Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris
Private Attorney
General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
c/o 501 West
Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
Fax: (619) 232-2011 (use Cover Sheet)
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE P.
GAKOUMIS, ) Case No. 07-CV-3341
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
KATHLEEN
SETTIMI, )
)
Defendant. )
------------------------------)
)
United States ) NOTICE
OF INTERVENTION:
ex relatione )
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, ) 28 U.S.C. 530B, 547, 2403(a);
) 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 912, 1001, 1341,
Intervenor. )
1621, 1622, 1961 et seq.; IRC 877,
) 6065, 7421;
31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62);
) RRA98;
and FRCP 24(a), (c)
______________________________) (United States not (yet) a Party).
COMES NOW the United States (“Intervenor”) ex relatione
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of ONE OF the United States
of America, Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal
Witness (hereinafter “Relator”) to notify this
honorable Court of Intervenor’s intervention of
right, effected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), and to provide timely
written Notice to all interested Parties of same.
The following meritorious issues warrant
formal intervention by the United States (Federal government), to wit:
(1)
Ms.
Anita B. Brody dba United States District Judge has issued a “NOTICE” dated
August 13, 2008, alleging that the above captioned case was closed on June 5,
2008, by means of an “ORDER” issued by this Court on June 4, 2008. Both the latter “NOTICE” and latter “ORDER”
are predicated upon the rebuttable presumption that Mr. Benjamin J. Weir had
proper authority and proper powers of attorney to file a MOTION TO
DISMISS on behalf of named Defendant Settimi.
(a)
After
retaining professional Counsel on this point, the Plaintiff submitted a proper
Request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) for key credentials
required of Mr. Weir by applicable Federal statutes and regulations. To date, those credentials have not
been produced, and Plaintiff’s original FOIA Request is now PAST DUE. Each of those required credentials now
assumes facts not in evidence before this honorable Court. See 5 U.S.C. 2906, for starters.
(b)
Even if said credentials should be produced at some as yet unknown
point in the future, Intervenor now possesses documentary proof that United
States Attorneys have no powers of attorney legally to represent officers or
employees of the Internal Revenue Service.
As Trust #62 domiciled in San Juan, Puerto Rico, under color of the
former Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”), the Internal Revenue Service is
not a de jure service, bureau, office
or other subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. As such, its officers and employees are not “collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs” as the
latter phrase occurs in the statute which confers general powers of attorney on
U.S. Attorneys. See 28 U.S.C. 547(3).
In the “criminal” case captioned UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA [sic] v. WISHART, Case
Number CR-00-20227-JF, USDC/NDCA, this very point was raised by
defendant Donald E. Wishart. When
challenged to produce proof of his requisite power of attorney legally to
represent IRS employees, the U.S. Attorney assigned to that case could only
cite two (2) Federal Regulations: 28 CFR
0.70(b) and 28 CFR 0.13.
Willful misrepresentation here is a violation of
the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B, if not also felony violations of the criminal
statutes at 18 U.S.C. §§ 912, 1001, 1341 and 1961 et seq. (racketeering).
As defendant Wishart subsequently explained in
his REPLY to the Government’s response, neither Regulation grants any
power(s) of attorney to DOJ, or to the Office of the U.S. Attorney (“OUSA”), to
represent IRS or IRS personnel in Federal courts. The only mention of the IRS therein is the
explicit exclusion at 28 CFR 0.70(b), to wit:
The
following functions are assigned to and shall be conducted, handled, or
supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division: ...
(c)
Criminal proceedings arising under
the internal revenue laws, except the following: Proceedings pertaining to the misconduct of Internal
Revenue Service personnel ....
For the edification of
this honorable Court, and also for the convenience of all interested Party(s),
the pertinent pleadings are archived here in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wishart/cross.complaint.2.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wishart/reply.cross.complaint.2.htm
Accordingly, Plaintiff
has concluded from all evidence presently available to Him, that Mr. Benjamin
J. Weir does not enjoy any lawful
powers of attorney legally to represent Defendant Settimi; and, therefore
no MOTION TO DISMISS was ever filed,
ever served, or properly before this honorable Court in the first instance.
(2)
Plaintiff
has already filed and served a body of pleadings sufficient to constitute a
proper challenge to the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”),
with particular emphases on subtitle A of that IRC and on all of its
implementing Regulations taken as a single group of text. Plaintiff can easily demonstrate one “tip of
the iceberg” –- to use a colloquial phrase –- by highlighting the formal
verification found on Page 3 of Defendant’s DECLARATION dated November 13,
2007. That verification conforms to the
option for verifications made “without the United States” at 28 U.S.C.
1746(1).
Having signed that DECLARATION
“without the United States” at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -- the historical
Cradle of American Liberty -- Defendant
Settimi correctly admitted that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is “without”
or “outside” the “United States” (Federal government) and “within”
or “inside” the “United States of America” (aka 50 States of the Union), as a
matter of Law.
Moreover, the perjury
jurat on IRS Form 1040 conforms to verifications that are made “within” or “inside”
the “United States” (Federal government) as defined at IRC subsection 7701(a).
Furthermore, the
conspicuous title on IRS Form 1040 is actual notice to all prospective
signers that Form 1040 is legally intended only for “U.S. Individuals” [sic].
By simply combining the statutory definitions at IRC sections 7701(a)(1)
and 7701(a)(30), it is very easy to deduce that a “United States Individual” is
the living, breathing human variant of “United States person”. All other variants are artificial, juristic
entities like corporations. See
7701(a)(30), and 26 CFR 1.1-1 in this very same context (making Federal
citizens and resident aliens specifically liable for IRC subtitle A
taxes).
Therefore, the latter
definition at IRC 7701(a)(30) limits the meaning of “U.S. Individual” to
Federal citizens and resident aliens. However, because Plaintiff has only recently
obtained verifiable proof that He is not now, nor has He ever been, a Federal
citizen or a resident alien, it is entirely inappropriate for Plaintiff
to sign Form 1040 “under the penalties of perjury”. See IRC 6065 here.
Intentional perjury on
Form 1040 is a serious felony Federal offense, violating the Federal
criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1621.
Likewise, the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1622 also imposes felony
penalties for subornation of perjury. As
Intervenor now argues Defendant may be implicated in either directly suborning
perjury, aiding and abetting subornation of perjury, conspiracy to suborn
perjury, and/or being an accessory after the fact to subornation of perjury. In this context, see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and
3.
(3)
The
habitual confusion which U.S. Attorneys persist in maintaining between the
terms “United States” on the one hand, and “United States of America” on the
other hand, is another facet of the fraudulent vagueness of which Intervenor
now formally complains. The statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only place in all of
Title 28 of the U.S. Code where the term “United States of America” is used; and, there it is used in correct
contradistinction to “United States”. As
Relator has already explained in the Answer to Question #16 in his famous “31 Questions and Answers about the Internal
Revenue Service”:
Why
does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer’s
signature?
Answer:
This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent
nature of federal income taxes. At 28
U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed
under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e.
to witness one’s signature.
This statute identifies two different formats
for such written verifications: (1) those executed outside the “United
States” and (2) those executed inside the “United States”. These two formats correspond to sections
1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively. What
is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed
“outside the United States”. In
this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of
the United States of America”.
Clearly, the terms “United States” and
“United States of America” are both used in this same
statute. They are not one and the
same. The former refers to the federal
government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal
statutes. The latter refers to the 50
States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal
statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term
“United States of America”, as such.
It is painfully if not immediately obvious,
then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the “United
States” (read “the federal zone”) if and when they are executed inside
the 50 States of the Union (read “the State zone”). Likewise, verifications made under penalty of
perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are
executed inside the “United States”.
See: http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
(hyperlinked)
More to the point of this
all important distinction, in the “ORDER” dated June 4, 2008, Ms. Anita B.
Brody added this comment:
Because I dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, I do not reach whether the United States of America should be substituted for defendant Settimi. [emphases
added]
Although seemingly innocuous and/or moot,
this comment goes right to the heart of the manifold frauds that exist throughout IRC subtitle A, chiefly by
deliberately confusing the “United States” and the “United States of
America”. Under no circumstances
could this honorable Court legally “substitute United States of America” for
Defendant Settimi; this Court has
absolutely no authority to substitute the 50 States of the Union, as such, for
an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service who is a Named Defendant
in Federal court litigation. The 50
States of the Union are not Proper Parties to the instant action. Quod
erat demonstrandum! (That is what
has now been demonstrated.)
Making matters that
much more serious, with felony criminal implications, Intervenor has already
cited a Federal “criminal” case in which the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic] attempted to appear as a Proper
Plaintiff. Intervenor has now proven
conclusively, both in and out of Federal courts, that “UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA” did incorporate twice in the State of Delaware; however, the
Delaware Secretary of State subsequently revoked the charters of both
foreign corporations.
Even if they
were still in good standing and not revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State,
Delaware corporations are “foreign” with respect to the municipal
jurisdiction of the “United States” (Federal government); and, as such, they
may not be represented legally by United States Attorneys. The latters’ powers of attorney simply do not
reach legal representation of any “foreign” corporations. And, Congress has also never appropriated
funds for U.S. Attorneys legally to represent any foreign corporations, like
the two (2) that incorporated in Delaware with the name “UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA”.
Insofar as any of its
numerous sections is not unconstitutional, IRC subtitle A is Federal municipal
law with no legal or territorial jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and also with no In
Personam jurisdiction over Citizens of Pennsylvania who are not also
Federal citizens by Right of election (also known as “Freedom of Choice”). Freedom!
Quo vadis, freedom? Quo
vadis?
In this context, please
also see all pertinent IRC sections that recognize and authorize “expatriation
to avoid the tax” e.g. IRC section
877. In point of fact, Plaintiff has no
need to “expatriate” formally, because He was never a Federal citizen by birth
or by election. There are two (2)
classes of citizens under American Law.
(4)
On a
scale of difficulty from 1 to 10, the next important issue easily ranks in the
upper half of that scale, depending on the reader’s level of prior knowledge
and reading comprehension. The “ORDER”
allegedly issued by this Court on June 4, 2008, made the following finding:
Because Gakoumis sought the withdrawal of the
IRS Notices of Levy, and because the IRS has withdrawn these notices,
this action is no longer ripe for adjudication.
[emphasis added]
See the Defendant’s DECLARATION dated
November 13, 2007, for each NOTICE OF LEVY which Defendant formally withdrew,
allegedly for being “issued prematurely” [sic]. In particular, see Defendant Settimi’s
transmittal letters also dated November 13, 2007, in that DECLARATION.
Intervenor has now
received from Plaintiff true copies of the following NOTICES OF LEVY, each of
which exhibits a date in the year 2008 i.e. proving each was issued after Defendant’s DECLARATION:
Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. K. Settimi 3/28/2008
Citizens Bank K.
Settimi 7/10/2008
Bank of America K. Settimi 7/10/2008
The NOTICE OF LEVY to Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.
is particularly important in this context because it was issued by the
Defendant after November 13, 2007, and before this Court’s
“ORDER” of June 4, 2008.
Whose legal
responsibility was it to disclose this particular NOTICE OF LEVY to the
Court? Benjamin J. Weir’s? Kathleen Settimi’s? Plaintiff’s?
Morgan Stanley’s? There is still
more relevant text in this Court’s “ORDER” of June 4, 2008, quoting again:
On November 13, 2007, the IRS sent letters to
each of the recipients of the Notices of Levy releasing the levies that had
been sent on August 6, 2007. Settimi
moved to dismiss [sic] under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because the IRS had already released the notices of
levy, arguably rendering Gakoumis’s claims moot and stripping this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction.
[emphasis added]
Well now, is it not
painfully obvious that at least one additional NOTICE OF LEVY was issued
by the Defendant prior to the “ORDER” of June 4, 2008?
And, is it not also
painfully obvious that at least three (3) additional NOTICES OF LEVY
were issued by the Defendant after her DECLARATION dated November 13,
2007? More could be coming still!
Evidently, not one of
these latter three (3) NOTICES OF LEVY was ever placed into evidence in the
instant case, by Weir or Settimi.
Intervenor now argues
that the facts as stated immediately above do strongly suggest an intent by the
Defendant to conceal at least one of the latter three NOTICES OF LEVY
from this honorable Court. Please confer
now at “Fraud” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (i.e. fraud is a failure to disclose what
should have been disclosed).
The fraud does not stop
there. Plaintiff has also invoked the
FOIA formally to request copies of all procedurally proper ASSESSMENT
CERTIFICATES for the various time periods in question. To date, Relator has received copies of
documents provided to Plaintiff in reply to said FOIA Requests, and not one
is a bona fide “CERTIFICATE” that has
been duly “certified” under the penalties of perjury by an authorized
Assessment Officer, as required by the clear Federal statute at IRC 6065. A “certificate” must be duly “certified”!
Furthermore, Plaintiff
has also investigated 26 CFR 1.6065-1, the Federal Regulation implementing IRC
section 6065: even though certain exceptions are
listed in that Regulation, no exception is made there for ASSESSMENT
CERTIFICATES that are clearly mandated by IRC 6065, by pertinent provisions
of the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) and by the Regulation implementing
“Method of assessment” at 26 CFR 301.6203-1.
This Court will also
kindly take formal judicial notice of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998 (“RRA98”), which rendered all IRM provisions legally enforceable: IRS
officers and employees can now be disciplined or terminated for
violating any provision of the IRM.
In particular, the IRM now mandates that a
procedurally proper Assessment Certificate must be made before
any tax collections may commence.
See IRM sections 5.17.2.3 and 5.12.2.2.
The former IRM section 5.17.2.3 reads as follows:
1.
The
federal tax lien arises when the Service meets the requirements of IRC § 6321, i.e., an assessment and a notice and demand for payment. ...
2.
Prior to
filing a NFTL, the Service should verify
the outstanding liability and determine that the filing of the notice of
lien is appropriate under the circumstances.
The latter IRM
section 5.12.2.2 reads as follows:
1.
A
Federal Tax Lien (FTL) is created by statute and attaches to a taxpayer’s
property and rights to property for the amount of the liability. This is the "statutory" or
"silent" FTL. See IRC
6321. The following must occur
for the FTL to arise:
A.
An
assessment must have been
made. [emphases added]
In this context, please
see the holdings in U.S. v. Brafman, 384 F.2d 863 (5th Cir.
1967), which clearly explain that “assessment” has a binding technical
meaning that is not open to a variety of diverse and conflicting
interpretations. Likewise, the legal
meaning given to “Date of Assessment” is also very well defined, and binding.
Notice also the term
“verify” at IRM section 5.17.2.3 above.
There should be absolutely no dispute that an ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE is
a document that is required to be made under provisions of the internal
revenue laws and regulations, as that latter nomenclature occurs expressly at IRC section 6065. Quod
erat demonstrandum!
Further to the facts strongly suggesting
fraud by the Defendant in this case, at times past Plaintiff has been served
with a volley of NOTICES OF DETERMINATION.
In each of five (5) different NOTICES OF DETERMINATION transmitted by
IRS personnel via Certified U.S. Mail, the following two (2) identical statements
are made:
“Assessment was made on the applicable
Due Process Notice periods per IRC § 6201.”
“The Notice and Demand for payment
letter was mailed to your last known address within 60 days of the assessment,
as required by IRC § 6303.” [emphases added]
Due to all of the fraud
now apparent in the Defendant’s actions, which should be under deliberate judicial review in this case, Plaintiff
has supplemented His prior FOIA Requests with additional FOIA Requests for the requisite NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY,
proof of mailing the latter via Certified or Registered U.S. Mail, the
procedurally proper ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES which were obviously alleged
above, and the required NOTICE AND DEMAND for payment with proof confirming
that the latter was served either in person or via U.S. Mail.
To date, none of the
latter documents has been produced by the IRS personnel who originated the
NOTICES OF DETERMINATION now in question here.
This Court will also please give special scrutiny to the five (5)
Certified U.S. Mail label serial numbers which occur conspicuously on the first
page of each such NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
These label serial numbers have been confirmed by accessing the “Track
& Confirm” system at the Internet website of the U.S. Postal Service. There is no question that these NOTICES were
transmitted via U.S. Mail, but to date Plaintiff
has still not received
documents that are clearly required of the IRS by applicable statutes and
regulations!
The relevant Federal
court decisions that bear on the facts as summarized above are sampled as
follows (emphases added infra):
Even if a taxpayer waives right to prepayment
litigation in Tax Court by not acting within 90-day period after deficiency
notice and taxpayer does not voluntarily pay tax, government must first send notice and demand letter and then
wait ten days before it levies on taxpayer’s property in the normal, as
opposed to jeopardy case.
[Schreck v. U.S., 301 F.Supp. 1265]
[USDC/D. Maryland 1969]
Appropriate remedy for federal government’s
error in assessing tax deficiency without first issuing a required notice of deficiency to taxpayers
was order voiding tax assessment
itself, and not merely the government’s tax lien.
[Snyder v. IRS, 337 B.R. 542]
[USDC/D. Maryland 2005]
Where IRS disallowed certain miscellaneous
itemized deductions claimed on income tax return and made assessment based
thereon without issuing notice of
deficiency, such assessment was invalid, and levy could not proceed.
[Freije v. C.I.R., 125 T.C. 14]
[U.S. Tax Court 2005, unreported]
Taxpayer could sue to enjoin IRS from seizing
his wages, until it had first complied with statutory notice of
deficiency requirements,
under exception to Anti-Injunction Act authorizing injunction to prohibit
assessment or levy when taxpayer has not received notice of deficiency.
[Heun v. Williams, 864 F.Supp. 169]
[USDC/W.D. Oklahoma 1994]
Unless government has first pursued formal deficiency procedures, no income
tax deficiency can be assessed and no levy or court proceeding for collecting
income tax deficiency may be begun or prosecuted, and if government essays to do so, the making of such assessment or levy may be
enjoined by a proceeding in proper court ....
[U.S. v. Bonaguro, 294 F.Supp. 750]
[USDC/E.D. New York 1968]
Where no
tax deficiency has been asserted against one whose property is seized, a
suit against the government for injunctive relief seems peculiarly appropriate, for the aggrieved party, not being an
alleged tax delinquent, would have no opportunity in the ordinary channels of
tax litigation to contest the validity of the government’s assessment.
[Floyd v. U.S., 361 F.2d 312]
[(4th Cir. 1966)]
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION BY STATUTORY
RIGHT
Intervenor hereby
notoriously exercises its statutory right to intervene, pursuant to the Federal
statute at 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), to wit:
In any action, suit or proceeding in a court of the United States
to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party,
wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public
interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact
to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene
for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the
case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The United States shall, subject to
the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be
subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary
for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question
of constitutionality.
[bold and underline emphases added]
Thank you for your professional
consideration.
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, 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 Supremacy Clause (Constitution,
Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).
Dated: August 19, 2008 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell,
Private Attorney General
All
Rights Reserved without Prejudice
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui
Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury,
under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United
States” (Federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen
of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally
served the following document(s):
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION:
28 U.S.C. 530B, 547, 2403(a);
18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 912, 1001, 1341, 1621, 1622,
1961 et seq.;
IRC 877, 6065, 7421; 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62);
RRA98;
and FRCP 24(a), (c)
(United States not (yet) a party)
by placing one true and correct copy of said
document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and
properly addressed to the following:
Clerk of the Court
(3x) George P. Gakoumis, Plaintiff (1x)
Attn: Judge Anita Brody c/o 841 Edgehill Road
U.S. Courthouse Glenside
19038
601 Market Street,
Room 2609 COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia
19106-1797
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Kathleen Settimi (1x) Benjamin J. Weir (1x)
dba Revenue Officer
U.S. Department of
Justice
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 227
600 Arch Street, Room 3256
Washington 20044
Philadelphia 19106
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Courtesy Copy:
Office of Chief Counsel (1x)
Internal Revenue Service
c/o U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington 20220
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Dated: August 19, 2008 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell,
Private Attorney General
All
Rights Reserved without Prejudice