World Truths

BACK to Main Page

31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service


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 and
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library

Internet URL of home page:

Internet URL of this file:

Common Law Copyright
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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., 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

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 “Unites 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

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, or [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

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

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

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

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

23. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 10 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

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

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:

Dr. John C. Alden, M.D.
Attention: Forwarding Agent
501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”, PMB #332
San Diego 92101

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
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 The vacation autoresponder will respond with a
list of Internet folders where several court pleadings and related documents
can be found.


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:

You can help us make a difference.
Click here for details:

Changing Planet News - Where Ethics, Science and Spirituality Blend

COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS PROJECT: If this email sparked emotions in you, positive or negative, please pray, meditate, visualize or concentrate on the best possible outcome for Humanity and Earth for AT LEAST 10 seconds.

On the web at

If the article you want is cut short, click here:

News and service since 1995

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

To unsubscribe, send email to:
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

----Salus Plebeyos Suprema Lex----
The Joy of Those Who Create is the Supreme Law

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to