Time: Wed May 28 06:16:50 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA15591; Wed, 28 May 1997 05:39:33 -0700 (MST) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA10069; Wed, 28 May 1997 05:39:28 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:15:02 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Agency see infra: At 07:10 AM 5/28/97 +0000, you wrote: >Paul, >In reference to the Cooper Papers/Dan Meadors Public Notice, etc., the >one thing that I need to clarify for myself is "specifically" how the >congress is "supposed" to create a "lawful" agency. > >Sandi Cote, who you might know, received a reply from her congressman >that by virtue of the fact that congress gave the IRS operating money, >that established them as an "agency". He enclosed a copy of >Isbrandtsen-Moller Co, Inc. v. US 300 US 139; and Fleming..v Mohawk >Wrecking, 331 US 111. He writes "In effect, the Court says that the >Congress affirms a Presidential delegation of power to an agency >through the annual appropriations process. Though the IRS is not >specifically mentioned, this is one principle by which the Executive >and Legislative Branches have cooperated over the last fifty years." This is controverted by the authorities which we cited in People v. Boxer. > >Before I spew, citing all the reasons that these two cases are not >on-point, much less the fact that just because they've done something >incorrect for fifty years does not now make it correct...I need to >determine how congress is required to create an agency. > >Before I reinvent the wheel, do you have any input? If not, any >suggestions on where to start my research? The Notice of Intent to Petition for Leave to Institute Quo Warranto against the IRS, in People v. United States et al., has numerous citations to the requirement that "standing" be established in the record. If an agency has no lawful existence, then it has no standing. That is where I would begin. Do you have that brief? Then, I would cruise the Administrative Procedures Act, for clues, particularly in USCS and USCA, with emphasis on the latter. Last but not least, there are a ton of cites in C.J. and C.J.S. on Quo Warranto, which is the classic (ancient) method of proving that an agency has no lawful origin(s). /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail