More IRS Questions for the Wisconsin Senators

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Charlie@Sterling Investigations on September 24, 1997 at 16:37:16:

OK Pals:

Here is the next chapter in my war of words with the two Wisconsin senators; Feingold and Kohl. I finally got off my butt (actually, sat ON my butt at my computer)and decided to write the next letter after being stonewalled by the IRS and brushed aside by the senators. Here is the letter. Let's hope we can get some answers! Also, I have to call a guy at the IRS in Washington in a few minutes who, months ago, promised me that he would get me the answers to my questions. I never heard from him after I wrote to him. I'll tell you the outcome of this, also.

See? I'm actually collecting evidence of their NOT answering. Silence
IS evidence (of SOME sort, anyway).

Following is the letter I sent today by snail-mail.


September 24, 1997

U.S. Senator Herbert H. Kohl
14 West Mifflin Street
Suite 312
Madison, WI 53703

Dear Senator Kohl,

On May 27, 1997, I sent a letter to you requesting answers to certain
questions concerning the IRS. You wrote back immediately stating that
your assistant would be making inquiries with the IRS regarding the
questions. The same day, I wrote to you saying that if I thought I
could have gotten an honest answer from the IRS, I would have written to
them directly.

On June 24, 1997, I received a letter from you dated 06/23/97 saying you
were enclosing a letter from Robert Brazzil, Midwest Director of the
IRS, concerning my questions. The letter from Mr. Brazzil was written
to you, not to me. In that letter, Mr. Brazzil stated that he would not
answer the questions on a point by point basis, and also said plainly
that I held a "philosophy of protesting the tax laws," when I had
suggested nothing of the sort. I was completely offended by Mr.
Brazzil's suggestion, and surprised that your cover letter suggested
that you hoped Mr. Brazzil's letter might have been responsive to the
concerns I'd brought to your attention. It was not.

On June 25, 1997, I wrote my previous letter to you which expressed my
disgust with Mr. Brazzil's disrespectful response, and reiterated my
original questions.

Now, after having given the issue much thought, and with the IRS being
very much in the news, I would like to ask the questions again. But
first, I will add here some things I have learned.

Russ Feingold sent me copies of pages from the U.S. Government Manual
(USGM), of which I am very familiar. The "answers" contained therein
are not what I seek. On page 447 of the USGM there is a chart which
shows the alleged structure of the Treasury Department. Along the
bottom of this chart are what are alleged to be "Treasury Bureaus."
There are twelve "Treasury Bureaus" listed. They are:

Legal Division
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision
Financial Management Service
Bureau of the Public Debt
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
U.S. Customs Service
U.S. Secret Service
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Bureau of Engraving and Printing

Unfortunately, the lists and charts and explanations in the USGM are NOT
law, and, strangely enough, when one consults the most recent edition of
the United States Code, Title 31, Chapter 3, where the structure of the
Treasury Department is given, the Internal Revenue Service is not

Page 452 of the USGM states that the U.S. Customs Service was
established by an Act of Congress. And Page 450 of the USGM states that
the BATF was established by "Treasury Department Order No. 221" in 1972,
which transferred certain functions from the Internal Revenue Service to
the BATF. Certain other "bureaus" are also stated as being created by
Act or Order, but on page 456 of the USGM, under the heading "Internal
Revenue Service," it merely states that "The Office of the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue was established by act of July 1, 1862 (26 U.S.C.
7802)." Nowhere does it speak of the creation of the actual IRS.
Knowing a bit about the structure of statutes and regulations, I am well
aware that the "Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue" and the
"Internal Revenue Service" are not one and the same.

Once again, please send me simple answers to the following simple

1) Is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in any way structured as any
type of trust? ____Yes ____No

Note: If answer to #1 is "yes," please give as many details as

2) If answer to #1 is "no," is the IRS operated in any way through any
type of trust? ____Yes ____No

Note: If answer to #2 is "yes," please give as many details as

3) Is the Internal Revenue Service an agency, department or bureau of
the U.S. Government? ____Yes ____No

4) If answer to #3 is "yes," please answer the following:

a) When and how did the IRS itself (not the Office of the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue) come into existence?

a) Where in the USC is the IRS listed as an organization of either the
federal government or the treasury department?

b) Why is the IRS absent from 31 USC chapter 3, which lists the
organizations of the Treasury Department?

I would greatly appreciate these questions being answered by your office
exclusively, even if you must contact government departments for the
answers. But please do not contact the IRS "on my behalf." They will
only stonewall us. Is it possible that if you contact departments on
your own behalf, that you can get the answers we need?


Charles Charpentier
Owner/Private Investigator

cc: U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin State Journal, Portage
Daily Register, World Wide Web, Etc...

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]