31 Questions and = Answers about the IRS, Revision 3.4

31 Questions and Answers about

the Internal Revenue Service

Revision 3.4

certified by

Paul = Andrew=20 Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Citizen of = California, Federal = Witness,

Private=20 Attorney General, Author = and

Webmaster of the Supreme Law = Library

Internet URL of home=20 page:

http://www.supremelaw.org/in= dex.htm

Internet URL of this=20 file:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm=

Co= mmon=20 Law Copyright

All = Rights Reserved=20 without=20 Prejudice

1. = ; =20 Is the Internal Revenue Service = (=93IRS=94) an=20 organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization = within=20 the United=20 States Department of the Treasury. =20 The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now = codified in Title = 31 of the=20 United States Code, abbreviated =9331 U.S.C.=94 The only mention of the IRS=20 anywhere in 31 U.S.C. =A7=A7 = 301‑310 is an=20 authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel = in the=20 U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the = IRS. See 31 U.S.C.=20 301(f)(2).

At footnote=20 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. = Supreme=20 Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after = they=20 searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended = in the=20 year 1865 A.D. The = Guarante= e=20 Clause in the U.S. = Constitution=20 guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by = Law and=20 not by arbitrary bureaucrats). = See=20 Article = IV,=20 Section 4. Since = there was no=20 organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

2. = ; =20 If not an organization within the = U.S. = Department of=20 the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?

Answer: The IRS appears to be a = collection=20 agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under = color of=20 the Federal Alcohol Administration (=93FAA=94). But the FAA was promptly = declared=20 unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the = case of=20 U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because P= rohibition=20 had already been repealed.

In=20 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit = identified a=20 second =93Secretary of the Treasury=94 as a man by the name of Manual = D=EDaz-Salda=F1a. =20 See the definitions of =93Secret= ary=94=20 and =93Secreta= ry or his=20 delegate=94 at 27=20 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in = Used=20 Tire International, Inc. v. Manual D=EDaz-Salda=F1a,=20 court docket number 97‑2348,=20 September 11, 1998. Both=20 definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When=20 all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money = laundry,=20 extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering=20 activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. = 1951 and 1961 et = seq.=20 (=93RICO=94). Think = of Puerto=20 RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an = organized crime=20 syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act = and the Lanham = Act.

3. = ; =20 By what legal authority, if any, has the = IRS=20 established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?

Answer: After much diligent research, = several=20 investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor = any=20 Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within = any of=20 the 50 States of the Union.

Their=20 presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on = Coordination of Tax Administration (=93ACTA=94), = which officials=20 in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal = Revenue. A template= for=20 ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on = the=20 Internet.

However, those ACTA = agreements are=20 demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining =93IRS=94 as = a lawful=20 bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question 1=20 above.) Moreover, those = ACTA = agreements also=20 appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before = such a=20 service contract can be awarded by a State government to any = subcontractor. There is no evidence to = indicate that ACTA = agreements were=20 reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is = adamant=20 about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.

4. = ; =20 Can IRS legally show =93Department of the = Treasury=94=20 on their outgoing mail?

Answer: No. It is obvious that such = deceptive=20 nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a = lawful=20 bureau or department within the U.S. = Department of=20 the Treasury. Federal = laws=20 prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent = from IRS=20 with =93Department of the Treasury=94 in the return address, is one = count of mail = fraud. See also 31 U.S.C.=20 333.

5. = ; =20 Does the U.S. Department of Justice have = power of=20 attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?

Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department = of Justice=20 (=93DOJ=94) does have power=20 of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the = IRS is=20 not an =93agency=94 as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of = Information=20 Act or in the Administrative = Procedures=20 Act. The governments = of all=20 federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of = federal=20 =93agency=94 by Act of Congress. = See 5 U.S.C. = 551(1)(C).

Since=20 IRS is domiciled in Puerto = Rico=20 (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal = agencies=20 which can be represented by the DOJ. =20 The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority = of 31 U.S.C. = 301(f)(2),=20 can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf = of IRS=20 and IRS employees. Again, = see the=20 Answer to Question=20 1 above. As far as = powers of=20 attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows = to the=20 President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. = Department of=20 Justice.

6. = ; =20 Were the so-called 1= 4^th=20 and 1= 6^th=20 amendments properly ratified?

Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. = In the case of People v. = Boxer (December = 1992), docket=20 number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the = face of=20 an Application = to=20 the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER=20 compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the = so-called=20 1= 6^th=20 amendment.

That=20 so‑called =93amendment=94 allegedly authorized federal income = taxation, even though=20 it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses=20 mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of = Appeals and=20 the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled = that=20 repeals by implication are not favored. =20 See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, = Inc., 482=20 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).

The=20 material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT=92s that were properly executed and = filed in that=20 case. Boxer fell totally = silent,=20 thus rendering those affidavits the =93truth of the case.=94 The so‑called 1= 6^th=20 amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud = upon the=20 American People and the United States. =20 Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal = offense. See 18 U.S.C. = 1031.

Similarly, the so-called = 1= 4^th=20 amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968= ), the=20 Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond = any=20 shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 1= 4^th=20 amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American = People.

Those=20 facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting = for or=20 against that proposal to amend the U.S.=20 Constitution. The = Supreme Law=20 Library has a collection = of=20 references detailing this major fraud.

The=20 U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by = three-four= ths=20 of the several States. As = such,=20 their Acts are governed by the Full = Faith and=20 Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article = IV,=20 Section 1.

Judging=20 by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated,=20 particularly Section 1, the so‑called 1= 4^th=20 amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever = written in=20 American history. The = phrase=20 =93subject to the jurisdiction of the United States=94 is properly = understood to=20 mean =93subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.=94 (See Answer to Question 19 = below.)

For=20 this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the = so-called=20 14^th amendment is provably vague and therefore = unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint = Resolution=20 No. 48, June 16, 1866.

7. = ; =20 Where are the statutes that create a=20 specific liability for federal income taxes?

Answer: Section 1 of = the Internal=20 Revenue Code (=93IRC=94) contains no provisions creating a specific = liability for=20 taxes imposed by subtitle = A. Aside from the statutes which = apply=20 only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public = Salary Tax=20 Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for = federal=20 income taxes are those itemized in the definition of =93Withholding = agent=94 at IRC=20 section 7701(a)(16).<= SPAN=20 style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> For example, see IRC section = 1461. A separate liability statute = for=20 =93employment=94 taxes imposed by subtitle C is = found at=20 IRC section 3403.

After a=20 worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by = completing=20 Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who = is legally=20 and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from = that=20 worker=92s paycheck. = Until such time=20 as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the = United=20 States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally = liable=20 for those taxes, not the worker. =20 See IRC section 7809 = (=93Treasury of the=20 United States=94).

If the=20 worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, = consistent=20 with IRC section 3402(n), the = payroll=20 officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income = taxes. In this latter situation, = there is=20 absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll = officer; in other words, there is no = liability=20 PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.

8. = ; =20 Can a federal regulation create a = specific=20 liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding=20 statute?

Answer: No. The U.S. Constitution vests = all=20 legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article = I,=20 Section 1. The = Executive Branch=20 of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever. This means that agencies of = the=20 Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, = are=20 prohibited from making law.

If an=20 Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed = by that=20 Act, then there is no liability for that tax. Executive agencies have no = authority to=20 cure any such omission by using regulations to create a = liability.

=93[A]n administrative agency may not = create a=20 criminal offense or any = liability not=20 sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a=20 tax or inspection fee.=94 See=20 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d = 127, 80=20 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and = Independent=20 Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5^th Cir. 1944) as = cited at=20 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) = [bold=20 emphasis added]. = However, this=20 cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed from the = 1994=20 edition of that legal encyclopedia.

9. = ; =20 The federal regulations create an income = tax=20 liability for what specific classes of people?

Answer: The regulations at 26 CFR = 1.1-1=20 attempted to create a specific liability for all =93citizens of the = United States=94=20 and all =93residents of the United States=94. =20 However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, = which does=20 not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle = A.

Therefore, these = regulations are=20 an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as = such, they=20 are unconstitutional, null and void ab=20 initio (from the beginning, in Latin). =20 The Acker case cited above held that federal regulations = can=20 not exceed the underlying statutory authority. (See Answer to Question 8=20 above.)

10. =20 How many classes of citizens are = there,=20 and how did this number come to be?

Answer: There are two (2) classes of=20 citizens: State Citizens = and=20 federal citizens. The = first class=20 originates in the Qualificati= ons=20 Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term =93Citizen of the = United=20 States=94 is used. (See = 1:2:2<= /A>, 1:3:3<= /A> and=20 2:1:5<= /A>.) Notice the UPPER-CASE =93C=94 = in=20 =93Citizen=94.

The=20 pertinent court cases have defined the term =93United States=94 in these = Clauses to=20 mean =93States United=94, and the full term means =93Citizen of ONE = OF the=20 States United=94. See = People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra = signed the=20 California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the = Union. Similar terms are found = in the=20 Diversity Clause at Articl= e III,=20 Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at = Articl= e IV,=20 Section 2, Clause 1. = Prior to=20 the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American = Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke,=20 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on = this key=20 point.

The=20 second class originates in the 1866 Civil = Rights=20 Act, where the term =93citizen of the United States=94 is used. This Act was later codified at = 42 U.S.C. = 1983. Notice the lower-case =93c=94 = in=20 =93citizen=94. The = pertinent court=20 cases have held that Congress thereby created a munici= pal=20 franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were = freed by=20 President Lincoln=92s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and = later by the=20 T= hirteenth=20 Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a = =93tax=94 for which=20 there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, = and=20 extortion.

Instead=20 of using the unique term =93federal citizen=94, as found in Black=92s = Law=20 Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical = Republicans who=20 sponsored the 1866=20 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes = of=20 citizens. Then, they = attempted to=20 elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 1= 4^th=20 amendment to the U.S. Constitution. =20 As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 = above.)

Numerous court cases = have=20 struggled to clarify the important differences between the two = classes. One of the most definitive, = and=20 dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 = (1918), which clearly=20 held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Divers= ity=20 Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article = III in=20 the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787=20 A.D.

Another=20 is Ex=20 parte Knowles, 5 Cal. = 300 (1855)=20 in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing = as a=20 =93citizen of the United States=94 (as of the year 1855 = A.D.). Only federal citizens have = standing to=20 invoke 42 = U.S.C.=20 1983; whereas State = Citizens do=20 not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 = (C.C. Cal.=20 1905).

Many=20 more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of = citizens=20 under American Law. These = cases are=20 thoroughly documented in the book entitled =93The Federal Zone: = Cracking=20 the Code of Internal Revenue=94 by Paul Andrew Mitchell, = B.A., M.S.,=20 now in its eleventh edition. = See=20 also the pleadings in the case of USA v. = Gilbertson,=20 also in the Supreme Law Library.

11. =20 Can one be a State Citizen, without = also=20 being a federal citizen?

Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil = Rights Act=20 was municipal= =20 law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited = areas where=20 Congress is the =93state=94 government with exclusive legislative = jurisdiction=20 there. These areas are = now=20 identified as =93the federal zone.=94 =20 (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the = 50=20 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil = Rights Act=20 had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then = or=20 now.

Several=20 courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without = also=20 becoming federal citizens. = For=20 excellent examples, see State = v.=20 Fowler, 41 La. Ann. = 380, 6 S.=20 602 (1889) = and=20 Gardina v. Board of = Registrars, 160 Ala.=20 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court = also=20 clarified the issue by explaining our =93Right=20 of Election=94 or =93freedom of choice,=94 namely, our freedom to = choose between=20 two different forms of government. =20 See 44 Maine 518 (1859),=20 Hathaway, J. dissenting.

Since=20 the Guarante= e=20 Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a = Republican=20 Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a=20 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=20 Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.

But,=20 State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any = allegiance to=20 that legislative democracy; = their=20 allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union = (i.e. the=20 white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).

12. =20 Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case = so=20 important?

Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad = Company,=20 240 U.S. 1 (1916), = the first=20 U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 1= 6^th=20 amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New = York State=20 and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and = nobody=20 challenged that claim.

The=20 Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act = of=20 Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the = Pacific), at a=20 time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal = zone.

Brushaber=92s attorney committed an error by = arguing that the=20 company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not = a State=20 of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.

Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the = company. He then sued the company to = recover=20 taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its=20 stockholders. The U.S. = Supreme=20 Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and = upheld the=20 tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.

The=20 most interesting result of the Court=92s ruling was a Treasury Decision = (=93T.D.=94)=20 that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct = consequence of=20 the high Court=92s opinion. = In T.D. = 2313, the=20 U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank = Brushaber as a =93nonresident alien=94 and the = Union Pacific=20 Railroad Company as a =93domestic corporation=94. This Treasury Decision has = never been=20 modified or repealed.

T.D. = 2313 is=20 crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are = municipal law, = with no=20 territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the = Treasury who=20 approved T.D.=20 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a = proper=20 Party to that court action.

Thus,=20 there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that = Treasury=20 Decision refers. = Accordingly, all=20 State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal = jurisdiction=20 of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.

13. =20 What is a =93Withholding agent=94?

Answer: (See Answer to Question 7=20 first.) The term = =93Withholding=20 agent=94 is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16).<= SPAN=20 style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> It is further defined by the = statutes=20 itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 = where=20 liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a = =93withholding agent=94=20 is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker=92s = paycheck,=20 and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, = typically on=20 a quarterly basis. See = IRC section=20 7809.

One=20 cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes = to be=20 withheld from their paychecks. = This=20 authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid = W‑4=20 =93Employee=92s Withholding Allowance Certificate.=94 In plain English, by signing a = W‑4=20 workers designate themselves as =93employees=94 and certify they are = allowing=20 withholding to occur.

If=20 workers do not execute a valid W‑4 form, a company=92s = payroll officer is=20 not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their = paychecks. In other words, the payroll = officer does=20 not have =93permission=94 or =93power of attorney=94 to withhold taxes, = until and unless=20 workers authorize or =93allow=94 that withholding ‑‑ by = signing Form W‑4 knowingly,=20 intentionally and voluntarily.

Pay=20 particular attention to the term =93Employee=94 in the title of this = form. A properly executed Form = W‑4 creates the=20 presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were=20 =93employees=94 of the federal government. =20 Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, = such a=20 presumption is a legal fiction, at best.

14. =20 What is a =93Withholding Exemption=20 Certificate=94?

Answer: A =93Withholding Exemption = Certificate=94 is=20 an alternative to Form W‑4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and = executed=20 in lieu of Form W‑4. =20 Although section 3402(n) does = authorize=20 this Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its = forms=20 catalog (see the IRS =93Printed Products Catalog=94).

In the=20 absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of = section=20 3402(n) = to create=20 their own Certificates. = In simple=20 language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income tax = liability=20 last year, and anticipates no federal income tax liability during the = current=20 calendar year. Because = there are no=20 liability statutes for workers in the private sector, this certification = is easy=20 to justify.

Many=20 public and private institutions have created their own form for the = Withholding=20 Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax Board, and = Johns=20 Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. =20 This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine, = e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of = the term=20 =93withholding exemption certificate=94 on the Internet. This term occurs several times = in IRC=20 section 3402.

15. =20 What is =93tax evasion=94 and who might = be guilty of=20 this crime?

Answer: =93Tax = evasion=94 is the=20 crime of evading a lawful tax. = In=20 the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by = persons=20 who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding=20 agent. If one is not = employed by=20 the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act = unless=20 one chooses to be treated =93as if=94 one is a federal government = =93employee.=94 This is typically done by = executing a=20 valid Form W‑4.

However, as discussed = above, Form=20 W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not =93employed=94 by the = federal=20 government. Corporations = chartered=20 by the 50 States of the Union are technically =93foreign= =94=20 corporations with respect to the IRC; =20 they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be = regarded=20 =93as if=94 they are the federal government, particularly when they were = never=20 created by any Act of Congress.

Moreover, the Indiana = Supreme=20 Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in = its=20 capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only = =93domestic=94=20 corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer=92s essay entitled = =93A Cogent = Summary of=20 Federal Jurisdictions=94 clarifies this important distinction = between=20 =93foreign=94 and =93domestic=94 corporations in simple, straightforward = language.

If=20 Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a=20 questionable authority would invade States=92 rights reserved to them by = the Tenth=20 Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic = corporations. The repeal of P= rohibition=20 left the T= enth=20 Amendment unqualified. = See the=20 Constantine case supra.

For=20 purposes of the IRC, the term =93employer=94 refers only to = federal=20 government agencies, and an =93employee=94 is a person who works for = such an=20 =93employer=94.

16. =20 Why does IRS Form 1040 not require = a=20 Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer=92s signature?

Answer: This question is one of the = fastest ways=20 to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, = Congress=20 authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury = without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness = one=92s=20 signature.

This=20 statute identifies two different formats for such written = verifications: (1) those executed = outside the=20 =93United States=94 and (2) those executed inside the =93United = States=94. These two formats correspond = to sections=20 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.

What is=20 extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications = executed=20 =93outside the United States=94. =20 In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase = =93under the=20 laws of the United States of America=94.

Clearly, the terms = =93United=20 States=94 and =93United States of America=94 are both = used in this=20 same statute. They are = not=20 one and the same. The = former refers=20 to the federal government -- in the U.S. = Constitution=20 and throughout most federal statutes. =20 The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, = the=20 U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. = 1746 is the=20 only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the = United States=20 Code that utilizes the term =93United States of America=94, as such.

It is=20 painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made = under=20 penalty of perjury are outside the =93United States=94 = (read =93the=20 federal zone=94) if and when they are executed inside the 50 = States of the=20 Union (read =93the State zone=94).

Likewise, verifications = made under=20 penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and = when=20 they are executed inside the =93United States=94.

The=20 format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made=20 inside the United States (federal zone) and outside = the=20 United States of America (State zone).

17. =20 Does the term =93United States=94 = have=20 multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?

Answer: Yes. The term has several = meanings. The=20 term "United=20 States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the = name of a=20 sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns = in the=20 family of nations. [2] It may designate the = territory over=20 which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective = name of the=20 States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1= 945)=20 [bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for=20 clarity].

This is the very same definition that = is found in=20 Black=92s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three = meanings=20 refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is = legislating in=20 its municipal capacity. = For=20 example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it = creates a=20 federal corporation, like the United = States=20 Postal Service.

It is terribly revealing of the = manifold frauds=20 discussed in these Answers, that the definition of =93United = States=94 has=20 now been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black=92s Law=20 Dictionary.

18. =20 Is the term =93income=94 defined in the = IRC and, if=20 not, where is it defined?

Answer: The Eighth Circuit Court of = Appeals has=20 already ruled that the term =93income=94 is not defined anywhere = in the=20 IRC: =93The general term =91income=92 is not = defined in the=20 Internal Revenue Code.=94 = U.S. v.=20 Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).<= /SPAN>

Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle = H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high = Court told=20 Congress it could not legislate any definition of =93income=94 because = that term was=20 believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. =20 The Eisner case was=20 predicated on the ratification of the 1= 6^th=20 amendment, which would have introduced the term =93income=94 into = the U.S. = Constitution=20 for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been = properly=20 ratified).

In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. = v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high = Court defined=20 =93income=94 to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate = activities. In that instance, the tax is a = lawful=20 excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, = i.e.=20 the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, = employees,=20 directors or stockholders.

19. =20 What is municipal law, and are the = IRC=92s income=20 tax provisions municipal law, or not?

Answer: Yes. The IRC=92s income tax = provisions are=20 municipal law. Municipal = law is=20 law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign = State; in legal circles, = it is also=20 known as Private International Law. =20 Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the=20 ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. = city=20 council or county board of supervisors. =20 In fact, American legal encyclopedias define =93municipal=94 to = mean=20 =93internal=94, and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue = Code is=20 really a Municipal Revenue Code.

A=20 mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in = the book=20 =93The Federal = Zone=94=20 to prove that the IRC=92s income tax provisions are municipal law.

One of=20 the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter = from a=20 Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts = employed by=20 the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that = the meaning=20 of =93State=94 at IRC section 3121(e) is=20 restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., = Guam, Virgin=20 Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

In=20 other words, the term =93State=94 in that statute, and in all similar = federal=20 statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no = more.

20. =20 What does it mean if my State is not = mentioned in=20 any of the federal income tax statutes?

The=20 general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed = and=20 enumerated. For example, = the U.S. = Constitution=20 is a grant of enumerated powers. =20 If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then = Congress does=20 not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed = in the Ni= nth=20 Amendment, in the Bi= ll of=20 Rights.

If=20 California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax = statutes,=20 then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of = all 50=20 States.

Strictly speaking, the = omission or=20 exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to = infer=20 that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely = stated as=20 follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. =20 In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing = is the=20 exclusion of all other things [that are not = mentioned]. This phrase can be found in = any edition=20 of Black=92s Law Dictionary; =20 it is a maxim of statutory construction.

The=20 many different definitions of the term =93State=94 that are found = in federal=20 laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the = 50 States=20 PLUS the other places mentioned. = As=20 the legal = experts=20 in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to = interpret,=20 or to construct, these statutes.

If a=20 place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the = omission of=20 that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of=20 Congress. Whenever it = wants to do=20 so, Congress knows how to define the term =93United States=94 to mean = the 50 States=20 of the Union. See IRC = section 4612(a)(4)(A)= .

21. =20 In what other ways is the IRC = deliberately vague,=20 and what are the real implications for the average American?

There=20 are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately = vague. The absence of any = legal=20 definition for the term =93income=94 is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a = tax on=20 everything that =93comes in,=94 but nothing could be further from the = truth. =93Income=94 is decidedly NOT = everything=20 that =93comes in.=94

More=20 importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is = sufficient=20 grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and = unconstitutional,=20 for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any=20 accusation, as guaranteed by the Si= xth=20 Amendment in the Bi= ll of=20 Rights.

Whether=20 the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is = unconstitutionally=20 void if it is vague. If a = statute=20 is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had = never been=20 enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.

22. =20 Has Title 26 of the United = States=20 Code (=93U.S.C.=94) ever been enacted into positive law, and what = are the=20 legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive = law?

Answer: No. Another, less obvious case of = deliberate=20 deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A)= , where=20 it states that the provisions of subtitle F = shall take=20 effect on the day after the date of enactment of =93this = title=94. Because the term =93this = title=94 is not=20 defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in the section = dedicated to=20 definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to = derive its=20 meaning from context.

Throughout Title 28 of the United = States=20 Code -- the laws which govern all the federal courts -- the term =93this = title=94=20 clearly refers to Title 28. = This=20 fact would tend to support a conclusion that =93this title=94, as that = term is used=20 in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never = been enacted=20 into positive law, as such.

Even=20 though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of =93this = title=94, they are=20 men and women of UNcommon = intelligence. The U.S. Supreme Court=92s = test for=20 vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common = intelligence must=20 necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the = application=20 of a vague statute. See = Connally et=20 al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are = applying the=20 wrong test for vagueness.

Accordingly, the = provisions of subtitle F = have never=20 taken effect. (=93F=94 is = for enForcement!) =20 This subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of = the IRC, e.g. = filing=20 requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of = court=20 jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so = on.

In=20 other words, the IRC is a big=20 pile of Code without any teeth; = as=20 such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not even people = with=20 dentures!

23. =20 What federal courts are authorized to = prosecute=20 income tax crimes?

This=20 question must be addressed in view of the Answer to Question 22 = above. Although it may=20 appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original = jurisdiction=20 to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax = crimes, none=20 of the statutes found in subtitle F = has ever=20 taken effect. For this = reason,=20 those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything = at=20 all. As always, = appearances can be=20 very deceiving. Remember = the=20 Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in = Wonderland?

On the=20 other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does = grant=20 general authority to the District Courts of the United States (=93DCUS=94) to = prosecute=20 violations of the statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. = 3231.

It is=20 very important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same = as the=20 United States District Courts (=93USDC= =94). The DCUS are = constitutional=20 courts that originate in Article = III of=20 the U.S. Constitution. = The USDC= are=20 territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in = Articl= e IV,=20 Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the = Territory=20 Clause.

This=20 author=92s OPENING=20 BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. = Gilbertson=20 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=20 Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high = Court held=20 that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This author=92s OPENING BRIEF = to the=20 Ninth Circuit in Mitchell=20 v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even = greater=20 detail; begin reading at = section=20 =937(e)=94.

The USDC= , as=20 such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income = tax=20 crimes. The USDC are=20 legislative tribunals where summary proceedings = dominate.

For=20 example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. = 1292, the=20 U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review = interlocutory=20 orders issued by the USDC. = Further=20 details on this point are available in the Press= =20 Release entitled =93Priva= te=20 Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code=94 and = dated=20 November 26, 2001 A.D.

24. =20 Are federal judges required to pay income = taxes=20 on their pay, and what are the real implications if they = do pay=20 taxes on their pay?

Answer: No. Federal judges who are = appointed to=20 preside on the District Courts of the United States =96- the Article = III=20 constitutional courts =96- are immune from any taxation of = their=20 pay, by constitutional mandate.

The=20 fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is = proof of=20 undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the = Executive=20 Branch. See Evans v. = Gore,=20 253 U.S. 245 (1920).

Even=20 if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. = Department of=20 the Treasury (which they are NOT), the existence of undue influence = by the=20 Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principle of Separation = of=20 Powers. This principle, = in theory,=20 keeps the 3 branches of the federal government confined to their = respective=20 areas, and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that = rightly=20 belong to the other two branches.

The=20 Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. = United=20 States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that decision the = Supreme=20 Court erred by defining =93Party=94 to mean only Plaintiffs in Articl= e=20 III, contrary to the definition of =93Party=94 = that is=20 found in Bouvier=92s Law Dictionary (1856).

The=20 federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S.=20 Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the = essence, or=20 sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there = is=20 nothing. Undue influence = obviously=20 violates these two qualities. = See=20 Evans v. Gore supra.

In=20 Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 = (1965),=20 the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his = published=20 opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, = because=20 they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the = IRS. There you have it, from the = horse=92s=20 mouth!

In=20 front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January = of=20 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all = federal=20 judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness = to that statement = by the=20 Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -=96 the highest Court in the = land.

Thus,=20 all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of=20 concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they = were first=20 hired as =93employees=94 of the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they = are thereby=20 disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.

25. =20 Can federal grand juries issue valid = indictments=20 against illegal tax protesters?

Answer: No. Federal grand juries cannot = issue valid=20 indictments against illegal tax protesters. Protest has never been = illegal in=20 America, because the Fi= rst=20 Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express our objections = to any=20 government actions, in written and in spoken words.

Strictly speaking, the = term=20 =93illegal=94 cannot modify the noun =93protesters=94 because to do so = would constitute=20 a violation of the Fi= rst=20 Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most magnificent = constitutional=20 provisions ever written.

Accordingly, for the = term =93illegal=20 tax protester=94 to survive this obvious constitutional challenge, the = term=20 =93illegal=94 must modify the noun =93tax=94. =20 An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is protesting = an=20 illegal tax. Such an act = of protest=20 is protected by the Fi= rst=20 Amendment, and cannot be a crime.

Protest=20 is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial=20 Code; the phrases = =93under=20 protest=94 and =93without prejudice=94 are sufficient to reserve = all of one=92s=20 fundamental Rights at law. = See U.C.C. 1-207 = (UCCA=20 1207 in California).

By the=20 way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal = law. See the Answer to Question 19 = above,=20 and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88‑243, December 30, 1963 (one month after = President John=20 F. Kennedy was murdered).

26. =20 Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal = grand=20 juries, and how is this routinely done?

Answer: Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper = with federal=20 grand juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under = oath, as=20 lawful employees and =93Special Agents=94 of the federal government, and = by=20 misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as = having=20 any legal force or effect. =20 Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a) of the = Lanham=20 Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C.=20 1125(a). (Title 15 of the = United States=20 Code has not been enacted into positive law either.)

They=20 tamper with grand juries by acting as if =93income=94 is everything that = =93comes in=94,=20 when there is no such definition anywhere in the IRC. Such false descriptions of = fact also=20 violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham = Act.

They=20 tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence which they = had no=20 authority to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not = constitute=20 competent waivers of their customers=92 fundamental Rights to privacy, = as secured=20 by the Fo= urth=20 Amendment. The high = standard=20 for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme = Court in=20 Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. = 742, 748 (1970).

IRS=20 agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the = false and=20 fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or = that the=20 income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the 50 = States of the=20 Union, when those provisions do not.

These=20 are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also misprision of = perjury by=20 omission, i.e. serious federal offenses.

Finally, there is ample = evidence=20 that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the = Office of the=20 President with huge kickbacks,= every=20 time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury against an = illegal=20 tax protester. (See the = Answer to=20 Question = 25=20 above.) These = kick‑backs range from=20 $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH! = They=20 also violate the Anti-Kickback Act = of=20 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal = government=20 subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 51 = et=20 seq.

As a=20 trust domiciled in Puerto = Rico, the=20 IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is = subject to=20 this Act. See 31 U.S.C.=20 1321(a)(62). The = systematic and=20 premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes = probable=20 cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust = Act,=20 first enacted in the year 1890 A.D. =20 See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified = at 15 U.S.C. 1 = et=20 seq.)

27. =20 What is =93The Kickback Racket,=94 and = where can I=20 find evidence of its existence?

The=20 evidence of this =93kickback = racket=94=20 was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page within = the=20 Internal Revenue Manual (=93IRM=94) -- the internal policy and procedure = manual for=20 all IRS employees.

Subsequently, this = writer=20 submitted a lawful request, under = the Freedom of = Information=20 Act, for a certified list of all payments that had ever been made = under=20 color of these delegation orders in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the Internal = Revenue=20 Service, responded=20 on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed = for these=20 =93awards=94 because most of them were paid in cash!

When=20 this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge, who had been = asked to=20 enforce a federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in = Arizona, he=20 ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to = that grand=20 jury.

Obstruction of = correspondence is a=20 serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority = whatsoever=20 to intercept U.S. Mail. = See 18 U.S.C. = 1702.

Obviously, the federal = judge -- John M. Roll -- = did NOT=20 want the grand jury in that case to know anything about these=20 kickbacks. They found out = anyway,=20 because of the manner=20 in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice President = for=20 Legal Affairs.

28. =20 Can the IRS levy bank accounts = without a=20 valid court order?

Answer: No. The Fi= fth=20 Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life, liberty, or = property=20 without due process of law. = Due=20 Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of = American=20 constitutional practice. = Put=20 simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any property can be = seized=20 by any federal government employees, agents, departments or = agencies.

A levy=20 against a bank account is a forced seizure of property, i.e. the = funds on=20 deposit in that account. = No such=20 seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its = course. This means notice, hearing, = and=20 deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.

Only=20 after this process has run its proper or =93due=94 course, can a = valid court=20 order be issued. The = holding in U.S. v. O=92Dell, 160 = F.2d 304=20 (6th Cir. 1947<= /A>),=20 makes it very clear that the IRS can only levy a bank account after = first=20 obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court = ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER = could=20 ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their = =93day in=20 court.=94

29. =20 Do federal income tax revenues pay for = any=20 government services and, if so, which government services are funded by = federal=20 income taxes?

Answer: No. The money trail is very = difficult to=20 follow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust = with a=20 domicile in Puerto=20 Rico. See 31 U.S.C.=20 1321(a)(62). As such, = their=20 records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust = records=20 within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not = also=20 violating the Sherman=20 Antitrust Act.

They=20 are technically not an =93agency=94 of the federal government, as that = term is=20 defined in the Freedom of=20 Information Act and in the Administrative = Procedures=20 Act. The governments = of the=20 federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of = =93agency=94 in those Acts of Congress. =20 See 5 = U.S.C.=20 551(1)(C). (See also = the Answer=20 to Question = 5=20 above.)

All=20 evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and=20 conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation = of 18 U.S.C. = 1951 and 1961 et=20 seq.

They=20 appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in = Europe,=20 and quite possibly into the Vatican. =20 See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C.=20 5341.

The=20 final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald = Reagan,=20 quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income = taxes=20 goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found = that those=20 funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and = income=20 transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal = pension=20 plans.

30. =20 How can the Freedom of Information Act = (=93FOIA=94) help = me to answer=20 other key tax questions?

The=20 availability of correct information about federal government operations = is=20 fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People. The Freedom of Information Act = (=93FOIA=94), at = 5 U.S.C. 552 = et=20 seq., was intended to make government documents available with a = minimal=20 amount of effort by the People.

As long as a=20 document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized = in the FOIA, a = requester need=20 only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested = document(s). If the = requested=20 document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding weekends and = federal=20 holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.

If the=20 requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after = the date=20 of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition = a=20 District Court of the United States (Article = III DCUS, not = the Articl= e IV=20 USDC= ) --=20 to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to = enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C.=20 552(a)(4)(B). The = general rule=20 is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district = courts=20 must be strictly construed.

This writer=20 has pioneered the application of the FOIA to = request=20 certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do=20 not exist. A = typical request=20 anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally = silent, is=20 for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific = liability for=20 taxes imposed by subtitle A of = the=20 IRC. For example, see = the FOIA=20 request that this writer prepared for author Lynne Meredith.

Of course, by=20 now we already know the answer to this question, before asking it. (Good lawyers always know the = answers to=20 their questions, before asking them.)

It should=20 also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to = the IRS,=20 because they are not an =93agency=94 as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. = 551(1)(C). Address it instead to the = Disclosure=20 Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the = Treasury,=20 Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA. This is the format for = =93foreign=94=20 addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.

As James=20 Madison once wrote, =93A popular government without popular information = or the=20 means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or = perhaps=20 both. Knowledge will = forever govern=20 ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm = themselves=20 with the power knowledge gives."

31. =20 Where can I find more information, and=20 still protect my privacy?

There=20 are many civic organizations throughout America who have dedicated their = precious time and energy to acquire and disseminate widely these = documented=20 truths about the Internal Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue = Code.

The=20 Internet=92s World Wide Web (=93www=94) is perhaps the best single = source of=20 information (and disinformation) about the IRS, and the major = problems=20 now confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains of related policies, = procedures,=20 practices, customs, rules, regulations, forms and schedules.

Learn=20 to become a sophisticated consumer of information, and the knowledge you = seek=20 will be yours to keep and share -- with those you love and endeavor to = free from=20 this terrible plague that persists in America.

Good = luck, and=20 may God bless your earnest endeavors to ensure the blessings of Liberty = for=20 ourselves and our Posterity, as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. = Constitution=20 and in the Declaration of Independence.

To = order=20 additional certified and embossed copies of this document, please send = $30.00 in=20 cash or blank U.S. Postal Money Order to:

Forwarding=20 Agent

501 W.=20 Broadway #A-332

San Diego=20 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

A = =93blank=94 U.S.=20 Postal Money Order leaves the =93PAY TO=94 line blank, permitting us to = negotiate it=20 freely. You may, of = course,=20 complete the other half; = this=20 allows you to obtain a photocopy of the cancelled money order from the = U.S. Postal Service without the need = for a court=20 order.

Also, be sure to request information about our MOTIONS FOR = PRELIMINARY=20 INJUNCTION to freeze all IRS assets and to enjoin IRS from = depositing any=20 tax collections into any account(s) other than the Treasury of the = United=20 States. These MOTIONS = were=20 filed in two=20 appeals at the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, using FRAP Rule 8 and = the=20 special procedures available to a Private=20 Attorney General under the RICO = laws.

Finally, don=92t miss = this=20 opportunity to request more information about our historic APPLICATI= ON FOR=20 ORDER DISSOLVING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, under a specific = authority=20 granted to the District Courts of the United States (=93DCUS=94) at 18 U.S.C.=20 1964(a). Refer to = DCUS docket=20 #SA CV 02-0382 = GLT(ANx), Santa=20 Ana, California.

VERIFICATION

As the = Undersigned, I hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws = of the=20 United States of America, without the =93United States=94 = (federal=20 government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and = correct,=20 according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, = so help=20 Me God, pursuant to 28=20 U.S.C. 1746(1). See = the Supremac= y=20 Clause for Constitutional authority.

Dated: =20 ______________________________________________________

Signed: =20 ______________________________________________________

Printed: =20 Paul=20 Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S

=20 Citizen of = California,=20 qualified Federal=20 Witness,

=20 Private=20 Attorney General, Author of =93The Federal = Zone:

=20 Cracking the Code = of Internal Revenue=94 (all editions),

=20 and Webmaster of the Supreme Law = Library:

&n= bsp; =20 http://www.supremelaw.org/in= dex.htm