, all  supporting the  mandate for regulations to be published
in the Federal Register before they have general application.  It
will be  noted by  referencing the  Parallel Table of Authorities
and Rules,  beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the
Code of  Federal Regulations,  that application  by regulation to
the several  States is only under Title 27 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, or  that there  are no  regulations published in the
Federal Register. The following entries or non-entries are found:
  26 USC 6201  Assessment authority        27 C.F.R., Part 70
  26 USC 6212  Notice of deficiency        No Regulation
  26 USC 6213  Restrictions applicable to
               deficiencies;  petition to
               Tax Court                   No Regulation
  26 USC 6303  Notice and Demand for Tax   27 C.F.R., Part 53, 70
  26 USC 6331  Levy and distraint          27 C.F.R., Part 70
     The assessment authority under 26 USC Sec. 6201, in relevant
part as applicable to Subtitle A & C taxes, are as follows:
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 17 of 21

     (a)  AUTHORITY OF  SECRETARY. -- The Secretary is authorized
     and required  to  make  the  inquiries,  determination,  and
     assessment of  all  taxes  (including  interest,  additional
     amounts, additions  to the  tax, and  assessable  penalties)
     imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal
     revenue law,  which have been duly paid by stamp at the time
     and in  the manner  provided by  law.   Such authority shall
     extend to and include the following:
          (1)  TAXES SHOWN  ON RETURN.  --  The  Secretary  shall
          assess all  taxes determined  by the taxpayer or by the
          Secretary as  to which  returns or  lists ar made under
          this title. ...
          any return  or claim  for refund  of income taxes under
          subtitle A  there is an overstatement of the credit for
          income tax withheld at the source or of the amount paid
          as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which
          is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which
          is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the
          Secretary in  the same  manner as  in  the  case  of  a
          mathematical  or  clerical  error  appearing  upon  the
          return,  except   that  the   provisions   of   section
          6213(b)(2) (relating  to abatement  of mathematical  or
          clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard
          to any assessment under this paragraph.
          (1)  ESTIMATED INCOME  TAX.  --  No  unpaid  amount  of
          estimated income  tax required to be paid under section
          6654 or 6655 shall be assessed.
          (2)  FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT  TAX. --  No unpaid  amount  of
          Federal unemployment  tax for  any calendar  quarter or
          other period  of a  calendar year, computed as provided
          in section 6157, shall be assessed.
          (d)  DEFICIENCY  PROCEEDINGS.   --  For  special  rules
          applicable to deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and
          certain excise  taxes, see  subchapter  B.
                                                 [emphasis added]
     The grant  of assessment  authority with  respect  to  taxes
prescribed in  Subtitles A  & C  is limited to provisions set out
above even  where the  Service might  have authority  relating to
those made  liable for  the tax, meaning the "employer" specified
at 26  USC Sec.  3401(d).   Clearly, returns  made either  by the
agent of  the United  States agency required to file a return, or
the Secretary, are to be evaluated mathematically, and errors are
to be  treated as  clerical errors,  nothing more.  The Secretary
has no  authority to  assess  estimated  income  tax  (individual
estimated tax  at Sec. 6554;  corporation estimated income tax at
Sec. 6655),  or unemployment  tax (Sec. 6157).  For all practical
purposes, the trail effectively ends here.
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 18 of 21

      9.  The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election
     In order  for there  to be  an opportunity for a nonresident
alien of  the United  States (a  Citizen of  one of  the  several
States) to  elect to be taxed or treated as a citizen or resident
of the  United States,  one or  the other of a married couple, or
the single "individual" making the election, must be a citizen or
resident of  the United  States (26  USC Sec.  6013(g)(3)).  Some
party must  in some  way be connected with a "United States trade
or business" (performance of the functions of a public office (26
USC Sec.  7701(a)(26)).   A nonresident  alien  never  has  self-
employment income  (26 CFR  Sec. 1.1402(b)-1(d)).   In  the event
that a  nonresident alien is an "employee" (26 USC Sec. 3401(c)),
the "employer" (26 USC Sec. 3401(d)) is liable for collection and
payment of  income tax  (26 CFR 1.1441-1).  And in order for real
property to  be treated  as effectively  connected with  a United
States trade  or business  by way of election, it must be located
within the geographical United States (26 USC Sec. 871(d)).
     Provisions cited  above preclude any and all legal authority
for  Citizens   of  the   several  States,   or  privately  owned
enterprises located  in the  several States,  to  participate  in
federal tax  and benefits  programs prescribed in Subtitles A & C
of the  Internal Revenue  Code and  companion legislation such as
the Social  Security Act  which provide  benefits from the United
States Government,  which is a foreign corporation to the several
                      Summary & Conclusions
     Again, this memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but
merely sufficient to support causes set out separately.  The most
conspicuous conclusions  of law are that Congress never created a
Bureau of  Internal Revenue,  the  predecessor  of  the  Internal
Revenue Service;   Subtitles  A &  C of the Internal Revenue Code
prescribe excise  taxes, mandatory  only  for  employees  of  the
United States Government agencies;  the Internal Revenue Service,
within the geographical United States where the agency appears to
have colorable  authority, is  required to  use judicial  process
prior to seizing or encumbering assets;  and the law demonstrates
that the  people of  the several  States, defined  as nonresident
aliens in the Internal Revenue Code, cannot legitimately elect to
be taxed  or treated  as citizens  or  residents  of  the  United
States.   If a  Citizen of one of the several States works for an
agency of  the United  States or  receives income  from a  United
States "trade  or business"  or otherwise  effectively  connected
with the  United  States,  the  employer  or  other  third  party
responsible for  payment is  made liable for withholding taxes at
the rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification.
     To the  best of  my knowledge  and understanding, matters of
fact and law set out above are accurate and true.
                    Dan Meador (May 13, 1996)
                (Non-Domestic U.S.) P.O. Box 2582
                  Ponca City, Oklahoma [74602]
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 19 of 21

Executed on June 3, 1996
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Eugene A. Burns
Dr. Eugene A. Burns, D.C., N.D.
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 20 of 21

                        PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Linda  H. Burns,  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 and a Citizen
of one of the United States of America, that I am not currently a
Party to  this action, and that I personally served the following
                    NOTICE OF CLERICAL UPDATE
                    TO MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBIT
                        PREVIOUSLY FILED
by placing  said document  in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
ROBERT L. MISKELL                  John M. Roll
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310      U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue            55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona
JANET NAPOLITANO                   Clerk
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310      U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue            55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona
Grand Jury Foreperson              Postmaster
In re: New Life Health Center Co.  U.S. Post Office
55 E. Broadway                     Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona
Judge Alex Kozinski                Evangelina Cardenas
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals     "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200     300 West Congress
Pasadena, California               Tucson, Arizona
Attorney General                   Solicitor General
Department of Justice              Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W. !      10th and Constitution, N.W. !
Washington, D.C.                   Washington, D.C.
Dated:  June 3, 1996
/s/ Linda Burns
Linda H. Burns, Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
       Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
                          Page 20 of 21
                             #  #  #


Return to Table of Contents for

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena