Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 West Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Appeal Docket No. 07-2017
) Civil No. 04-CV-0885 BB/WDS
Plaintiff/Appellee, )
v. )
)
John S. Williamson et al., )
)
Defendants/Appellants. )
---------------------------------)
)
United States ) INTERVENOR’S REPLY TO
ex relatione ) APPELLEE’S OPPOSITION TO
Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) NOTICE OF INTERVENTION:
)
Intervenor. ) 28 U.S.C. 2403(a);
---------------------------------)
)
Internal Revenue Service, )
)
Respondent. )
_________________________________)
COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Intervenor”) ex
relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America,
Private Attorney
General, Criminal
Investigator and Federal
Witness (hereinafter “Relator”), to reply
formally to the pleading signed by Gretchen M. Wolfinger
entitled APPELLEE’S OPPOSITION TO PAUL ANDREW
MITCHELL’S “NOTICE OF INTERVENTION” AND VARIOUS RELATED DOCUMENTS.
I. THE ATTORNEYS REPEAT FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS
(a) Eileen J. O’Connor, Gretchen M. Wolfinger
and Jonathan S. Cohen (hereinafter “attorneys”) have no powers of attorney
legally to represent the Named Appellee UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA [sic]. The latter entity did, at one time,
incorporate twice in Delaware. Recently,
however, the registered agent for both foreign corporations notified Intervenor, in writing, that both
corporations have been revoked by the Delaware
Secretary of State. Intervenor
has now filed copies of that registered agent’s written notices in this
regard. See the Full Faith and Credit Clause in this
context (“Full Faith and Credit shall be given to the public records of every other State”).
(b) The attorneys consistently confuse the Intervenor
and the Relator.
The United States is the Intervenor; Paul Andrew
Mitchell is the Relator. Paul Andrew Mitchell is not the Intervenor; the United States is not the Relator. Relator has not applied for intervention on His own behalf. The United States has intervened pursuant to
a federal statute
and court rules which confer upon the United States a right to intervene. “Shall” is mandatory here.
The attorneys also
contradict themselves. On the one hand,
they argue that “Relator” has demonstrated no
legal or factual basis on which intervention should be “permitted”. On the other hand, they cite the federal
statute at 28 U.S.C.
2403(a) as the basis for intervention of right. The latter statute was correctly cited in Intervenor’s NOTICE OF
INTERVENTION; it confers a statutory right upon the United States,
which this honorable Court may not “deny” or otherwise abridge. The language is clear and unequivocal: “the court shall permit the United
States to intervene ....” [emphasis added])
(c)
The
“government” did not file suit to reduce to judgment “several income tax
assessments”. Prior to its proper and
timely intervention of right, the United States did not commence the
instant lawsuit. See the discussion
above concerning the two (2) foreign corporations whose corporate charters were
reportedly revoked by the State of Delaware.
The “government” never did seek to enforce any judgment(s), or any
federal tax lien(s), for the very same reason.
(d)
Relator is not a
“self-described Private Attorney General”.
The undelegated office of Private Attorney
General is recognized by Congress, and by the U.S. Supreme Court, in
pertinent cases which have adjudicated the federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964
(Civil RICO).
For example, see opinions
in Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff
& Associates, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987) (civil RICO “brings to
bear the pressure of ‘private attorneys
general’ on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate”); and Rotella
v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000) (“The object of civil RICO is thus not
merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, ‘private
attorneys general,’ dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity”). Relator is a racket
witness and victim.
(e)
The
attorneys err again by claiming that a private Citizen cannot represent the
United States. One of the fastest and
easiest ways to refute this error is to use the Google
search engine to locate all occurrences of “United States ex rel.” anywhere on the Internet. As of this writing, Google found 301,000
occurrences of this phrase. Google
also found 87,300 occurrences of the phrase “U.S. ex rel.”
The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Georgia, D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722. See also Equal Access to Justice Act.
(f) The attorneys err again by claiming that the instant appeal does not involve the constitutionality of any Act of Congress. Appellants have filed numerous pleadings in the lower courts which raised a myriad of issues, notably the deliberate vagueness and excessive complexity which are now evident in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) and in Title 28 of the United States Code. The IRC and Title 28 both contain “Acts of Congress” as defined at 1 U.S.C. 101.
In particular, see also the Miscellaneous Provisions at the very end of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985-991; IRC §§ 7426, 7433.
Despite the fact those Miscellaneous Provisions expressly clarify the intent of Congress, those Provisions were never codified anywhere in Title 28 of the U.S. Code. Specifically, Congress clearly intended the provisions of that Act to be “continuations of existing law” such as the laws defining and governing many federal court jurisdictions. See § 2(b). Similarly, the liberal construction rule for RICO was never codified anywhere in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, even though Title 18 has been enacted. See 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970.
II. TITLES
26 AND 28 WERE CITED IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT
Under the heading
JURISDICTION AND VENUE, on Page 2 of the INITIAL COMPLAINT the following
allegation is made:
This Court has jurisdiction of this action under
26 U.S.C. Sections 7402 and 7403 and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1340 and 1345.
(a)
The only
reference to the “United States district court” in Section 7402 supra is at subsection 7402(e) -- To
quiet title:
The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction of any action brought by the United States to quiet title to property if the title claimed by the United States to such property was derived from enforcement of a lien under this title.
All other subsections (a) thru (c) and (f) refer instead to the Article III District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”). Such statutes conferring original jurisdiction upon federal district courts must be strictly construed. See Intervenor’s other pleadings for standing U.S. Supreme Court authorities mandating STRICT construction.
(b) The instant action was not brought by the United States; it was allegedly brought by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under auspices of different attorneys who also lacked powers of attorney to appear on behalf of that Plaintiff. Therefore, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has entirely failed to prosecute the instant lawsuit.
(c) The United States has not claimed title to any property that was derived from enforcement of a lien under Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Prior to its NOTICE OF INTERVENTION the United States was not a Proper Party. And, after effectively intervening the United States has still not claimed title to any property that was derived from enforcement of a lien under Title 26 of the U.S. Code.
If the term “this title” at subsection 7402(e) means Title 26 of the U.S. Code, then the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A) is controlling, because Title 26 of the U.S. Code has never been enacted into positive law by any known Act of Congress.
Accordingly, all statutes that fall within subtitle F of the IRC have never really taken effect, notably §§ 7401, 7402 and 7403 as cited in the first paragraph on Page 1 of the INITIAL COMPLAINT.
(d) Moreover, the Article IV USDC lacked original jurisdiction, in the first instance, because there is still no valid lien in evidence anywhere in the record below.
The existence of the
requisite ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES now assumes facts not in evidence.
In order to be valid, an ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE must be dated and signed under penalties of perjury by a duly authorized Assessment Officer in full compliance with IRC 6065, Brafman v. U.S., 384 F.2d 863, 865, hn. 5 (5th Cir. 1967), 26 CFR 301.6203-1 and all pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”).
As of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (“RRA98”), all provisions of the IRM are now legally binding upon the Internal Revenue Service. Specifically, the IRM is quite clear in requiring a valid ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE before any tax collections may commence; and, IRS personnel can now be disciplined or terminated for violating any provision of the IRM. See RRA98, § 1203(b), 112 Stat. 721.
(e) The term “district courts” at 28 U.S.C. 1340 is ambiguous, at best. On the one hand, it can be interpreted to refer only to the Article IV USDCs currently established within the 50 States of the Union pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 132. Unlike several other statutes in Title 28, however, the latter statute does not identify the correct constitutional origins of the USDC. Compare 28 U.S.C. 251(a) which does identify Article III as the correct constitutional origin of the U.S. Court of International Trade, as mentioned at section 1340 supra.
On the other hand, the term “district courts” can be
interpreted to embrace both the Article III DCUS and the Article IV USDC if it occurs in plural
form. That term is thus ambiguous.
(f)
The term “internal revenue” at 28 U.S.C. 1340 is
also quite misleading and vague. See the
book entitled “The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue.” An autographed and embossed hard copy has now
been shipped to the Acquisitions Librarian of this Circuit Court, and the
electronic eleventh edition is here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/fedzone.in.evidence.htm
(g)
The statute
at 28 U.S.C. 1345
clearly confers standing upon the United States, not upon the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, to commence suits and proceedings as a plaintiff in the
“district courts”. The companion statute
at 28 U.S.C. 1346
is likewise quite clear for conferring standing upon the United States,
and not the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to be sued as a named defendant in the
“district courts” [sic] and in
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. 171(a).
Once again, the statute at
28 U.S.C. 171,
establishing the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, clearly identifies its
constitutional origin as Article
I of the Constitution, not Article III and not Article IV.
The absence of any mention
of the USDC’s
constitutional origins anywhere in 28 U.S.C. 132
necessarily renders that statute vague and misleading on this essential and
historically important point.
III. ATTORNEYS’
FOOTNOTE IS MISLEADING ON PAGE 4
The United States did
intervene ex rel.
in two companion appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
docket numbers #02-55021 and #01-56873. For the convenience of all
concerned, the relevant pleadings are now available at the following Internet
URLs:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/erath/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/meredith2/
Gretchen M. Wolfinger made similar errors in those two appeals, because
her office failed to demonstrate any
powers of attorney legally to represent IRS employee Andrew Erath, even after
being timely challenged to do so. See 28 CFR 0.70(b) (“except ....”!)
When presented with the
United States’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION similar to the one now filed in
this appeal, Ms. Wolfinger appeared to get flustered
when she notified the Ninth Circuit Clerk in writing that she would not reply
to any more of Relator’s pleadings unless ordered to
do so by the Ninth Circuit.
The United States then
exploited that opportunity by moving the
Ninth Circuit for an ORDER to Ms. Wolfinger to show cause why her pleadings should not be stricken, for lacking
powers of attorney.
Subsequently, Relator was never served with any dispositive rulings issued by any duly appointed judges of the Ninth
Circuit in either of those two companion appeals, however.
To make matters much
worse, subsequent investigation
confirmed the presence of several impostors seated on the Ninth Circuit: namely Brunetti, Hug, Tallman, Thomas, Trott and Wardlaw have all turned up without one or more
of the 4 credentials required of all federal judges. For full details, please see the following
Internet URLs:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm
Demonstrating a motive for
criminal retaliation and prohibited discrimination against Relator
in particular, Procter Hug had earlier been charged with felony federal offenses in connection with
the case of a federal grand jury subpoena
which Relator was authorized to litigate by U.S.
District Judge John M. Roll, in Tucson, Arizona here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/roll/index.htm
REMEDY REQUESTED
The attorneys’ alleged OPPOSITION to the NOTICE
OF INTERVENTION by the United States is erroneous, ill-conceived and flatly
incorrect on numerous fundamental points.
Chiefly, the United States has a statutory right to intervene, and it
has now effectively intervened pursuant to the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 2403(a)
and pertinent Rules of Court.
For all of the reasons
elaborated in detail above and in all other pleadings filed to date by the
United States ex rel.
Paul Andrew Mitchell subsequent to its timely and proper intervention, the
attorneys’ alleged OPPOSITION should be
ignored, if not also stricken, by this honorable Court of Appeals.
On the merits, this Court
should also ORDER the Circuit Clerk to certify to the Office of the U.S.
Attorney General all of Intervenor’s challenges to the constitutionality of
certain Acts of Congress previously enumerated in pleadings filed to date by Intervenor.
Finally, pursuant to its statutory obligations under 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), this Court shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence and for arguments on the question of the constitutionality of said enumerated Acts of Congress.
Thank you for your continuing 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 of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).
Dated: February 28, 2007 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):
APPELLEE’S OPPOSITION TO
28 U.S.C. 2403(a); 18 U.S.C. 1964
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 Court (5x)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1823 Stout Street
Denver 80257
COLORADO, USA
Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson
1277 Historic Route 66 East
Tijeras 87059
NEW MEXICO, USA
Mr. John Gregory Williamson
c/o Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson supra
Mr. David Andrew Williamson
c/o Mr. and Mrs. John S. Williamson supra
Mr. Garrett James Williamson
824 Adams Street, N.E.
Albuquerque 87110
NEW MEXICO, USA
Ms. Deborah Kruhm
P.O. Box
23899
Santa Fe 87502
NEW MEXICO, USA
Ms. Gretchen M. Wolfinger
U.S. Department of Justice
Appellate Section
P.O. Box 502
Washington 20044
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Office of Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service
c/o U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington 20220
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Courtesy copies:
Office of the U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 607
Albuquerque 87103
NEW MEXICO, USA
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
717 North Harwood, Suite 400
Dallas 75201
TEXAS, USA
Dr. Harriet Smith Windsor
Secretary of State
State of Delaware
401 Federal Street
Dover 19901
DELAWARE, USA
[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]
Dated: February 28, 2007 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice