Annoying Things To Do On An Elevator:
1) Stand silent & motionless in the corner facing the wall without getting off.
2) Greet everyone with a warm handshake and ask him or her to call you admiral.
3) MEOW occasionally.
4) Stare at another passenger for a while. Then announce in horror: "You're one of them" -and back away slowly.
5) Say DING at each floor.
6) Make explosion noises when someone presses a button.
7) Draw a little square on the floor with chalk and then announce to the person "This is my personal space".
8) When there is only one other person in the elevator tap them on the shoulder, then pretend that it wasn't you.
9) Drop a pen and wait until someone reaches to help pick it up, then scream: "That's Mine!"
10)Call out a "Group hug" then enforce it.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
EDITING IN PROGRESS!!!!!!
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
Revision 3.2
certified by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of California, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library
Internet URL of home page: http://www.supremelaw.org
Internet URL of this file:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301-310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the
IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97-2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.
When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses.
3. By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.
Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (“ACTA”), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining “IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question 1 above.) Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.
4. Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?
Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful
bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for
fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count
of mail fraud.
5. Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?
Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before
federal courts, the IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the
Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of
federal “agency” by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be
represented by the DOJ. The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or
appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees. Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above. As
far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the
IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.
6. Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator
Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for
an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so-called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly
repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the
U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T.
Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT’s that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell
totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so-called 16th amendment has now been correctly
identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a
serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266,
270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called
14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.
Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the
U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.
The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their
Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.
Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th
amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” (See Answer to Question
19 below.)
For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.
7. Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?
Answer: Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by
subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the
only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of
“Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for “employment”
taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W-4, the payroll officer then
becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s
paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the
only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll
officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no
liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there
is no withholding agent.
8. Can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?
Answer: No. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article I, Section 1. The
Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever. This means that agencies of the Executive
Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.
If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that
tax. Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.
“[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.” See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4
L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur
2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added]. However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed
from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.
9. The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?
Answer: The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all “citizens of the United States” and
all “residents of the United States”. However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific
liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are
unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin). The Acker case cited above held that federal
regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority.
(See Answer to Question 8 above.)
10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?
Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the
Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and
2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term
means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed
the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity
Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was
later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress
thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the
Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they
attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we
now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive,
and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914- 915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no
standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution
was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a
“citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas
State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are
thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law
Library.
11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent
examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791
(1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,”namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
12. Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916),
the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so-called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York
State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.
Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.
Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful
excise, or indirect tax.
The most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later
issued as a direct consequence of the high Court’s opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the
Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a
“domestic corporation”. This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax
provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial
jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no
authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone
or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber
was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision
refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens
with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the
federal zone.
13. What is a “Withholding agent”?
Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States,
typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.
One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W-4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.” In plain English, by signing a W-4 workers designate themselves as
“employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.
If workers do not execute a valid W-4 form, a company’s payroll
officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes
from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does
not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes,
until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding -
- by signing Form W-4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.
Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of
this form. A properly executed Form W-4 creates the presumption
that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees”
of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work
for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal
fiction, at best.
14. What is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?
Answer: A “Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative
to Form W-4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in
lieu of Form W-4. Although section 3402(n) does authorize this
Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its
forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed Products Catalog”).
In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the
language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates. In
simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal
income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal
income tax liability during the current calendar year. Because
there are no liability statutes for workers in the private
sector, this certification is easy to justify.
Many public and private institutions have created their own form
for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California
Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
Maryland. This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine,
e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term “withholding
exemption certificate” on the Internet. This term occurs several
times in IRC section 3402.
15. What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?
Answer: “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In
the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be
committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the
withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal
government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act
unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal
government “employee.” This is typically done by executing a
valid Form W-4.
However, as discussed above, Form W-4 is not mandatory for
workers who are not “employed” by the federal government.
Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are
technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC; they
are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be
regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly
when they were never created by any Act of Congress.
Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can
only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for
the federal zone. Such corporations are the only “domestic”
corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer’s
essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions”
clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and
“domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.
If Congress were authorized to create national corporations,
such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights
reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to
charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of
Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the
Constantine case supra.
For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to
federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who
works for such an “employer”.
16. Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to
notarize a taxpayer’s signature?
Answer: This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the
fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section
1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed
under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public,
i.e. to witness one’s signature.
This statute identifies two different formats for such written
verifications: (1) those executed outside the “United States”
and (2) those executed inside the “United States”. These two
formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2),
respectively.
What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for
verifications executed “outside the United States”. In this
latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the
laws of the United States of America”.
Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of
America” are both used in this same statute. They are not one
and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in
the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The
latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under,
the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal
statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that
utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.
It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that
verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50
States of the Union (read “the State zone”) if and when they are
executed inside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”).
Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are inside
the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed
outside the “United States”.
The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for
verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and
outside the United States of America (State zone).
17. Does the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings
and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United
States" may be used in any one of several senses.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying
the position analogous to that of other sovereigns
in the family of nations.
[2] It may designate the territory over which the
sovereignty of the United States extends.
[3] It may be the collective name of the States which
are united by and under the Constitution. See
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
[bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for
clarity].
This is the very same definition that is found in Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings
refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is
legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is
legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a
federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.
It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in
these Answers, that the definition of “United States” has now
been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.
18. Is the term “income” defined in the IRC and, if not, where
is it defined?
Answer: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled
that the term “income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC: “The
general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue
Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).
Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189
(1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any
definition of “income” because that term was believed to be in
the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the
ratification of the 16th amendment, which would have introduced
the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution for the very first
time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified).
In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509
(1921), the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or
gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the
tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege
of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do
not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.
19. What is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax
provisions municipal law, or not?
Answer: Yes. The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.
Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal
affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known
as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much
wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body
of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of
supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopedias define
“municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone, the
Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.
A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and
published in the book “The Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s
income tax provisions are municipal law.
One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a
Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal
experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the
Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of
“State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named
territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.
In other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all
similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly
named, and no more.
20. What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the
federal income tax statutes?
The general rule is that federal government powers must be
expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is
a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in
the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority
to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the
Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.
If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax
statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within
that State. This is also true of all 50 States.
Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any
thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the
omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin,
this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated:
Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things
[that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any
edition of Black’s Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory
construction.
The many different definitions of the term “State” that are
found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if
they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As
the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT
the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.
If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer
that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an
intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so,
Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean
the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).
21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what
are the real implications for the average American?
There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately
vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term “income”
is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on
everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from
the truth. “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”
More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is
sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null,
void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right
to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by
the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is
unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for
vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been
enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.
22. Has Title 26 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) ever been
enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications
if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law?
Answer: No. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception
is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states
that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day
after the date of enactment of “this title”. Because the term
“this title” is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in
the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look
elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from
context.
Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which
govern all the federal courts -- the term “this title” clearly
refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion
that “this title”, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to
Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never
been enacted into positive law, as such.
Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of
“this title”, they are men and women of UNcommon intelligence.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s test for vagueness is violated whenever
men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at
the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute.
See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,
391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for
vagueness.
Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken
effect. (“F” is for enForcement!) This subtitle contains all of
the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements,
penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court
jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons
enforcement and so on.
In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth;
as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not
even people with dentures!
23. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax
crimes?
This question must be addressed in view of the Answer to
Question 22 above. Although it may appear that certain statutes
in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district
courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of
the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this
reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do
anything at all. As always, appearances can be very deceiving.
Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in
Wonderland?
On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18,
U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of
the United States (“DCUS”) to prosecute violations of the
statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.
It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts
are not the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”).
The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III
of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or
legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3,
Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory
Clause.
This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of
the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases
that have already clarified the all important distinction
between these two classes of federal district courts. For
example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922),
the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal
Territories. This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in
even greater detail; begin reading at section “7(e)”.
The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to
prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals
where summary proceedings dominate.
For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the
U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review
interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. Further details on this
point are available in the Press Release entitled “Private
Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code” and
dated November 26, 2001 A.D.
24. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their
pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on
their pay?
Answer: No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the
District Courts of the United States -- the Article III
constitutional courts -- are immune from any taxation of their
pay, by constitutional mandate.
The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on
their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a
duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v.
Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the
U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the
existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would
violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. This
principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal
government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any
one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong
to the other two branches.
The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that
decision the Supreme Court erred by defining “Party” to mean
only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of
“Party” that is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).
The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S.
Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These
two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial
power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence
obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.
In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal
judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published
opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS,
because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling
against the IRS. There you have it, from the horse’s mouth!
In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona
in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly
admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on
their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that
statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -– the
highest Court in the land.
Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the
practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate
from them, when they were first hired as “employees” of the
federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby
disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.
25. Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against
illegal tax protesters?
Answer: No. Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments
against illegal tax protesters. Protest has never been illegal
in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our
fundamental Right to express our objections to any government
actions, in written and in spoken words.
Strictly speaking, the term “illegal” cannot modify the noun
“protesters” because to do so would constitute a violation of
the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most
magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.
Accordingly, for the term “illegal tax protester” to survive
this obvious constitutional challenge, the term “illegal” must
modify the noun “tax”. An illegal tax protester is, therefore,
someone who is protesting an illegal tax. Such an act of protest
is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.
Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial
Code; the phrases “under protest” and “without prejudice” are
sufficient to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law.
See U.C.C. 1-207 (UCCA 1207 in California).
By the way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal law. See the
Answer to Question 19 above, and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88-243,
December 30, 1963 (one month after President John F. Kennedy was
murdered).
26. Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how
is this routinely done?
Answer: Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand
juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as
lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government,
and by misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as having
any legal force or effect. Such false representations of fact
violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C.
1125(a). (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been
enacted into positive law either.)
They tamper with grand juries by acting as if “income” is
everything that “comes in”, when there is no such definition
anywhere in the IRC. Such false descriptions of fact also
violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
They tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence
which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance,
such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not constitute
competent waivers of their customers’ fundamental Rights to
privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment. The high standard
for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining
the false and fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or
that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect
inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.
These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also
misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal
offenses.
Finally, there is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S.
Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President
with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued
by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester. (See
the Answer to Question 25 above.) These kick-backs range from
$25,000 to $35,000 in CASH! They also violate the Anti-Kickback
Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from
federal government subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq.
As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a
doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to
this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). The systematic and
premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also
establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for
violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year
1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.)
27. What is “The Kickback Racket,” and where can I find evidence
of its existence?
The evidence of this “kickback racket” was first discovered in a
table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal
Revenue Manual (“IRM”) -- the internal policy and procedure
manual for all IRS employees.
Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the
Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments
that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders
in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the
Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead,
transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these
“awards” because most of them were paid in cash!
When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge,
who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena
against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all
28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to that grand jury.
Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and
federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S.
Mail. See 18 U.S.C. 1702.
Obviously, the federal judge -- John M. Roll -- did NOT want the
grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks.
They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this
writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for
Legal Affairs.
28. Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?
Answer: No. The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due
Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of
American constitutional practice. Put simply, it requires Notice
and Hearing before any property can be seized by any federal
government employees, agents, departments or agencies.
A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property,
i.e. the funds on deposit in that account. No such seizure can
occur unless due process of law has first run its course. This
means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the
pertinent issues of law and fact.
Only after this process has run its proper or “due” course, can
a valid court order be issued. The holding in U.S. v. O’Dell,
160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS
can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of
Distraint, or court ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER could
ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed
their “day in court.”
29. Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government
services and, if so, which government services are funded by
federal income taxes?
Answer: No. The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this
instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile
in Puerto Rico. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). As such, their
records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of
trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided
that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
They are technically not an “agency” of the federal government,
as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in
the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the
federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition
of “agency” in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
(See also the Answer to Question 5 above.)
All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion
racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq.
They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign
banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican.
See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341.
The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under
President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds
they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any
federal government services. The Grace Commission found that
those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal
debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of
entitlement programs like federal pension plans.
30. How can the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) help me to
answer other key tax questions?
The availability of correct information about federal government
operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the
American People. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), at 5
U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents
available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.
As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable
exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a
brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested
document(s). If the requested document is not produced within 20
working days (excluding weekends and federal holidays), the
requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.
If the requested document is not produced within another 20
working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester
is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the
United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) -- to
compel production of the requested document, and judicially to
enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(B). The general rule is that statutes conferring
original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be
strictly construed.
This writer has pioneered the application of the FOIA to request
certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist,
but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which
the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a
certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability
for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. For example, see the
FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne
Meredith.
Of course, by now we already know the answer to this question,
before asking it. (Good lawyers always know the answers to their
questions, before asking them.)
It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be
directed to the IRS, because they are not an “agency” as that
term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). Address it instead to the
Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, USA. This is the format for “foreign” addresses, as
explained in USPS Publication #221.
As James Madison once wrote, “A popular government without
popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a
Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own
Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
31. Where can I find more information, and still protect my
privacy?
There are many civic organizations throughout America who have
dedicated their precious time and energy to acquire and
disseminate widely these documented truths about the Internal
Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue Code.
The Internet’s World Wide Web (“www”) is perhaps the best single
source of information (and disinformation) about the IRS, and
the major problems now confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains
of related policies, procedures, practices, customs, rules,
regulations, forms and schedules.
Learn to become a sophisticated consumer of information, and the
knowledge you seek will be yours to keep and share -- with those
you love and endeavor to free from this terrible plague that
persists in America.
Good luck, and may God bless your earnest endeavors to ensure
the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, as
stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in the
Declaration of Independence.
To order additional certified and embossed copies of this
document, please send $30.00 in cash or blank U.S. Postal Money
Order to:
Forwarding Agent
c/o UPS PMB #332
501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
A “blank” U.S. Postal Money Order leaves the “PAY TO” line
blank, permitting us to negotiate it freely. You may, of
course, complete the other half; this allows you to obtain a
photocopy of the cancelled money order from the U.S. Postal
Service without the need for a court order.
Also, be sure to request information about our MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to freeze all IRS assets and to enjoin
IRS from depositing any tax collections into any account(s)
other than the Treasury of the United States. These MOTIONS
were filed in two appeals at the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco,
using FRAP Rule 8 and the special procedures available to a
Private Attorney General under the RICO laws.
Finally, don’t miss this opportunity to request more information
about our historic APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, under a specific authority granted to the
District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) at 18 U.S.C.
1964(a). Refer to DCUS docket #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx), Santa
Ana, California, or send a blank email message to
usintervention@yahoo.com. The vacation autoresponder will
respond with a list of Internet folders where several court
pleadings and related documents can be found.
VERIFICATION
As the Undersigned, I hereby verify, under penalty of perjury,
under the laws of the United States of America, without the
“United States” (federal government), that the above statement
of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of
My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause for
Constitutional authority.
Dated: ______________________________________________________
Signed: ______________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S
Citizen of California, qualified Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author of “The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” (all editions),
and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library:
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
Revision 3.2
certified by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of California, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library
Internet URL of home page: http://www.supremelaw.org
Internet URL of this file:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301-310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the
IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97-2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.
When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses.
3. By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.
Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (“ACTA”), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining “IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question 1 above.) Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.
4. Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?
Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful
bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for
fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count
of mail fraud.
5. Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?
Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before
federal courts, the IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the
Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of
federal “agency” by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be
represented by the DOJ. The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or
appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees. Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above. As
far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the
IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.
6. Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator
Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for
an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so-called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly
repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the
U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T.
Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT’s that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell
totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so-called 16th amendment has now been correctly
identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a
serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266,
270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called
14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.
Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the
U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.
The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their
Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.
Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th
amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” (See Answer to Question
19 below.)
For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.
7. Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?
Answer: Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by
subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the
only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of
“Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for “employment”
taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W-4, the payroll officer then
becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s
paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the
only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll
officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no
liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there
is no withholding agent.
8. Can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?
Answer: No. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article I, Section 1. The
Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever. This means that agencies of the Executive
Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.
If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that
tax. Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.
“[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.” See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4
L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur
2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added]. However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed
from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.
9. The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?
Answer: The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all “citizens of the United States” and
all “residents of the United States”. However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific
liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are
unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin). The Acker case cited above held that federal
regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority.
(See Answer to Question 8 above.)
10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?
Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the
Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and
2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term
means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed
the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity
Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was
later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress
thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the
Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they
attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we
now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive,
and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914- 915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no
standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution
was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a
“citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas
State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are
thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law
Library.
11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent
examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791
(1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,”namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
12. Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916),
the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so-called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York
State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.
Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.
Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful
excise, or indirect tax.
The most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later
issued as a direct consequence of the high Court’s opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the
Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a
“domestic corporation”. This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax
provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial
jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no
authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone
or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber
was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision
refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens
with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the
federal zone.
13. What is a “Withholding agent”?
Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States,
typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.
One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W-4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.” In plain English, by signing a W-4 workers designate themselves as
“employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.
If workers do not execute a valid W-4 form, a company’s payroll
officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes
from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does
not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes,
until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding -
- by signing Form W-4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.
Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of
this form. A properly executed Form W-4 creates the presumption
that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees”
of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work
for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal
fiction, at best.
14. What is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?
Answer: A “Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative
to Form W-4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in
lieu of Form W-4. Although section 3402(n) does authorize this
Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its
forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed Products Catalog”).
In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the
language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates. In
simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal
income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal
income tax liability during the current calendar year. Because
there are no liability statutes for workers in the private
sector, this certification is easy to justify.
Many public and private institutions have created their own form
for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California
Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
Maryland. This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine,
e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term “withholding
exemption certificate” on the Internet. This term occurs several
times in IRC section 3402.
15. What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?
Answer: “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In
the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be
committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the
withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal
government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act
unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal
government “employee.” This is typically done by executing a
valid Form W-4.
However, as discussed above, Form W-4 is not mandatory for
workers who are not “employed” by the federal government.
Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are
technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC; they
are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be
regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly
when they were never created by any Act of Congress.
Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can
only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for
the federal zone. Such corporations are the only “domestic”
corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer’s
essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions”
clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and
“domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.
If Congress were authorized to create national corporations,
such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights
reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to
charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of
Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the
Constantine case supra.
For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to
federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who
works for such an “employer”.
16. Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to
notarize a taxpayer’s signature?
Answer: This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the
fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section
1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed
under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public,
i.e. to witness one’s signature.
This statute identifies two different formats for such written
verifications: (1) those executed outside the “United States”
and (2) those executed inside the “United States”. These two
formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2),
respectively.
What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for
verifications executed “outside the United States”. In this
latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the
laws of the United States of America”.
Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of
America” are both used in this same statute. They are not one
and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in
the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The
latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under,
the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal
statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that
utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.
It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that
verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50
States of the Union (read “the State zone”) if and when they are
executed inside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”).
Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are inside
the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed
outside the “United States”.
The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for
verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and
outside the United States of America (State zone).
17. Does the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings
and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United
States" may be used in any one of several senses.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying
the position analogous to that of other sovereigns
in the family of nations.
[2] It may designate the territory over which the
sovereignty of the United States extends.
[3] It may be the collective name of the States which
are united by and under the Constitution. See
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
[bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for
clarity].
This is the very same definition that is found in Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings
refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is
legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is
legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a
federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.
It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in
these Answers, that the definition of “United States” has now
been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.
18. Is the term “income” defined in the IRC and, if not, where
is it defined?
Answer: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled
that the term “income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC: “The
general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue
Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).
Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189
(1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any
definition of “income” because that term was believed to be in
the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the
ratification of the 16th amendment, which would have introduced
the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution for the very first
time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified).
In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509
(1921), the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or
gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the
tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege
of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do
not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.
19. What is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax
provisions municipal law, or not?
Answer: Yes. The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.
Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal
affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known
as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much
wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body
of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of
supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopedias define
“municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone, the
Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.
A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and
published in the book “The Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s
income tax provisions are municipal law.
One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a
Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal
experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the
Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of
“State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named
territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.
In other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all
similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly
named, and no more.
20. What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the
federal income tax statutes?
The general rule is that federal government powers must be
expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is
a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in
the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority
to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the
Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.
If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax
statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within
that State. This is also true of all 50 States.
Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any
thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the
omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin,
this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated:
Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things
[that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any
edition of Black’s Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory
construction.
The many different definitions of the term “State” that are
found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if
they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As
the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT
the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.
If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer
that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an
intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so,
Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean
the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).
21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what
are the real implications for the average American?
There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately
vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term “income”
is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on
everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from
the truth. “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”
More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is
sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null,
void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right
to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by
the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is
unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for
vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been
enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.
22. Has Title 26 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) ever been
enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications
if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law?
Answer: No. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception
is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states
that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day
after the date of enactment of “this title”. Because the term
“this title” is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in
the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look
elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from
context.
Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which
govern all the federal courts -- the term “this title” clearly
refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion
that “this title”, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to
Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never
been enacted into positive law, as such.
Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of
“this title”, they are men and women of UNcommon intelligence.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s test for vagueness is violated whenever
men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at
the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute.
See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,
391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for
vagueness.
Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken
effect. (“F” is for enForcement!) This subtitle contains all of
the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements,
penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court
jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons
enforcement and so on.
In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth;
as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not
even people with dentures!
23. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax
crimes?
This question must be addressed in view of the Answer to
Question 22 above. Although it may appear that certain statutes
in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district
courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of
the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this
reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do
anything at all. As always, appearances can be very deceiving.
Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in
Wonderland?
On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18,
U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of
the United States (“DCUS”) to prosecute violations of the
statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.
It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts
are not the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”).
The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III
of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or
legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3,
Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory
Clause.
This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of
the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases
that have already clarified the all important distinction
between these two classes of federal district courts. For
example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922),
the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal
Territories. This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in
even greater detail; begin reading at section “7(e)”.
The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to
prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals
where summary proceedings dominate.
For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the
U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review
interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. Further details on this
point are available in the Press Release entitled “Private
Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code” and
dated November 26, 2001 A.D.
24. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their
pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on
their pay?
Answer: No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the
District Courts of the United States -- the Article III
constitutional courts -- are immune from any taxation of their
pay, by constitutional mandate.
The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on
their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a
duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v.
Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the
U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the
existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would
violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. This
principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal
government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any
one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong
to the other two branches.
The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that
decision the Supreme Court erred by defining “Party” to mean
only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of
“Party” that is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).
The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S.
Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These
two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial
power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence
obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.
In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal
judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published
opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS,
because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling
against the IRS. There you have it, from the horse’s mouth!
In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona
in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly
admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on
their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that
statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -– the
highest Court in the land.
Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the
practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate
from them, when they were first hired as “employees” of the
federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby
disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.
25. Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against
illegal tax protesters?
Answer: No. Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments
against illegal tax protesters. Protest has never been illegal
in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our
fundamental Right to express our objections to any government
actions, in written and in spoken words.
Strictly speaking, the term “illegal” cannot modify the noun
“protesters” because to do so would constitute a violation of
the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most
magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.
Accordingly, for the term “illegal tax protester” to survive
this obvious constitutional challenge, the term “illegal” must
modify the noun “tax”. An illegal tax protester is, therefore,
someone who is protesting an illegal tax. Such an act of protest
is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.
Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial
Code; the phrases “under protest” and “without prejudice” are
sufficient to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law.
See U.C.C. 1-207 (UCCA 1207 in California).
By the way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal law. See the
Answer to Question 19 above, and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88-243,
December 30, 1963 (one month after President John F. Kennedy was
murdered).
26. Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how
is this routinely done?
Answer: Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand
juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as
lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government,
and by misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as having
any legal force or effect. Such false representations of fact
violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C.
1125(a). (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been
enacted into positive law either.)
They tamper with grand juries by acting as if “income” is
everything that “comes in”, when there is no such definition
anywhere in the IRC. Such false descriptions of fact also
violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
They tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence
which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance,
such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not constitute
competent waivers of their customers’ fundamental Rights to
privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment. The high standard
for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining
the false and fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or
that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect
inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.
These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also
misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal
offenses.
Finally, there is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S.
Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President
with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued
by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester. (See
the Answer to Question 25 above.) These kick-backs range from
$25,000 to $35,000 in CASH! They also violate the Anti-Kickback
Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from
federal government subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq.
As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a
doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to
this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). The systematic and
premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also
establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for
violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year
1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.)
27. What is “The Kickback Racket,” and where can I find evidence
of its existence?
The evidence of this “kickback racket” was first discovered in a
table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal
Revenue Manual (“IRM”) -- the internal policy and procedure
manual for all IRS employees.
Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the
Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments
that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders
in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the
Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead,
transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these
“awards” because most of them were paid in cash!
When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge,
who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena
against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all
28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to that grand jury.
Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and
federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S.
Mail. See 18 U.S.C. 1702.
Obviously, the federal judge -- John M. Roll -- did NOT want the
grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks.
They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this
writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for
Legal Affairs.
28. Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?
Answer: No. The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due
Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of
American constitutional practice. Put simply, it requires Notice
and Hearing before any property can be seized by any federal
government employees, agents, departments or agencies.
A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property,
i.e. the funds on deposit in that account. No such seizure can
occur unless due process of law has first run its course. This
means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the
pertinent issues of law and fact.
Only after this process has run its proper or “due” course, can
a valid court order be issued. The holding in U.S. v. O’Dell,
160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS
can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of
Distraint, or court ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER could
ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed
their “day in court.”
29. Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government
services and, if so, which government services are funded by
federal income taxes?
Answer: No. The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this
instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile
in Puerto Rico. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). As such, their
records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of
trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided
that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
They are technically not an “agency” of the federal government,
as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in
the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the
federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition
of “agency” in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
(See also the Answer to Question 5 above.)
All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion
racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq.
They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign
banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican.
See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341.
The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under
President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds
they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any
federal government services. The Grace Commission found that
those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal
debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of
entitlement programs like federal pension plans.
30. How can the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) help me to
answer other key tax questions?
The availability of correct information about federal government
operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the
American People. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), at 5
U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents
available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.
As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable
exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a
brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested
document(s). If the requested document is not produced within 20
working days (excluding weekends and federal holidays), the
requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.
If the requested document is not produced within another 20
working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester
is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the
United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) -- to
compel production of the requested document, and judicially to
enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(B). The general rule is that statutes conferring
original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be
strictly construed.
This writer has pioneered the application of the FOIA to request
certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist,
but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which
the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a
certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability
for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. For example, see the
FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne
Meredith.
Of course, by now we already know the answer to this question,
before asking it. (Good lawyers always know the answers to their
questions, before asking them.)
It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be
directed to the IRS, because they are not an “agency” as that
term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). Address it instead to the
Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, USA. This is the format for “foreign” addresses, as
explained in USPS Publication #221.
As James Madison once wrote, “A popular government without
popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a
Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own
Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
31. Where can I find more information, and still protect my
privacy?
There are many civic organizations throughout America who have
dedicated their precious time and energy to acquire and
disseminate widely these documented truths about the Internal
Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue Code.
The Internet’s World Wide Web (“www”) is perhaps the best single
source of information (and disinformation) about the IRS, and
the major problems now confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains
of related policies, procedures, practices, customs, rules,
regulations, forms and schedules.
Learn to become a sophisticated consumer of information, and the
knowledge you seek will be yours to keep and share -- with those
you love and endeavor to free from this terrible plague that
persists in America.
Good luck, and may God bless your earnest endeavors to ensure
the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, as
stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in the
Declaration of Independence.
To order additional certified and embossed copies of this
document, please send $30.00 in cash or blank U.S. Postal Money
Order to:
Forwarding Agent
c/o UPS PMB #332
501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
A “blank” U.S. Postal Money Order leaves the “PAY TO” line
blank, permitting us to negotiate it freely. You may, of
course, complete the other half; this allows you to obtain a
photocopy of the cancelled money order from the U.S. Postal
Service without the need for a court order.
Also, be sure to request information about our MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to freeze all IRS assets and to enjoin
IRS from depositing any tax collections into any account(s)
other than the Treasury of the United States. These MOTIONS
were filed in two appeals at the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco,
using FRAP Rule 8 and the special procedures available to a
Private Attorney General under the RICO laws.
Finally, don’t miss this opportunity to request more information
about our historic APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, under a specific authority granted to the
District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) at 18 U.S.C.
1964(a). Refer to DCUS docket #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx), Santa
Ana, California, or send a blank email message to
usintervention@yahoo.com. The vacation autoresponder will
respond with a list of Internet folders where several court
pleadings and related documents can be found.
VERIFICATION
As the Undersigned, I hereby verify, under penalty of perjury,
under the laws of the United States of America, without the
“United States” (federal government), that the above statement
of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of
My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause for
Constitutional authority.
Dated: ______________________________________________________
Signed: ______________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S
Citizen of California, qualified Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author of “The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” (all editions),
and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library:
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Government Shutdown? 36 Facts Which Prove That Almost Everything Is Still Running by Michael Snyder, on October 2nd, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
Government Shutdown? 36 Facts Which Prove That Almost Everything Is Still Running
All of this whining and crying about a "government shutdown" is a total joke. You see, there really is very little reason why this "government shutdown" cannot continue indefinitely because almost everything is still running. 63 percent of all federal workers are still working, and 85 percent of all government activities are still being funded during this "shutdown". Yes, the Obama administration has been making a big show of taking down government websites and blocking off the World War II Memorial, but overall business in Washington D.C. is being conducted pretty much as usual. It turns out that the definition of "essential personnel" has expanded so much over the years that almost everyone is considered "essential" at this point. In fact, this shutdown is such a non-event that even referring to it as a "partial government shutdown" would really be overstating what is actually happening. The following are 36 facts which prove that almost everything is still running during this government shutdown...
#1 According to U.S. Senator Rand Paul, 85 percent of all government activities are actually being funded during this "government shutdown".
#2 Approximately 1,350,000 "essential" federal employees will continue to work during this "government shutdown".
#3 Overall, 63 percent of the federal workforce will continue to work during this "government shutdown".
#4 The U.S. Postal Service will continue to deliver our mail.
#5 U.S. military personnel will remain on duty and will continue to get paid.
#6 Social Security recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#7 Medicare recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#8 Medicaid recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#9 Food stamp recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#10 Those on unemployment will continue to get their benefits.
#11 Federal retirees will continue to get their pensions.
#12 The federal school lunch program has enough money to go through at least the end of this month.
#13 Public schools all over the country will continue to stay open.
#14 Almost all federal law enforcement officials will continue working.
#15 The Federal Reserve will remain "completely functional".
#16 The Supreme Court will continue to operate normally and federal courts have enough money to keep going for at least two weeks.
#17 TSA employees will continue to molest travelers at our airports.
#18 Air traffic controllers will continue to monitor traffic at our airports.
#19 Hopelessly outmanned border patrol agents will continue to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
#20 Visas and passports will continue to be issued by the State Department.
#21 The Veterans Administration will continue to offer substandard medical services, and it will be able to continue processing benefit payments at least for now.
#22 The Obama administration apparently has plenty of money to spend on closing open-air memorials that are usually open to the public 24 hours a day.
#23 The Department of Defense announced the awarding of 94 new contracts worth a combined total of more than 5 billion dollars on September 30th - the day right before the "government shutdown".
#24 The "government shutdown" has not prevented the new two billion dollar NSA spy center from opening up.
#25 Federal prisons will continue to operate normally.
#26 Amtrak trains will continue to run.
#27 The Patent and Trademark Office will be open.
#28 The Consumer Product Safety Commission will continue to issue product recalls if the products "create an immediate threat to the safety of human life".
#29 The National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center will continue to track weather patterns.
#30 If the federal government needs to respond to a natural disaster, this "shutdown" will not affect that.
#31 NASA will continue to support the Mars Rover and the two American astronauts up on the International Space Station.
#32 All city employees of the D.C. government have been deemed "essential" and will continue to go to work.
#33 Even though the Obamacare exchanges are not working properly, people will still be able to access them.
#34 The IRS will continue to collect taxes, but it will be suspending punitive audits of conservative organizations.
#35 Barack Obama will continue to get paid for the full duration of this "shutdown".
#36 The U.S. Congress will continue to get paid for the full duration of this "shutdown".
Of course not everything is operating normally during this government shutdown. Government parks are closed. The EPA and the Department of Energy have almost totally closed up shop. But overall, most Americans are not going to notice much of a difference.
And perhaps now is a good time for the American people to evaluate whether or not they actually need a gigantic federal government that wastes enormous mountains of our money.
For example, our federal government recently spent $98,670 to construct a single outhouse in Alaska.
That is more than a lot of Americans pay for their entire houses.
For many more examples like this, please see my previous article entitled "The Waste List: 66 Crazy Ways That The U.S. Government Is Wasting Your Hard-Earned Money".
It is about time that Washington D.C. started experiencing some of the "belt-tightening" that the rest of the country has been going through. For far too long, the fatcats in D.C. have been living in an alternate reality where they have been able to live the high life at our expense. A recent blog post by Daniel Greenfield discussed how this shutdown is going to affect the alternate reality that the Obamas have been living in...
The government shutdown has forced Obama to make do with only a quarter of his 1,701 person staff. That would leave 436 “vital” employees. The 90 people who look after his living quarters would be slashed to 15 to “provide minimum maintenance and support”.
Buckingham Palace, which is twelve times the size of the White House and has its own clockmaker, only has an 800 person staff. King Harald V of Norway and his court make do with 152 staffers. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden gets by with 203.
On Twitter, Michelle Obama announced that she is unable to Tweet on her own without the aid of all of her sixteen assistants; many of whom take home six figure salaries. There are more directors, associate directors and deputy associate directors on Michelle Obama’s staff than there were in George Washington’s entire administration.
Presidents have fought wars and made peace, explored and annexed vast territories and built a nation out of a handful of colonies with fewer senior staffers than are needed to handle Michelle Obama’s Twitter account.
Oh the humanity! Will Michelle Obama ever tweet again? And how will the White House continue to function without at least one projectionist on duty at the White House 24 hours a day?
No wonder Barack Obama is so upset about this shutdown.
In the end, this shutdown could turn out to be very good for America. We have a government that is wildly out of control and that desperately needs to be reigned in.
During the Obama administration, federal debt held by the public has risen by 90 percent, and overall federal government spending has risen by a whopping 317 percent since 1990.
So is it really a bad thing that the federal government has been forced to cut back for a little while?
Our politicians can whine and cry all they want. They won't be getting any sympathy from me.
Government Shutdown? 36 Facts Which Prove That Almost Everything Is Still Running
All of this whining and crying about a "government shutdown" is a total joke. You see, there really is very little reason why this "government shutdown" cannot continue indefinitely because almost everything is still running. 63 percent of all federal workers are still working, and 85 percent of all government activities are still being funded during this "shutdown". Yes, the Obama administration has been making a big show of taking down government websites and blocking off the World War II Memorial, but overall business in Washington D.C. is being conducted pretty much as usual. It turns out that the definition of "essential personnel" has expanded so much over the years that almost everyone is considered "essential" at this point. In fact, this shutdown is such a non-event that even referring to it as a "partial government shutdown" would really be overstating what is actually happening. The following are 36 facts which prove that almost everything is still running during this government shutdown...
#1 According to U.S. Senator Rand Paul, 85 percent of all government activities are actually being funded during this "government shutdown".
#2 Approximately 1,350,000 "essential" federal employees will continue to work during this "government shutdown".
#3 Overall, 63 percent of the federal workforce will continue to work during this "government shutdown".
#4 The U.S. Postal Service will continue to deliver our mail.
#5 U.S. military personnel will remain on duty and will continue to get paid.
#6 Social Security recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#7 Medicare recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#8 Medicaid recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#9 Food stamp recipients will continue to get their benefits.
#10 Those on unemployment will continue to get their benefits.
#11 Federal retirees will continue to get their pensions.
#12 The federal school lunch program has enough money to go through at least the end of this month.
#13 Public schools all over the country will continue to stay open.
#14 Almost all federal law enforcement officials will continue working.
#15 The Federal Reserve will remain "completely functional".
#16 The Supreme Court will continue to operate normally and federal courts have enough money to keep going for at least two weeks.
#17 TSA employees will continue to molest travelers at our airports.
#18 Air traffic controllers will continue to monitor traffic at our airports.
#19 Hopelessly outmanned border patrol agents will continue to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
#20 Visas and passports will continue to be issued by the State Department.
#21 The Veterans Administration will continue to offer substandard medical services, and it will be able to continue processing benefit payments at least for now.
#22 The Obama administration apparently has plenty of money to spend on closing open-air memorials that are usually open to the public 24 hours a day.
#23 The Department of Defense announced the awarding of 94 new contracts worth a combined total of more than 5 billion dollars on September 30th - the day right before the "government shutdown".
#24 The "government shutdown" has not prevented the new two billion dollar NSA spy center from opening up.
#25 Federal prisons will continue to operate normally.
#26 Amtrak trains will continue to run.
#27 The Patent and Trademark Office will be open.
#28 The Consumer Product Safety Commission will continue to issue product recalls if the products "create an immediate threat to the safety of human life".
#29 The National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center will continue to track weather patterns.
#30 If the federal government needs to respond to a natural disaster, this "shutdown" will not affect that.
#31 NASA will continue to support the Mars Rover and the two American astronauts up on the International Space Station.
#32 All city employees of the D.C. government have been deemed "essential" and will continue to go to work.
#33 Even though the Obamacare exchanges are not working properly, people will still be able to access them.
#34 The IRS will continue to collect taxes, but it will be suspending punitive audits of conservative organizations.
#35 Barack Obama will continue to get paid for the full duration of this "shutdown".
#36 The U.S. Congress will continue to get paid for the full duration of this "shutdown".
Of course not everything is operating normally during this government shutdown. Government parks are closed. The EPA and the Department of Energy have almost totally closed up shop. But overall, most Americans are not going to notice much of a difference.
And perhaps now is a good time for the American people to evaluate whether or not they actually need a gigantic federal government that wastes enormous mountains of our money.
For example, our federal government recently spent $98,670 to construct a single outhouse in Alaska.
That is more than a lot of Americans pay for their entire houses.
For many more examples like this, please see my previous article entitled "The Waste List: 66 Crazy Ways That The U.S. Government Is Wasting Your Hard-Earned Money".
It is about time that Washington D.C. started experiencing some of the "belt-tightening" that the rest of the country has been going through. For far too long, the fatcats in D.C. have been living in an alternate reality where they have been able to live the high life at our expense. A recent blog post by Daniel Greenfield discussed how this shutdown is going to affect the alternate reality that the Obamas have been living in...
The government shutdown has forced Obama to make do with only a quarter of his 1,701 person staff. That would leave 436 “vital” employees. The 90 people who look after his living quarters would be slashed to 15 to “provide minimum maintenance and support”.
Buckingham Palace, which is twelve times the size of the White House and has its own clockmaker, only has an 800 person staff. King Harald V of Norway and his court make do with 152 staffers. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden gets by with 203.
On Twitter, Michelle Obama announced that she is unable to Tweet on her own without the aid of all of her sixteen assistants; many of whom take home six figure salaries. There are more directors, associate directors and deputy associate directors on Michelle Obama’s staff than there were in George Washington’s entire administration.
Presidents have fought wars and made peace, explored and annexed vast territories and built a nation out of a handful of colonies with fewer senior staffers than are needed to handle Michelle Obama’s Twitter account.
Oh the humanity! Will Michelle Obama ever tweet again? And how will the White House continue to function without at least one projectionist on duty at the White House 24 hours a day?
No wonder Barack Obama is so upset about this shutdown.
In the end, this shutdown could turn out to be very good for America. We have a government that is wildly out of control and that desperately needs to be reigned in.
During the Obama administration, federal debt held by the public has risen by 90 percent, and overall federal government spending has risen by a whopping 317 percent since 1990.
So is it really a bad thing that the federal government has been forced to cut back for a little while?
Our politicians can whine and cry all they want. They won't be getting any sympathy from me.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
545 Traitors vs 300 Million Citizens
August 20, 2009 at 7:15pm
545 Traitors vs 300 Million Citizens
An Urgent Message To All Americans:
=======================================================
If politicians want peace - why do we have so many wars?
If politicians want a smaller deficit - why does the deficit grow?
If politicians are against crime - why are so many of them criminals?
If politicians are against inflation - why do we have inflation?
If politicians are against taxes - why do we have taxes?
If politicians want to keep the country secure - why are the borders left wide open?
=======================================================
435 congresspeople
100 senators
9 supreme court justices
1 president
+____________________
545 people
545 people out of the 300+million people in America that are directly, morally, personally and legally responsible for the problems that plague this country.
These 545 politicians spend most of their energy trying to convince you and I that the problems they create are not their fault.
It's inconceivable to me that a nation of 300+million people can't replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of incompetence and irresponsibility.
It's painfully obvious that anything the federal government does is done because they want it done. If we are over taxed, it's because they want us to be over taxed. If we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they want troops there. If our budget is in the red, it's because they want the budget to be in the red. If they have an elite insurance program that is not available to normal people, it's because they want it that way.
Don't let these 545 people con you into the belief that some disembodied, mystical force exists that can not be controlled - like the economy, inflation, or politics - that prevent them from doing what they swore an oath to do.
They, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power to continue the same destruction or to remedy it with sensible solutions.
They are not our masters - we are their masters.
Lets vote all 545 of these traitors out of office and clean up their mess.
Thank you,
You Can't Fix STUPID But You Can Vote Them Out!
August 20, 2009 at 7:15pm
545 Traitors vs 300 Million Citizens
An Urgent Message To All Americans:
=======================================================
If politicians want peace - why do we have so many wars?
If politicians want a smaller deficit - why does the deficit grow?
If politicians are against crime - why are so many of them criminals?
If politicians are against inflation - why do we have inflation?
If politicians are against taxes - why do we have taxes?
If politicians want to keep the country secure - why are the borders left wide open?
=======================================================
435 congresspeople
100 senators
9 supreme court justices
1 president
+____________________
545 people
545 people out of the 300+million people in America that are directly, morally, personally and legally responsible for the problems that plague this country.
These 545 politicians spend most of their energy trying to convince you and I that the problems they create are not their fault.
It's inconceivable to me that a nation of 300+million people can't replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of incompetence and irresponsibility.
It's painfully obvious that anything the federal government does is done because they want it done. If we are over taxed, it's because they want us to be over taxed. If we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they want troops there. If our budget is in the red, it's because they want the budget to be in the red. If they have an elite insurance program that is not available to normal people, it's because they want it that way.
Don't let these 545 people con you into the belief that some disembodied, mystical force exists that can not be controlled - like the economy, inflation, or politics - that prevent them from doing what they swore an oath to do.
They, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power to continue the same destruction or to remedy it with sensible solutions.
They are not our masters - we are their masters.
Lets vote all 545 of these traitors out of office and clean up their mess.
Thank you,
You Can't Fix STUPID But You Can Vote Them Out!
Friday, March 1, 2013
WHAT IT TOOK TO GET AN 8TH-GRADE EDUCATION IN 1895
Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895?
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas, USA. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,' 'play,' and 'run.'
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs? For tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000... What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft...? Long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865.
Orthography (Time, one hour)
[Do we even know what this is??]
1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks
and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each...
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.
Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.
Gives the saying 'he only had an 8th grade education' a whole new meaning, doesn't it?!
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Life's Truths for Mature Adults
1. I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die.
2. Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
3. I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger.
4. There is great need for a sarcasm font.
5. Really, how ARE you supposed to fold a fitted sheet?
6. Was learning cursive really necessary?
7. Map Quest really needs to start their directions on # 5. I'm pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
8. Obituaries would be a lot more interesting if they told you how the person died.
9. I can't remember the last time I wasn't at least kind of tired.
10. Bad decisions make good stories.
11. You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.
12. Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after Blue Ray? I don't want to have to restart my collection...again.
13. I'm always slightly terrified when I exit out of Word and it asks me if I want to save any changes to my ten-page technical report that I swear I did not make any changes to.
14. "Do not machine wash or tumble dry" means I will never wash this - ever.
15. I hate when I just miss a call by the last ring (Hello? Hello? Crap!), but when I immediately call back, it rings nine times and goes to voice mail. What did you do after I didn't answer? Drop the phone and run away?
16. I hate leaving my house confident and looking good and then not seeing anyone of importance the entire day. What a waste.
17. I keep some people's phone numbers in my phone just so I know not to answer when they call.
18. I think the freezer deserves a light as well.
19. I disagree with Kay Jewelers. I would bet on any given Friday or Saturday night more kisses begin with Miller Lite than Kay.
20. I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.
21. Sometimes, I'll watch a movie that I watched when I was younger and suddenly realize I had no idea what the heck was going on when I first saw it.
22. I would rather try to carry 10 over-loaded plastic bags in each hand than take 2 trips to bring my groceries in.
23. The only time I look forward to a red light is when I'm trying to finish a text.
24. I have a hard time deciphering the fine line between boredom and hunger.
25. How many times is it appropriate to say "What?" before you just nod and smile because you still didn't hear or understand a word they said?
26. I love the sense of camaraderie when an entire line of cars team up to prevent a jerk from cutting in at the front. Stay strong, brothers and sisters!
27. Shirts get dirty. Underwear gets dirty. Pants? Pants never get dirty, and you can wear them forever.
28. Is it just me or do high school kids get dumber & dumber every year?
29. There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.
30. As a driver I hate pedestrians, and as a pedestrian I hate drivers, but no matter what the mode of transportation, I always hate bicyclists.
31. Sometimes I'll look down at my watch 3 consecutive times and still not know what time it is.
32. Even under ideal conditions people have trouble locating their car keys in a pocket, finding their cell phone, and Pinning the Tail on the Donkey - but I'll bet everyone can find and push the snooze button from 3 feet away, in about 1.7 seconds, eyes closed, first time, every time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)