Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o general delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved
without prejudice






               DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

                         FOURTH DIVISION


Everett C. Gilbertson,        )  Docket Number:  CR-4-96-65
                              )
          Plaintiff,          )  MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
                              )  AUTHORITIES PROVING
     v.                       )  THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF
                              )  FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
United States,                )
and Does 1-99,                )  Rules 201(d), 301, 302,
                              )  Federal Rules of Evidence
          Respondents.        )
______________________________)


COMES NOW  Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota

state,  expressly  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and

Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"),

to provide  formal Notice  to all  interested  party(s),  and  to

demand  mandatory   judicial  notice  by  this  honorable  Court,

pursuant to  Rules 201(d),  301, and  302 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence,  of   this,  Plaintiff's   MEMORANDUM  OF   POINTS  AND

AUTHORITIES PROVING THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES,

particularly for all 3 judges who have been properly requested to

issue a  Warrant of  Removal from  the  USDC  to  this  honorable

District Court  of the  United States  ("DCUS"), and  any  single

judge who may be assigned to preside over preliminaries.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 1 of 12


     1.   Evans v.  Gore, 253  U.S. 245  (1920)  is  controlling,

notwithstanding  the   so-called  16th  Amendment,  because  said

"amendment" never  repealed Article  III, Section  1.  Repeals by

implication are  not favored,  on authority  of the Ninth Circuit

Court of  Appeals.   See U.S. v. Hicks, [cite omitted] (9th Cir.,

1991).     Evans  has   never  been   overturned  (see  Shepard's

Citations), notwithstanding  a  UCLA  Law  Review  article  which

alleges the contrary.  See Vol. 24, No. 2, December 1976, p. 308.


     2.   The  16th   Amendment  was  effectively  demolished  by

respondent's total silence in People v. Boxer, California Supreme

Court, case  number S-030016,  December 1992.   This  case was  a

Petition for Writ of Mandamus compelling  Senator-elect Boxer  to

witness the  material evidence which the plaintiffs had assembled

against the  ratification  of  that  proposal.    The  California

Supreme Court  transferred the  case to the Court of Appeals, for

an advisory  opinion;   that appellate panel denied the petition,

without explanation.   However, respondent Boxer fell totally and

completely silent  in the face of the affidavits of fact filed in

that case;   those  affidavits have  now become  the truth of the

case.  Moreover, Boxer's silence is a fraud, pursuant to U. S. v.

Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977);  and silence activates estoppel,

pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).


     3.   Title 26, United States Code ("U.S.C."), has never been

enacted into  positive law.   Therefore,  Title  1,  U.S.C.,  and

Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") section 7851(a)(6)(A) both control;

specifically, the  provisions of  subtitle  F  have  never  taken

effect.   Subtitle F  contains all  the enforcement provisions of

the IRC  including, but  not limited  to, the  grant of  original


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 2 of 12


jurisdiction to  prosecute alleged violations of the IRC.  See 26

U.S.C. 7402.   There  are no regulations for this statute either,

thus limiting its application to federal officers, employees, and

contract  agents  of  the  United  States  (federal  government),

pursuant to  44 U.S.C.  1505(a).   Title  44,  U.S.C.,  has  been

enacted into positive law.


     4.   As far as the federal income tax is concerned, the only

liability statutes  anywhere in  the IRC  (as distinct from Title

26) are  found in  the provisions  for withholding  agents [sic].

See IRC  1441, 1442,  1443, 1461, and the statutory definition of

"withholding agent"  at IRC  7701(a)(16).   One does not become a

withholding agent until and unless said agent accepts a valid W-4

"Employee's   Withholding    Allowance   Certificate"   (allowing

withholding).  For many reasons like this, the federal income tax

is totally voluntary on compensation for services rendered.


     5.   The regulations  at 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) thru (c) are overly

broad for  imposing  liabilities  which  are  not  authorized  by

statute, specifically,  on "citizens  of the United States" [sic]

and on  "residents of  the United States" [sic].  The doctrine of

"implied legislative  approval" cannot  prevail against  all  the

points supra.  See Old Colony R. Co. v. C.I.R., 284 U.S. 552, 557

(1932), for  example.   Authorities must be expressly enumerated.

The U.S.  Department of  the Treasury was never authorized by any

Act of Congress to extend liability for the federal income tax in

such an overly broad fashion, as is the case in said regulations.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 3 of 12


     6.   The  term  "citizen  of  the  United  States"  has  its

statutory  origin   in  the   1866  Civil  Rights  Act,  and  its

constitutional origin  in the  so-called  14th  Amendment  [sic],

which was  never lawfully  ratified, rendering  section 4 of that

alleged amendment null and void ab initio, and permitting federal

judges, and all other federal employees, to question the validity

of the  public debt.   See the First Amendment;  Dyett v. Turner,

439 P.2d  266 (1968);   State  v. Phillips,  540 P.2d 936 (1975).

Section 4  of the  so-called 14th  Amendment is  one of the least

litigated provisions  in the  entire  U.S.  Constitution,  unlike

other sections of that so-called amendment.


     7.   The only basis remaining for taxing the compensation of

federal judges  is the  Downes Doctrine, which cannot be extended

into the  state zone,  nor to  the judges  who preside on federal

courts established  for the  state zone.   The Downes Doctrine is

obsolete and unconstitutional, because Justice Harlan was correct

in his  eloquent dissent  in Downes  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.S.  244

(1901), paraphrasing  now:   the limitations  of the Constitution

extend to  the farthest  reaches of the known universe, as far as

United States  (federal government) employees are concerned.  The

Downes Doctrine  has permitted  a serious  tear to rip the entire

fabric of  Our constitutional  Republic,  as  manifested  by  the

controversy now swirling about the proper distinction between the

USDC and  the DCUS, their respective subject matter(s), and their

respective territorial jurisdiction(s).


     8.   The Downes  Doctrine was  attacked properly In re Grand

Jury Subpoena  Served on  New Life  Health Center  Company, USDC,

Tucson,  Arizona,   case  number  GJ-95-1-6,  but  United  States

District Judge  John M. Roll exceeded his discretion in that case

by failing  to rule  on numerous  proper and timely motions which

were  before   him,  including   a  formal   challenge   to   the


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 4 of 12


constitutionality of  the Downes  Doctrine.  Judge Roll committed

over 100  felonies in  that one case alone, and a proper judicial

complaint has  been filed  against Judge  Roll,  pursuant  to  28

U.S.C. 372(c).   See Ninth Circuit docket number assigned to that

complaint, available  from the  Clerk of the Ninth Circuit in San

Francisco,  California  state.    All  pleadings,  exhibits,  and

related documents  filed in  that case  are incorporated  here by

reference, as  if set forth fully herein, pursuant to Rule 201(d)

of the  Federal Rules  of Evidence, and the Full Faith and Credit

Clause.  See Supremacy Clause;  Seventh Amendment;  FRCP Rule 38.


     9.   Title 31,  U.S.C., has  been enacted into positive law,

pursuant to  Title 1,  U.S.C., but the "Internal Revenue Service"

[sic] ("IRS")  is not  listed in  the organizational structure of

the U.S.  Department of  the Treasury.   The  only mention  is an

authority for  the President  to appoint  the General Counsel for

the  "Internal   Revenue  Service"   [sic].     This  mention  is

insufficient to  identify the  true organizational  situs of  the

"Internal Revenue Service."


     10.  The "Internal  Revenue Service"  has now been proven to

be an  alias for  Trust #62,  which is  domiciled in  Puerto Rico

under the Federal Alcohol Administration ("FAA"), but the FAA was

declared unconstitutional  in the  year 1935  by the U.S. Supreme

Court.    The  FAA had its historical roots in Prohibition, which

was motivated  by the  goal of  monopolizing automotive fuels for

the benefit  of the  petroleum cartel.   See the Volstead Act and

the  attached   Affidavit  of   author  Paul   Andrew   Mitchell,

summarizing this  motive;   said  Affidavit  is  incorporated  by

reference as if set forth fully herein. See also The Cooper File.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 5 of 12


     11.  Taxing the compensation of federal employees creates an

unnecessary and  deceptive bureaucracy,  the primary  purpose  of

which is to skim money from the U.S. Treasury, for the benefit of

foreign banks  and their alien owners.  Congress should advertise

the "real"  compensation paid  to federal  employees, and  exempt

them from  filing returns  and from paying taxes on an "inflated"

salary, only a part of which the federal employee ever sees.  For

this reason,  the Public  Salary  Tax  Act  should  be  repealed,

because its deceptive purpose is unconstitutional.


     12.  The  court   of  original   jurisdiction  to  prosecute

violations of  the IRC  is defined in a statute which is found in

subtitle F.   See  26 U.S.C.  7402.   Subtitle F  has never taken

effect because Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law.

For this  reason alone,  criminal  prosecutions  of  alleged  IRC

violations are legally impossible, and they create a massive tort

liability for the United States (federal government).  See People

v. United  States et  al., DCUS,  Billings, Montana  state, as  a

foundation for  quantifying the  real damages  which have already

been done  by the U.S. Department of Justice to untold numbers of

American Citizens (read "Citizens of one of the States United").


     13.  All United  States (federal  government) actions, civil

and criminal, which were done under authority of the Secretary of

the Treasury  during Lloyd  Bentsen's tenure in that office, were

ultra vires  because he  violated the  U.S. Constitution  when he

voted to increase the pay for that office, as a U.S. Senator, and

then he vacated his Senate seat to claim the office of Secretary.

However, Lloyd Bentsen was not eligible for that office until the

end of his last Senate term. See Article I, Section 6, Clause 2.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 6 of 12


     A FOIA  request for  a list  of all civil and criminal cases

which were brought under his watch has not been answered to date.

This, again,  has created a massive tort liability for the United

States (see  point 12  above).   Failure to  answer this  FOIA is

tantamount to  fraud and obstruction of justice, not to mention a

host of other criminal torts.  See IRC 7401 for the implications;

see also  USA v.  One 1972  Cadillac Coupe  De Ville, 355 F.Supp.

513,  515   (1973).     Failure  to   place  proof  of  requisite

jurisdictional facts  in  the  court  record,  when  specifically

denied, is  fatal to any court action.  However, IRC 7401 is also

found in subtitle F of the IRC (see discussion at point 3 supra).


     14.  Lloyd Bentsen  was unable  to  delegate  any  authority

downwards during  the period  in which  he claimed  to occupy the

office of  Secretary of  the Treasury.  This disability has meant

that all  tax assessments which were made by the Internal Revenue

Service (as  opposed to voluntary taxpayer self-assessments) were

ultra vires  per force, because the assessment officers could not

exercise any  delegated authority.  See U.S. v. Brafman, 384 F.2d

863, 867  (5th Cir.  1967) for  a court  authority  holding  that

assessment officers  must sign  assessments before  they  can  be

valid;   without delegation  of authority, the signatures are not

those of  assessment officers.   Lex non cogit impossibilia.  The

IRC defines  the term  "Secretary" to  mean the "Secretary of the

Treasury or  his delegate";   without delegation, there can be no

delegates.   Without an  authorized  officer  to  head  the  U.S.

Department of  the Treasury,  there can  be no  Secretary of  the

Treasury,  and   hence  no   Secretary  whatsoever,   under   any

circumstances.  Delegation was, therefore, impossible.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 7 of 12


     15.  The Appointment  Affidavits signed by IRS employees are

unconscionable contracts,  because they  express  the  employees'

contractual  commitment   to  support   the  U.S.   Constitution;

however, it  is quite  simply impossible for Citizens to enforce,

and it  is also  impossible for  public employees  to obey, their

solemn oaths  to support  the U.S. Constitution, if the weight of

material evidence  now proves  that the  exact provisions of that

Constitution are  still in doubt, for any reason.  See discussion

of 14th  and 16th  amendments [sic]  supra;  also People v. Boxer

supra.  This question concerning the equitable nature of Oaths of

Office was specifically raised in People v. Boxer.


     16.  Again, the  respondents In re Grand Jury Subpoena supra

properly  and  timely  raised  this  objection,  when  the  first

Appointment Affidavit was produced by the "Special Agent" in that

case, in  response to  a proper request brought under the Freedom

of Information  Act ("FOIA");   but  U.S. District  Judge John M.

Roll abused  his discretion by failing to rule on that motion and

decided instead  to commit  over 100  felonies, including but not

limited to  28 counts  of obstructing  mail, 28  counts  of  jury

tampering, 28  counts of obstruction of justice, and 28 counts of

conspiracy to  commit all of the above.  Judge Roll did, however,

rule that  the USDC  is not  the proper  forum to bring a request

under the  Freedom of  Information Act  ("FOIA").   See 5  U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(B).   If the  USDC is  not the  proper forum to bring a

request under  the FOIA,  then neither is it the proper forum for

prosecuting any  criminal violations  of Title 18, U.S.C.  See 18

U.S.C. 3231,  and rules  of statutory  construction in  Title  1,

U.S.C.   Singular and  plural refer  to the  same entity  always.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 8 of 12


Title 1,  U.S.C., has  been  enacted  into  positive  law.    See

Supremacy Clause.  The Administrative Office of the United States

Courts has  alleged, in writing, that U.S. District Judge John M.

Roll is an Article III judge.


     17.  U.S. Rep.  Barbara  Kennelly  has  admitted,  on  House

stationery transmitted  through the  United States Postal Service

("USPS"), that  the term  "State" at IRC 3121(e) is restricted to

the named  territories and  possessions, and does not include the

several States  of the Union.  She put this admission in writing,

after first  consulting with  "experts"  in  the  office  of  the

Legislative Counsel,  and also in the office of the Congressional

Research Service.   Rep. Kennelly's admission provides absolutely

stunning support  for the  main (and highly controversial) thesis

of a  book entitled  The  Federal  Zone:  Cracking  the  Code  of

Internal Revenue.   Not  long after  publication of  the  printed

first edition  in 1992,  the Supreme  Court of  the United States

utilized the  term "federal  zone" as  a household  word in their

sweeping  decision  in  U.S. v. Lopez,  115  S.Ct.  1624  (1995),

Kennedy concurring.   The term "federal zone" now has a permanent

place in the history of American constitutional jurisprudence.


     18.  In 1953,  Mr. Dwight  E. Avis,  head of the Alcohol and

Tobacco Tax  Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, made the

following remarkable statement to a subcommittee of the Committee

on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives:

     Let me  point this  out now:  Your income tax is 100 percent
     voluntary tax,  and your  liquor tax is 100 percent enforced
     tax.  Now, the situation is as different as day and night.

                                 [Internal Revenue Investigation]
                                    [Committee on Ways and Means]
                      [Feb. 3 thru Mar. 13, 1953, emphasis added]


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 9 of 12


     19.  In 1971,  the following  quote was  found  in  the  IRS

instruction booklet for Form 1040:

     Each year  American taxpayers  voluntarily  file  their  tax
     returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe.

                                                 [emphasis added]


     20.  In 1974,  Donald C. Alexander, Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, published  the following statement in the March 29 issue

of The Federal Register:

     The mission  of the  Service is to encourage and achieve the
     highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax
     laws and regulations ....
                                    [Vol. 39, No. 62, page 11572]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     21.  One year later, in 1975, his successor, Mortimer Caplin

authored the  following statement  in the  Internal Revenue Audit

Manual:

     Our tax  system is  based on  individual self-assessment and
     voluntary compliance.
                                                 [emphasis added]


     22.  In 1980,  yet another  IRS Commissioner,  Jerome  Kurtz

(their turnover  is high)  issued a  similar statement  in  their

Internal Revenue Annual Report:

     The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary
     compliance system.
                                                 [emphasis added]


     23.  Even the  Supreme Court  of the  United States has held

that the system of federal income taxation is voluntary:

     Our tax  system  is  based  upon  voluntary  assessment  and
     payment, not upon distraint.

                           [Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145]
                                                 [emphasis added]


The dictionary  defines "distraint"  to mean the act or action of

distraining, that is, seizing by distress, levying a distress, or

taking property by force.


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 10 of 12


     24.  IRS  Publication  21  is  widely  distributed  to  high

schools.   It  acknowledges  that  compliance  with  a  law  that

requires the  filing of  returns is voluntary.  At the same time,

it suggests that the filing of a return is mandatory, as follows:

     Two aspects  of the  Federal income  tax system -- voluntary
     compliance with  the law  and self-assessment of tax -- make
     it  important   for  you   to  understand  your  rights  and
     responsibilities as  a  taxpayer.    "Voluntary  compliance"
     places on  the taxpayer  the responsibility  for  filing  an
     income tax return.  You must decide whether the law requires
     you to file a return.  If it does, you must file your return
     by the date it is due.
                                                 [emphasis added]


                          VERIFICATION

I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty

of perjury,  under the  laws of  the United  States  of  America,

without the  "United States",  that the  above statements of fact

are true  and correct,  to the  best of  My current  information,

knowledge, and  belief, so  help Me  God, pursuant  to 28  U.S.C.

1746(1).


Dated: ______________________________


Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
_____________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 11 of 12


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Everett  C.  Gilbertson,  Sui  Juris,  hereby  certify,  under

penalty of  perjury, under  the laws  of  the  United  States  of

America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years

of age,  a Citizen  of one  of the  United States of America, and

that I personally served the following document(s):

              MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                 PROVING THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF
                      FEDERAL INCOME TAXES:
        Rules 201(d), 301, 302, Federal Rules of Evidence

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:


Henry Shea
United States Attorneys
110 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota state

Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington, D.C.


Dated:  __________________________________

/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
__________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


   Memo of P & A on Voluntary Nature of Federal Income Taxes:
                          Page 12 of 12


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, District Court