The line in the Sand

Deepest Mandelbrot Set Zoom Animation ever - a New Record! 10^275 (2.1E2...

2011-01-20T20:24:00.000-06:00

2009-12-12T19:53:00.001-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=17C3F60D7120B916

2009-06-18T19:35:00.001-05:00

http://www.hyperionfinancial.com/psb/special.htm

http://www.nber.org/releases/

This one is where to find Regulation AC reports, otherwise the SEC

------------------------------------------
See attached PDF file

http://opencrs.com/

http://www.govtrack.us/users/

http://www.pogo.org/investigations/

http://falling-america.blogspot.com/

2009-06-18T19:23:00.001-05:00

Allodial title
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (April 2009)

Property law
Part of the common law series
Acquisition
Gift · Adverse possession · Deed
Conquest · Discovery · Treasure Trove
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property
Alienation · Bailment · License
Estates in land
Allodial title · Fee simple · Fee tail
Life estate · Defeasible estate
Future interest · Concurrent estate
Leasehold estate · Condominiums
Conveyancing
Bona fide purchaser
Torrens title · Strata title
Estoppel by deed · Quitclaim deed
Mortgage · Equitable conversion
Action to quiet title · Escheat
Future use control
Restraint on alienation
Rule against perpetuities
Rule in Shelley's Case
Doctrine of worthier title
Nonpossessory interest
Easement · Profit
Covenant running with the land
Equitable servitude
Related topics
Fixtures · Waste · Partition
Riparian water rights
Lateral and subjacent support
Assignment · Nemo dat
Property and conflict of laws
Other common law areas
Contract law · Tort law
Wills, trusts and estates
Criminal law · Evidence
v . d . e

Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations. Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever.

In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says allodium is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud."

True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world-primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland-described more properly as being in fee simple. In particular, land is said to be "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and the Commonwealth realms. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the Crown; even in the United States most lands are not allodial, as evidenced by the existence of property taxes. Some of the Commonwealth realms (particularly Australia) recognise native title, a form of allodial title that does not originate from a Crown grant.

In France, while allodial title existed before the French Revolution, it was rare and limited to ecclesiastical properties and property that had fallen out of feudal ownership. After the French Revolution allodial title became the norm in France and other civil law countries that were under Napoleonic legal influences. Interestingly Quebec adopted a form of allodial title when it abolished feudalism in the mid-nineteenth century making the forms of ownership in Upper and Lower Canada remarkably similar in substance.

Property owned under allodial title is referred to as allodial land, allodium, or an allod.

2009-06-04T19:23:00.000-05:00

Federal Circuits

from November 30, 1900
Last Document: June 04, 2009

Search within this source

Advanced Operators

Circuit:

Section:

Date:

Docket Number:

id. vLex:

Advanced
search

Navigation

Calendar

News

First Circuit

2009 - 2008 - 2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996 - 1995 - 1994 - 1993 - 1992 - 1991 - 1990 - 1989 - 1988 - 1987 - 1986 - 1985 - 1984 - 1983 - 1982 - 1981 - 1980 - 1979 - 1978 - 1977 - 1976 - 1975 - 1974 - 1973 - 1972 - 1971 - 1970 - 1969 - 1968 - 1967 - 1966 - 1965 - 1964 - 1963 - 1962 - 1961 - 1960 - 1959 - 1958 - 1957 - 1956 - 1955 - 1954 - 1953 - 1952 - 1951 - 1950 - 1949 - 1940

Second Circuit

Third Circuit

Fourth Circuit

Fifth Circuit

Sixth Circuit

Seventh Circuit

Eighth Circuit

Ninth Circuit

Tenth Circuit

Eleventh Circuit

2009 - 2008 - 2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996 - 1995 - 1994 - 1993 - 1992 - 1991 - 1990 - 1989 - 1988 - 1987 - 1986 - 1985 - 1984 - 1983 - 1982 - 1981

D.C. Circuit

Federal Circuit

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996 - 1995 - 1994 - 1993 - 1992 - 1991 - 1990 - 1989 - 1988 - 1987 - 1986 - 1985 - 1984 - 1983 - 1982 - 1981 - 1980 - 1979 - 1978 - 1977 - 1976 - 1975 - 1974 - 1973 - 1972 - 1971

Home / United States /

Case Law

Grand Jury

2009-04-28T15:03:00.000-05:00

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

AmericanGrandJury.org

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

Mark S. McGrew

The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

So who or what is a Grand Jury?

Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government. However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.

Americans are educated to believe that America has three branches of government: The Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive and that is they who decide our lives. This also is false. There is a Constitutional force which has power, authority and dominance over those three branches.

That is the The Grand Jury of We The People. The Grand Jury was intended to give the people of the United States of America total control over a potentially corrupt government and to enable prosecution of corrupt or criminal government officials, agents and employees, whether they were elected, hired or appointed.

The Constitution of The United States of America was created and designed to give the individual or collective people of America the power to tell the government what to do. The government, including the President of the country has no Rights to make Americans do anything that is not permitted by or is contrary to our Constitution. The US Constitution especially has no provision for an illegal alien to be our President and pass laws that we do not permit or condone.

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

"Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right."

To be crystal clear: The Grand Jury is a Constitutional fixture in its own right.

The Grand Jury is not a tool of government to use against its citizens.

Justice Scalia determined further, to reinforce that there is no question as to the purpose of the Grand Jury:

"In fact, the whole theory of it's foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it's institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office".

Besides providing for society to charge individual people for crimes, the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution. And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.

Any judge who tells a jury to "disregard that remark or disregard that evidence" is violating the US Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.

Any Congressperson, Senator, Governor or police officer who violates the constitution can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, without the advice, consent, permission or interference of any government employee.

This is why America has always been promoted as a land where no man is above the law, including the President.

However, in 1946, certain people hijacked the role of our Grand Jury and the courtroom jury and henceforth, embarked on a mission of misinformation, distortions and blatant lies to convince the American people and the entire legal community, that it is the government that determines what is right and what is wrong in the actions of the government or of any elected government officials, employees or agents.

In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase "runaway grand jury" to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury.

Roger Roots continues,

"A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's 'runaway' grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times. They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

In 1946, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted. In those procedures, they made a rule to punish runaway grand juries. Rule 6(g):

"At any time for cause shown, the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused."

Now judges could throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its own discretion and not doing what the court or prosecutor tells them to do.

All laws in America, whether federal, state, county or city must conform to the framework of the United States Constitution. Laws can be illegal, and many laws are illegal. Rules are not even laws and have no authority if attached to a source that is not in line with the US Constitution. Laws, rules, orders, methods of the government that do not conform to the US Constitution are considered "Fruit from the poison tree" and if challenged as such, and proven not to be Constitutional in nature, must be unenforceable.

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has an added "Note 4" which directly conflicts with, ignores and willfully violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution which states clearly:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

Note 4 of Rule 7 states:

"Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts". They rewrote the US Constitution to suit their own purposes.

There are only two ways that the US Constitution can be changed:

Method 1:

A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution. Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority. Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless. This is the only method that has been used to date. The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.

Method 2:

A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention. The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions. This method has never been used.

Most certainly a bunch of crooked lawyers writing their own rules to corrupt the jury system can not override the US Constitution.

But they did.

And, as Susan Brenner wrote in The Voice of the Community: A Case for Jury Independence, "Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent."

If a grand jury and a courtroom jury have to do only what the judge and prosecutor say, and a prosecutor can refuse to indict and charge a politician or another lawyer, what is the reason to have any jury? Only to perpetuate a myth that Americans live under a system where no man is above the law. There is no other reason.

As the American Judicial system now operates, judges and prosecutors can pick and choose who they send to prison. And they guarantee that they and their friends can go on with their criminal behavior unmolested.

The American Juror published a commentary regarding Note 4 of Rule 7:

"[Retaining the Constitutional Right of grand juries to determine evidence and witnesses] might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States Attorney(Prosecutor)"

So, the American government employees took the bold step to violate the US Constitution on a continuing, repeated basis and gave defendants a "jury of their peers" that would and could, only nod to the prosecutor and judge and say only, "Yes sir. No sir. You're right sir. Whatever you say sir."

This kind of behavior was outlawed in the year 1215 by the English Magna Carta, which the founders of the United States of American adopted as their basis for how Americans were going to live and be treated by the government that they would employ.

The authors of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the true criminals and should have been dragged out of their homes and hanged from the nearest tree.

Now, 63 years later, the American people are fed up with the treasonous acts of their government employees and their rigged courts. And they have found a way to rid this country of the "domestic enemies" that our Constitution warned us to be prepared for.

AmericanGrandJury.org explains the process and how to form a constitutionally acceptable Common Law Grand Jury and bring presentments or indictments in any location in America and begin prosecuting corrupt government employees, at any level of government. No longer should they be referred to as Officials or agents. They are our employees and if they don't want to respect that, they need to find a friendly 3rd world country to live in.

Mr. Carl Swensson of the State of Georgia successfully organized a Common Law Grand Jury and that Grand Jury reviewed evidence against Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama and is recommending an indictment. The US Attorney, who was presented with that recommendation has refused to discuss it by saying, "We only deal with lawyers". The Attorney General's office of the State of Georgia has also been presented with that recommendation and has also refused, saying, "We don't represent citizens".

Everyone should call US Federal Attorney, David Nahmias at 404-581-6000 or fax him at 404-581-6181 and tell him to do his job. Every person should also call the State of Georgia Attorney General's office and ask Lilly Thomas why she thinks the Attorney General does not represent citizens and who do they represent. Her number is 404-656-3300.

On Mr. Swensson's website at RiseUpForAmerica.com you can see the process he went through to organize a Common Law Grand Jury.

You will also find that Common Law Grand Juries in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio also have seen the evidence and are making a presentment to charge the illegal alien Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama. More Common Law Grand Juries across American are being scheduled as of this writing.

A 2 hour Internet radio broadcast on April 9, 2009 has Carl Swensson of www.RiseUpForAmerica.com, Bob Campbell of http://americangrandjury.org and the spokesman for American Grand Jury, Sam Sewell explaining the Grand Jury actions against Obama, how Grand Juries can be used to rid local communities of corrupt government employees and how citizens can form their own Common Law Grand Jury groups. That broadcast can be listened to or downloaded at this site:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/04/10/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show

Please allow a few minutes for this show to start playing.

American people are uniting, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the form of "Tea Parties" named after the Boston Tea Party demands of "No Taxation Without Representation" in the year 1773, which helped start the American Revolutionary War with England in 1775. Tea parties are being held for people to object to unconstitutional government acts, taxes and loss of freedoms

In less than 30 days, demonstrations have been organized and are scheduled in 2,000 communities, starting April 15, 2009. Anyone can find information on where Tea Parties are being held or how to form your own Tea Party at FreedomWorks.org

Something World leaders had better understand and understand well: Obama and his mentally deranged friends are not going to destroy America any more than countless other socialist fascist fanatics have tried in the past.

If World leaders want to keep their jobs and keep their nation's economies intact, they would be smart to drop Obama like a hot potato. Obama and his backers are pulling a giant scam on the rest of the World, just as they have on American voters.

Americans have wised up. It is only the major media that keeps pounding the drums of the Obama lie. Ask yourselves a question: Why are many of America's major newspapers that have been in business for over 100 years, filing for bankruptcy and closing every week? If you believe, as major news tell us, that the reason is lowered advertising revenue and more people getting their news from the Internet, you're hallucinating. The real reason is because Americans are thoroughly fed up with the lies, the slanders, the politically correct brain vomit that major news pours out and their astounding absolute refusal to portray any semblance of the truth.

Nothing Obama does will continue. Everything he does will be retracted by a very near future administration.

One thing that is certain, of all that can be observed about the current Obama administration, corporate executive friends of Obama and the American Judicial system: Whether in the boardroom, the courtroom or the bathroom, scum sticks together. When the scum is annoying enough, it is scrubbed, cleaned and thrown in the trash. That's why people have cleansers and society has prisons.

World leaders are making a very dangerous mistake to think that we, the people of America are not making preparations for cleaning house. This house belongs to us, not a gang of decrepit senile old men, pursuing a useless fantasy of a New World Order that has a 2,000 year history of abject failure.

Here's your first clue: The very first line of the US Constitution says, "We the people... establish this Constitution".

Mark S. McGrew may be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com

NOTE: This article may be republished without seeking permission, provided such publication is published in full and NOT altered in any manner. You may change fonts and colors to suit your needs. You may copy the source code on this webpage if you wish. If you wish to paraphrase or quote excerts from this article you may do so as long as you do not quote the excerpt "out of context." Please respect the spirit of this article and not abuse it by taking journalistic liberties at your own discretion.

RETURN to AmericanGrandJury.org

2009-04-21T22:29:00.001-05:00

-100.52490234375,48.922499263758255,-88.76953125,44.63739123445585&amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;gt;"&amp;amp;gt;

2009-04-06T01:26:00.001-05:00

United States' DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY

Explained in Simple Language with Questions and Answers

by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

(March 23, 2009 A.D.)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

We have now hyperlinked the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
with Exhibits:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
(please study all Exhibits for a detailed explanation)

The "United States" in Federal law means the Federal Government:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html

The Federal Reserve Banks (“FED”) are private municipal corporations,
created by Congress back in 1913:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/lewis/

When Congress needs to spend more money than it takes in with taxes,
it sells bonds to the FED. The FED buys those bonds with money
which the FED creates out of thin air.

Congress must repay the bond principal and interest, and
it liens on the American People to do so, with
NOTICES OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN, NOTICES OF LEVY,
NOTICES OF DEFICIENCY, etc. See subtitle F of the
Internal Revenue Code for all enForcement statutes.

We summarized the entire scam in Chapter 8 of "The Federal Zone":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter8.htm
(begin reading at “What gives?”)

The United States is now bankrupt, because it cannot repay all
the money loaned to it by the FED and by other countries.

Moreover, creating money out of thin air is fraud, and
this scam originated way back in 1913:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/daly/

So, on behalf of our clients, who are presently seeking bankruptcy
protection in the Eastern District of Washington, I do have authority
to represent the United States as a Private Attorney General:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

The United States will interplead into that bankruptcy case
on March 31, 2009 A.D., formally to declare insolvency AS TO
each and every obligation -- e.g. U.S. Bond -- which the
Congress "sold" to the FED.

Moreover, because FRNs are legally defined as "obligations of the United States",
that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY will also have the legal result of
voiding all FRNs presently in circulation anywhere on planet Earth:

All FRNs will need to be recalled systematically, and then destroyed,
after being exchanged -- one-for-one -- with U.S. Notes that are printed
by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing -- withOUT any interest owed or
payable to the FED on those U.S. Notes.

The links in the hyperlinked DECLARATION above will take you to
photographs comparing Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes.
The latter have been called "red dot" currency, because the Treasury seal
is printed in red ink.

The recall of FRNs and exchange for U.S. Notes are temporary measures,
en route to returning to Constitutional money:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/vieira/ (both documents are excellent!)

We do not anticipate that U.S. Notes will need to be recalled too:
once there is enough gold and silver to back U.S. Notes,
Congress can simply enact a Law declaring them redeemable.

One of the main reasons for declaring insolvency formally
is the automatic stay authorized by the Federal bankruptcy laws:
no creditor may collect any further principal or interest payments
once a debtor has sought bankruptcy protection from a
U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Thus, the FED and the IRS will be legally barred (prohibited)
from collecting any more principal or interest payments
on any of the "obligations" of the United States which it "owes"
to the Federal Reserve Banks.

Moreover, since FRNs are also legally defined as such "obligations",
the FED and IRS will also be legally estopped from demanding the
return of any more FRNs e.g. to pay Federal income taxes.

Federal income taxes are being used to pay interest to the FED;
they do NOT pay for any Federal government services.
See the Report of the Grace Commission, for proof:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q29

Last but not least, it is already well established that there
is no liability STATUTE for Federal income taxes imposed
by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm

And, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that a tax liability
may NOT be created by Regulations published in the Federal Register
(again, see links in the DECLARATION above, and below):

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif

The obvious conclusion, then, is that income taxes imposed by
subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code are fraudulent to the core,
because there is no Statute at Large (Act of Congress) creating
any specific liability for any of those "taxes":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/ (see Preface re: 2 court hearings)

In summary, both the FED and the IRS will be legally "out of business"
throughout the United States of America and throughout all Federal enclaves,
territories and possessions as of midnight ending March 31, 2009 A.D.

p.s. Questions and answers are appended below, and
there is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

DISCLAIMER: Forwarding email from someone else
does not mean that I endorse any of its contents.

Questions and Answers about the United States’

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY:

by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

(April 5, 2009 A.D.)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

> How are U.S. Notes any more secure and

> how can they be a preferred currency

> without proof of metal/specie-based assets/collateral?

There is no interest due to the FED on any U.S. Notes.

Even if U.S. Notes are not redeemable in gold or silver initially, the recall of FRNs

and their replacement with U.S. Notes will effectively destroy FRNs as legal tender.

Thus, the issuance of U.S. Notes that are not redeemable is a temporary measure --

to expedite the recall of all FRNs in circulation.

Later, as Treasury builds up its stocks of gold and silver, Congress can

enact a law making U.S. Notes redeemable and thereby eliminating

any need to recall U.S. Notes too.

> Where now does this Declaration position the common man on the street?

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

An automatic stay went into effect at midnight ending March 31, 2009.
See 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/362.html

In simple language, whenever an entity seeks the protection of a bankruptcy court,
that statute prohibits any and all further attempts by the creditor(s) to collect
any of the debts owed by the debtor(s).

The Grace Commission has already admitted that Federal income taxes
do not pay for any Federal government services; those "taxes" pay for
interest on the U.S. government debts to the Federal Reserve Banks.

Thus, the implications are explained in the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
as follows:

This automatic stay is intended to bar any and all Federal Reserve Banks henceforth from any and all further efforts to collect from the United States, or from the People at Large, either the principal or interest amounts previously owed by the United States to the Federal Reserve Banks.

This intent necessarily also bars the Internal Revenue Service from performing, or claiming any authority to perform, any further collections of income taxes allegedly imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. See IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

[end excerpt]

In addition to the automatic stay, it is now an established FACT
that Congress never enacted any liability STATUTE(s) for taxes imposed
by IRC subtitle A. This is yet another reason why the IRS and the FED
no longer have any legal authority to enforce collections of those "taxes":

It is now a well established fact that Congress never enacted any Statute(s) at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. By comparison, Congress has enacted Statutes at Large creating specific liabilities for taxes imposed by subtitles B and C of the Internal Revenue Code. On this key point, see 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) and Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), quoting in pertinent part:

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit. United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447; Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134.

[bold emphasis added]

We mentioned the RRA98 in particular, because
it now renders the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") enforceable.
IRS personnel can now be disciplined or terminated
for any of the violations enumerated at section 1203(b) of that Act:

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/112/RRA98.pdf

This RRA98 was never codified in Title 26, however;
you need to pay attention where it states -- in the margin --
"26 USC 7804 note." That "note" is buried here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007804----000-notes.html

Begin reading at "Termination of Employment for Misconduct".

Notice in particular where it itemizes acts defined as "misconduct":

(3) with respect to a taxpayer, taxpayer representative,
or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service,
the violation of —

(A) any right under the Constitution of the United States
...
(6) violations of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Department
of Treasury regulations, or policies of the Internal Revenue
Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the
purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer
representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue
Service;

[end excerpt]

Prior to the RRA98, the IRM had no legal force or effect whatsoever:
it was merely a "guideline" that contained no mandatory provisions
prior to enactment of the RRA98:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/kozinski.htm

Well, Separation of Powers is a Right under the Constitution;
and, Commissioner v. Acker held -- correctly -- that the IRS
may NOT create a tax liability by means of Regulations
published in the Federal Register:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

Also, the Internal Revenue Manual makes it very clear --
in two separate places -- that no "collections" may commence
without a procedurally proper ASSESSMENT:

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

Well, IRS is legally BARRED from performing any procedurally
proper ASSESSMENT because they cannot verify same without
committing perjury. See IRC 6065:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6065.html

That perjury stems from the FACT that there is no liability STATUTE; and,
an ASSESSMENT cannot be verified "under the penalties of perjury"
without the signer committing an act of perjury.

To summarize, all collections of principal and interest payments [to the FED]
must cease immediately, chiefly because of the automatic stay,
but also because there is no liability STATUTE for subtitle A; and,
the IRS is thereby prohibited from creating a tax liability by means of
Regulations published in the Federal Register.

I hope this helps.

> Your reply is much appreciated, and
> is there some way to compel a bank to exchange FRN’s for U.S. Notes
> upon appropriate presentation of a copy of your Declaration to any such bank?

No. We are suggesting that bank customers start "asking"
in such large numbers that their requests get noticed
and forwarded to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/frn.recall.letter.to.banks.htm

There is also a statute [now] limiting the total number of U.S. Notes
presently authorized to circulate: 31 U.S.C. 5115:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5115.html

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation —

(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and

(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

And, that's why our template letter above mentions the need
for appropriate legislative changes e.g. amending 5115.

> Regarding the writing to banks for U.S. Notes
> would it be possible for you to write a sample letter?

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/frn.recall.letter.to.banks.htm (HTML)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/frn.recall.letter.to.banks.doc (WORD)

> I ran these case numbers with the U.S. Bankrupcy court database,
> they didn't match with the cases outlined below.

Sometimes, you must append the initials of the "robe" assigned
e.g. "PCW" = Patricia C. Williams; "PCW7" = Chapter 7; etc.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/complaint.2009-01-09/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/complaint.2009-01-09/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/complaint.2009-01-09/page01.refused.gif
etc.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/summons.re-issued.2009-02-09/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/summons.re-issued.2009-02-09/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/summons.re-issued.2009-02-09/page01.refused.jpg
etc.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/williams/

See also Exhibit "H" here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/williams/nad.affidavit.htm (IN DEFAULT)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/williams/nad.oath.of.attorney.htm (IN DEFAULT)

It has happened quite frequently during the past 19+ years,
that controversial cases, and controversial pleadings,
somehow "disappear" from the official court records;
of course, this is a felony Federal offense, but that
hasn't stopped the guilty parties from destroying
official court records. To illustrate from sworn statements
recorded by the late Gary Wean, LAPD Detective:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/wean/gary.wean.article.htm
(search for "Pregerson" and find Harry and Dean -- father and son)

So, I wouldn't put too much faith in some database,
without also cross-checking first -- as you have done
by contacting me.

Moreover, our extensive, ongoing investigation of
missing credentials, assisted by U.S. DOJ in D.C.,
has now assembled proof that confirmed impostors
are the ones most likely to be assigned to "tax" cases
-- as happened with Dean D. Pregerson:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

For example, all 25 "robes" now seated on the U.S. Tax Court
turned up without any of 4 requisite credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#TC

If you like, I can request our clients to contact you,
for confirmation, but only at their discretion.

p.s. In my office is a large "banker box" with literally hundreds
of documents that have already been filed in that bankruptcy case.
Thus, the links above will connect you to only 2 of many such
legal documents.

> I read a page and I wonder if this page for declaration of

> bankrupcy of the U.S. banks are real?

Yes. The United States has formally declared insolvency
as to its alleged indebtedness to the Federal Reserve Banks;
but, the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY does not declare
bankruptcy of any "U.S. banks".

> Can the government reject the declaration of insolvency you filed?

> Is there any legal reason they must be REQUIRED to make the insolvency public?

It is public: it was duly served on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Washington; and, as such,
it must be filed in that bankruptcy case and
it must be made a permanent record of which
the Clerk of Court is the designated legal custodian.

Those records are "public".

The U.S. Postal Service has also confirmed delivery,
by means of the Delivery Confirmation Track & Confirm
number that was affixed to those documents.

If there is any attempt to obstruct the filing and
entry of same into the Clerk's records, that attempt
would violate 18 U.S.C. 1001 -- a felony Federal offense.

You could help yourself, and help us, by studying
the law rather than asking so many questions
with the expectation that I have all the time
in the world to answer such questions
without compensation. I don't.

I also think you may be assuming, wrongly, that
impostors who lack credentials somehow qualify
as "the government", when the case law is
quite contrary:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
(all their acts are void)

> I would like to know if this is legit.

Yes: I'll follow with the USPS Delivery Confirmation
confirming delivery to the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Washington.

See also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm (fully hyperlinked version)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.doc (laser-printer original)

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen:

As of 5:31 a.m. today, March 31, 2009 A.D.,
the United States officially declared insolvency
as to its obligations allegedly payable to the
Federal Reserve Banks.

See Delivery Confirmation information below,
as provided by the USPS Track & Confirm
Internet system of notification via email.

The fully hyperlinked version of that
DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
is here on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The original hard copy is formatted using
Microsoft WORD 2003:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.doc

Please relieve us of the burden of shipping hard copies
by printing either document, and all incorporated Exhibits,
directly from the Internet.

Certified and embossed versions of the .doc version above
can be purchased from my office for a nominal certification fee
of $20.00 each. Please send either CASH or
a BLANK U.S. Postal Money Order to:

Forwarding Agent
7115 N. Division St. #B-354
Spokane 99208
WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Further details and a plain English explanation can be found
in this document:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

Thank you for your professional consideration.

p.s. If you are presently engaged in litigation in either State or Federal Court(s),
please make a point of filing a DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
of the above DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. Cf. Rule 201(d) in the
Federal Rules of Evidence ("FREV") for mandatory judicial notice of
adjudicative facts.

From: U.S._Postal_Service_
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Subject: USPS Shipment Info for 0308 0730 0000 7401 7297
To: supremelawfirm@gmail.com

This is a post-only message. Please do not respond.

Paul Mitchell has requested that you receive the current Track & Confirm
information, as shown below.

Current Track & Confirm e-mail information provided by the U.S. Postal Service.

Label Number: 0308 0730 0000 7401 7297

Service Type: Delivery Confirmation(TM)

Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivered SPOKANE WA 99201 03/31/09 5:31am

Arrival at Unit SPOKANE WA 99201 03/31/09 5:30am

Processed SPOKANE WA 99224 03/30/09 8:01pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USPS has not verified the validity of any email addresses submitted via its
online Track & Confirm tool.

For more information, or if you have additional questions on Track & Confirm
services and features, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
section of our Track & Confirm site at
http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirmfaqs.htm

latest on the bankruptcy follows ...

All "branch" Federal Reserve Banks will also receive Page 1 from
each of the following 2 documents, via U.S. Mail posted today:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

> Many of us at the 912 Project are anxious to know the
> status of the United States Declaration of Insolvency
> that was set to be heard yesterday in the bankruptcy
> court in Washington State. Please advise me of the
> outcome so I may pass it on to them.

No. It was not "set to be heard yesterday"

in the bankruptcy court in Washington State.

It was, however, delivered by the U.S. Postal Service
at 5:31 a.m. yesterday and, as such, it was legally served
at that time.

In point of law, the automatic stay described
in that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
went into effect at midnight ending yesterday.

Therefore, the United States is now officially
insolvent as to its alleged debts to the
Federal Reserve Banks, and the automatic stay
authorized by U.S. bankruptcy laws is now in effect.

A simple English explanation is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

If you will read the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY and
all Exhibits, you will learn that the personnel employed
by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Washington have either failed or refused to produce
credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

Thus, it may take quite some time to clean up that
related mess too. There is no point in scheduling
any hearings where so many impostors congregate:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
("all their acts are void")

FYI: our office has been working with the U.S.
Department of Justice to investigate missing credentials:
Start here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.

> I am eagerly awaiting news.

> When should we know the status of the filing and insolvency of FR and IRS?

> Will anything be announced to the general public?

The DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY will take legal effect
at midnight tonight (3/31/2009):

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

As such, it will activate the automatic stay authorized
by pertinent statutes in the Federal bankruptcy laws.

It has already been received by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
(Delivery Confirmation to follow this message).

Don't expect CNN, Fox News or MSN to report it, however.

Federal Express .. er .. Federated Hardware Stores .. er ..
the "Federal" Reserve might try to terminate the reporters for doing so.

> Some posters are claiming it to be a hoax.

> However, I informed them that they could check the delivery of the doc themselves, and

> how to do it. I checked it out and it WAS delivered just as you said.

> However, on the same site, some are attempting to defame you. Here is one of them: …
> Hope you can either respond to them or give me something to pass on for you.

Defamation is a crime.

Yes, I have used several pen names.

Thank you.

p.s. This is not a hoax: the Federal personnel at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Washington, in Spokane, all failed or refused
to produce credentials. See Exhibits "F" thru "J" inclusive here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The staff dba "clerks" also failed or refused to produce credentials,
making it impossible for any Bankruptcy Court "orders" to comply
with 28 U.S.C. 1961:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/nad.affidavit.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/nad.oath.of.attorney.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/benka/letter.2009-03-05/refusal.for.cause.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/watkins/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/watkins/nad.affidavit.htm

Because they all lack credentials now, as a Private Attorney General
I exercise more de jure authority than all of them put together!

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm

[begin excerpt]

In Peaslee v. Haberstro, 15 Blatchf. 472, Fed.Cas. No. 10,884,
the summons was set aside because not under the seal of court or signature of clerk. ...
To my mind, the word “process,” as used in Rev. St. § 911, means an order of court,
although it may be issued by the clerk.

[Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510, 511-513]

[(C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904), emphases added]

[end excerpt]

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm

> Thanks, Paul. I read all of you messages posted on Freedom Fight, and
> have urged others to as well. Thank you for being a valued member!

Copy that!!

Anyone could reliably PREDICT that certain agents provocateur
would come out of the woodwork, once this DECLARATION
OF INSOLVENCY hit the fan.

It is NOT a "hoax" by any means: all the missing credentials
at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Spokane, Wash., mean that the
United States could walk right in and effectively OCCUPY
that entire forum -- ALL BY ITSELF. See all incorporated
Exhibits for a partial list of missing credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The absence of credentials was also confirmed by this
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, which the A.O. failed to answer:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/delivery.instructions.htm

[begin excerpt]

Certified copies of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Form 61
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATHS OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES
(see samples attached) for all Justices, Judges, full- and part-time Magistrates,
Clerks and Deputy Clerks presently employed by the Supreme Court of the United States,
United States Courts of Appeal, District Courts of the United States, United States District Courts,
United States Bankruptcy Courts, United States Court of Federal Claims, United States Tax Courts,
and United States Court of International Trade.

[end excerpt]

And, that's exactly what we did -- OCCUPY THAT FORUM
AND THEREBY ACTIVATE THE AUTOMATIC STAY.

Add to those facts the added PROOF that Obama was
born in Mombasa, Kenya; and, the entire Executive Branch
now has very little delegation of authority: Obama can NOT
exercise the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution!!

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
(see Official Report by the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya!)

See Exhibit "K" in the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/vieira/Obama.Stand.Up.Now.or.Stand.Down.htm

THINK ABOUT THAT ONE "little detail" FOR A MINUTE OR TWO!!!

> WAY TO GO PAUL!!!!!!

> HOPE THEY CHOKE WHEN THEY REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
> COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A BETTER BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
> Now we can all reap the benefits, thanks to you.

Yes!

This one is truly worth VERY WIDESPREAD DISTRIBUTION
e.g. the copies for the regional Federal Reserve Banks
were mailed last Friday, so hopefully they will all receive
their copies by today.

The success of this effort will depend in no small way
upon the participation of the American People too.

The People can begin by inundating their local banks
with requests -- written and verbal -- to exchange
Federal Reserve Notes for United States Notes.

Even though those banks will probably not have
enough U.S. Notes -- at the start of this project --
the public demand will hopefully grow to such
an extent that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
will have no alternative but to start cranking out
U.S. Notes -- as an interim measure.

There is a link to photos comparing FRNs and U.S. Notes
in the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/money_characteristics.shtml

> American People now need to inundate local banks
> with requests to exchange FRNs for U.S. Notes!!

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY:

The American People now need to begin inundating
their local banks with written and verbal requests
to exchange FRNs for United States Notes.

The United States cannot agree to a global currency,
now that it has declared insolvency, with particular
emphasis on the "United States obligations" known
as Federal Reserve Notes:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/411.html
("said notes shall be obligations of the United States")

That bankruptcy must now proceed to conclusion,
pursuant to Law; and, the United States has already
stated its policy to exchange FRNs for U.S. Notes --
as an interim measure -- until sufficient gold and silver
("specie") backing can be acquired and archived
by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in Washington, D.C.

Since Obama cannot exercise the Appointments Clause,
the United States ex rel. has taken the helm away from him,
and his cronies, as a matter of law.

The FRN will die, legally speaking, at midnight tonight.

After that, it's all downhill for the IRS and Federal Reserve Banks,
chiefly because of the AUTOMATIC STAY authorized by
Federal bankruptcy laws, 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/362.html

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

DISCLAIMER: Forwarding email from someone else
does not mean that I endorse any of its contents.

Don't pay the IRS, the US is Bankrupt

2009-04-06T00:38:00.000-05:00

UNITED STATES' DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

c/o Forwarding Agent

7115 N. Division St. #B-354

Spokane 99208

WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Fax: (509) 466-4999 (use cover sheet)

Without Prejudice

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

In re: Roland and Virginia Fox, ) Bankruptcy Case No. 07-00105-PCW7

)

Debtors, ) Adv. Proceeding No. 09-80003-PCW

)

Anthony E. Grabicki, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

Roland R. Fox et al., )

)

Defendants. )

----------------------------------)

)

United States ) DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY AS TO

ex relatione ) OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE TO THE

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS:

) 11 U.S.C. 362;

Interpleader. ) 12 U.S.C. 411 (obligations);

) 28 U.S.C. 1335, 1397, 2361;

) Bankruptcy Rule 7022; and,

__________________________________) FRCP Rules 20 and 22.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The United States ex rel. hereby notoriously interpleads in the above entitled case for the purpose of formally declaring insolvency as to obligations allegedly payable to the Federal Reserve Banks.

Said obligations have been tentatively identified to include all United States Government securities of which the Federal Reserve Banks are presently holders in due course, including but not limited to all evidence(s) of such alleged indebtedness presently in official records now in the legal custody of the Bureau of the Public Debt in the United States Department of the Treasury in Washington, D.C. The Internet website of said Bureau of the Public Debt is here:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

In addition, it is the position of the United States ex rel. that said indebtedness should be identified to include all Federal Reserve Notes (“FRN”) currently in circulation anywhere on planet Earth, due to the fraudulent origins of all such FRNs: they are not “Federal”, there is no “Reserve”, and they are not Promissory “Notes” because the Federal Reserve Banks now refuse to redeem them in gold or silver.

To avoid confusion and unnecessary legalisms here and elsewhere during all future proceedings in the instant case, the United States intends to simplify the stated objectives of this DECLARATION.

To that end, the United States desires to achieve the requisite reorganization by instituting a well publicized public program for exchanging all FRNs one-for-one with United States Notes duly issued by the United States Department of the Treasury. That exchange is to occur at qualified banks and other qualified financial institutions without the need to produce any personal identification, and without the need to complete Cash Transaction Reports (“CTR”) of any kind.

FRNs in possession of the public at large will be treated in a manner similar to bearer bonds: if an individual is in possession of one or more FRNs, the qualified banks and other financial institutions will be permitted to presume that said individual(s) have an absolute right to those possessions. This policy is expected to accelerate the recall and ultimate destruction of all FRNs, no exceptions.

AUTOMATIC STAY: 11 U.S.C. 362

It is also the intent of the United States for this DECLARATION to effect the automatic stay authorized by pertinent statutes in the bankruptcy laws of the United States, as authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. See Title 11 of the United States Code, and its implementing Regulations, for governing details.

This automatic stay is intended to bar any and all Federal Reserve Banks henceforth from any and all further efforts to collect from the United States, or from the People at Large, either the principal or interest amounts previously owed by the United States to the Federal Reserve Banks.

This intent necessarily also bars the Internal Revenue Service from performing, or claiming any authority to perform, any further collections of income taxes allegedly imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. See IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

It is now a well established fact that Congress never enacted any Statute(s) at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. By comparison, Congress has enacted Statutes at Large creating specific liabilities for taxes imposed by subtitles B and C of the Internal Revenue Code. On this key point, see 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) and Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), quoting in pertinent part:

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit. United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447; Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134.

[bold emphasis added]

INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS

Interpleader now attaches true and correct copies of the following Exhibits and incorporates same by reference, as if set forth fully herein, to wit:

Exhibit Description

------- ------------------------------------------------------------

A Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1289 (9^th Cir. 1982)

B NOTICE OF INTENT FORMALLY TO DECLARE INSOLVENCY AS TO

OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS (3/4/2009)

C “Return to Constitutional Money,” by Dr. Edwin J. Vieira, Jr.

transcript of lecture at Denver, Colorado (8/30/1991)

D 2 Am.Jur.2d, page 129 (1962), Administrative Law,

Section 301, Particular applications (cf. Footnote 2)

E Press Release: “U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Falls Silent

in Face of SUBPOENA for Tax Liability Statutes” (11/7/2002):

1. SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE (PAST DUE and now IN DEFAULT)

2. Directions for Delivery of Documents required by SUBPOENA

3. U.S. Postal Service Registered Mail Receipts (2x)

4. PROOF OF SERVICE of SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE (9/14/2002)

5. PS Form 3811, Domestic Return Receipt (green card)

6. Courtesy Reminder to Hon. Paul H. O’Neill (10/15/2002)

F NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (2x IN DEFAULT)

To: Frank L. Kurtz, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Spokane, Wash.

G NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (2x IN DEFAULT)

To: John A. Rossmeissl, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Spokane

H NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (2x IN DEFAULT)

To: Patricia C. Williams, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Spokane

I NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (1x IN DEFAULT)

To: Anthony E. Grabicki dba Chapter 7 Trustee, Spokane

J NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (2x IN DEFAULT)

To: Robert D. Miller dba Assistant U.S. Trustee, Spokane

K “Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down,” by Edwin J. Vieira,

Jr., at NewsWithViews.com (October 29, 2008)

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: March 31, 2009 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

______________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General

PROOF OF SERVICE

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 will personally serve the following document(s):

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY AS TO

OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS:

11 U.S.C. 362; 12 U.S.C. 411 (obligations);

28 U.S.C. 1335, 1397, 2361;

Bankruptcy Rule 7022; and, FRCP Rules 20 and 22

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 (3x) Office of the Speaker

U.S. Bankruptcy Court U.S. House of Representatives

P.O. Box 2164 Washington 20515

Spokane 99210-2164 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Mr. and Mrs. Roland R. Fox Office of the President

c/o Forwarding Agent United States Senate

7115 N. Division St. #B-354 Washington 20510

Spokane 99208 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Mr. Anthony E. Grabicki Mr. Robert D. Miller

dba Chapter 7 Trustee dba Assistant U.S. Trustee

601 West Riverside #1500 920 West Riverside #593

Spokane 99201 Spokane 99201

WASHINGTON STATE, USA WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Secretary of the Treasury Clerk of Court

U.S. Department of the Treasury Supreme Court of the United States

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One First Street, N.E.

Washington 20220 Washington 20543-0001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Federal Reserve Bank, Boston Federal Reserve Bank, New York

P.O. Box 55882 33 Liberty Street

Boston 02205 New York City 10045

MASSACHUSETTS, USA NEW YORK STATE, USA

Federal Reserve Bank, Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, Cleveland

Ten Independence Mall P.O. Box 6387

Philadelphia 19106-1574 Cleveland 44101-1387

PENNSYLVANIA, USA OHIO, USA

Federal Reserve Bank, Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta

P.O. Box 27622 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Richmond 23261 Atlanta 30309-4470

VIRGINIA, USA GEORGIA, USA

Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago Federal Reserve Bank, St. Louis

230 South LaSalle St. P.O. Box 442

Chicago 60604 St. Louis 63166-0442

ILLINOIS, USA MISSOURI, USA

Federal Reserve Bank, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, Kansas City

90 Hennepin Avenue 1 Memorial Drive

Minneapolis 55401 Kansas City 64198-0001

MINNESOTA, USA MISSOURI, USA

Federal Reserve Bank, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, San Francisco

2200 N. Pearl St. 101 Market Street

Dallas 75201 San Francisco 94105

TEXAS, USA CALIFORNIA, USA

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington 20551

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Dated: March 31, 2009 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

______________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General

2009-04-06T00:30:00.001-05:00


A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
	•	The Open Acoustics Journal
	•	The Open Addiction Journal
	•	The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Agriculture Journal
	•	The Open AIDS Journal
	•	The Open Allergy Journal
	•	The Open Analytical Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Anatomy Journal
	•	The Open Andrology Journal
	•	The Open Anesthesiology Journal
	•	The Open Anthropology Journal
	•	The Open Antimicrobial Agents Journal
	•	The Open Applied Informatics Journal
	•	The Open Applied Linguistics Journal
	•	The Open Applied Mathematics Journal
	•	The Open Applied Physics Journal
	•	The Open Area Studies Journal
	•	The Open Arthritis Journal
	•	The Open Artificial Intelligence Journal
	•	The Open Astronomy Journal
	•	The Open Atherosclerosis & Thrombosis Journal
	•	The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
	•	The Open Autoimmunity Journal
	•	The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal
	•	The Open Behavioral Science Journal
	•	The Open Bioactive Compounds Journal
	•	The Open Biochemistry Journal
	•	The Open Bioinformatics Journal
	•	The Open Biology Journal
	•	The Open Biomarkers Journal
	•	The Open Biomaterials Journal
	•	The Open Biomedical Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Biotechnology Journal
	•	The Open Bone Journal
	•	The Open Breast Cancer Journal
	•	The Open Business Journal
	•	The Open Cancer Journal
	•	The Open Cancer Immunology Journal
	•	The Open Cardiovascular Imaging Journal
	•	The Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery Journal
	•	The Open Catalysis Journal
	•	The Open Cell Developmental & Biology Journal
	•	The Open Cell Signaling Journal
	•	The Open Ceramic Science Journal
	•	The Open Chemical and Biomedical Methods Journal
	•	The Open Chemical Engineering Journal
	•	Current Chemical Genomics
	•	The Open Chemical Physics Journal
	•	The Open Circulation & Vascular Journal
	•	The Open Civil Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Clinical Cancer Journal
	•	The Open Clinical Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Clinical Trials Journal
	•	The Open Colloid Science Journal
	•	The Open Colorectal Cancer Journal
	•	The Open Communication Journal
	•	The Open Complementary Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Condensed Matter Physics Journal
	•	The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal
	•	The Open Conservation Biology Journal
	•	Recent Patents on Corrosion Science
	•	The Open Corrosion Journal
	•	The Open Critical Care Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Crystallography Journal
	•	The Open Criminology Journal
	•	The Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal
	•	The Open Demography Journal
	•	The Open Dentistry Journal
	•	The Open Dermatology Journal
	•	The Open Diabetes Journal
	•	The Open Drug Delivery Journal
	•	The Open Drug Discovery Journal
	•	The Open Drug Metabolism Journal
	•	The Open Drug Resistance Journal
	•	The Open Drug Safety Journal
	•	The Open Ecology Journal
	•	The Open Economics Journal
	•	The Open Education Journal
	•	The Open Electrical & Electronic Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Electrochemistry Journal
	•	Journal of Epithelial Biology & Pharmacology
	•	The Open Emergency Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Endocrinology Journal
	•	The Open Entomology Journal
	•	The Open Environmental & Biological Monitoring Journal
	•	The Open Environmental Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Environmental Pollution & Toxicology Journal
	•	Open Environmental Sciences
	•	The Open Enzyme Inhibition Journal
	•	The Ergonomics Open Journal
	•	The Open Epidemiology Journal
	•	The Open Ethics Journal
	•	The Open Evolution Journal
	•	The Open Family Studies Journal
	•	The Open Fish Science Journal
	•	The Open Forensic Science Journal
	•	The Open Forest Science Journal
	•	The Open Food Science Journal
	•	The Open Fuel Cells Journal
	•	The Open Fuels & Energy Science Journal
	•	The Open Gastroenterology Journal
	•	The Open General & Internal Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Gene Therapy Journal
	•	The Open Genomics Journal
	•	The Open Geography Journal
	•	The Open Geology Journal
	•	The Open Geriatric Medicine Journal
	•	Open Glycoscience
	•	The Open Health Services and Policy Journal
	•	Open Heart Failure Journal
	•	The Open Hematology Journal
	•	The Open Hepatology Journal
	•	The Open Horticulture Journal
	•	The Open Hydrology Journal
	•	The Open Hypertension Journal
	•	The Open Immunology Journal
	•	The Open Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Infectious Diseases Journal
	•	The Open Inflammation Journal
	•	The Open Information Systems Journal
	•	The Open Information Science Journal
	•	The Open Inorganic Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Law Journal
	•	The Open Leukemia Journal
	•	Open Longevity Science
	•	The Open Lung Cancer Journal
	•	The Open Macromolecules Journal
	•	The Open Magnetic Resonance Journal
	•	The Open Management Journal
	•	The Open Marine Biology Journal
	•	The Open Materials Science Journal
	•	The Open Mathematics Journal
	•	The Open Mechanical Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Mechanics Journal
	•	The Open Medical Devices Journal
	•	The Open Medical Education Journal
	•	The Open Medical Informatics Journal
	•	The Open Medicinal Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Medical Imaging Journal
	•	The Open Microbiology Journal
	•	The Open Mineral Processing Journal
	•	The Open Mineralogy Journal
	•	The Open Mycology Journal
	•	The Open Nanomedicine Journal
	•	The Open Nanoscience Journal
	•	The Open Natural Products Journal
	•	The Open Neurology Journal
	•	The Open Neuroendocrinology Journal
	•	The Open Neuroimaging Journal
	•	The Open Neuropsychopharmacology Journal
	•	The Open Neuroscience Journal
	•	The Open Neurosurgery Journal
	•	The Open Nitric Oxide Journal
	•	The Open Nuclear Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Nuclear & Particle Physics Journal
	•	The Open Numerical Methods Journal
	•	The Open Nursing Journal
	•	The Open Nutraceuticals Journal
	•	The Open Nutrition Journal
	•	The Open Obesity Journal
	•	The Open Occupational Health & Safety Journal
	•	The Open Ocean Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Oceanography Journal
	•	The Open Operational Research Journal
	•	The Open Ophthalmology Journal
	•	The Open Optics Journal
	•	The Open Organic Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Ornithology Journal
	•	The Open Orthopaedics Journal
	•	The Open Otorhinolaryngology Journal
	•	The Open Pacing, Electrophysiology & Therapy Journal
	•	The Open Pain Journal
	•	The Open Paleontology Journal
	•	The Open Parasitology Journal
	•	The Open Pathology Journal
	•	The Open Pediatric Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Pharmacology Journal
	•	The Open Pharmacoeconomics & Health Economics Journal
	•	The Open Physiology Journal
	•	The Open Physical Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Plant Science Journal
	•	The Open Plasma Physics Journal
	•	The Open Political Science Journal
	•	The Open Process Chemistry Journal
	•	The Open Proteomics Journal
	•	The Open Prostate Cancer Journal
	•	The Open Psychiatry Journal
	•	The Open Psychology Journal
	•	The Open Public Health Journal
	•	Open Reconstructive and Cosmetic Surgery
	•	The Open Rehabilitation Journal
	•	The Open Remote Sensing Journal
	•	The Open Renewable Energy Journal
	•	The Open Reproductive Science Journal
	•	The Open Respiratory Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Rheumatology Journal
	•	The Open Signal Processing Journal
	•	The Open Sleep Journal
	•	The Open Social Science Journal
	•	The Open Sociology Journal
	•	The Open Software Engineering Journal
	•	The Open Spectroscopy Journal
	•	The Open Spine Journal
	•	The Open Sports Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Sports Sciences Journal
	•	The Open Statistics & Probability Journal
	•	The Open Stem Cell Journal
	•	The Open Structural Biology Journal
	•	The Open Superconductors Journal
	•	The Open Surface Science Journal
	•	The Open Surgery Journal
	•	The Open Surgical Oncology Journal
	•	The Open Systems Biology Journal
	•	The Open Textile Journal
	•	The Open Thermodynamics Journal
	•	The Open Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Toxicology Journal
	•	The Open Toxinology Journal
	•	The Open Translational Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Transportation Journal
	•	The Open Tropical Medicine Journal
	•	The Open Transplantation Journal
	•	The Open Urban Studies Journal
	•	The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal
	•	The Open Vaccine Journal
	•	Vascular Disease Prevention
	•	The Open Veterinary Science Journal
	•	The Open Virology Journal
	•	The Open Virtual Reality Journal
	•	The Open Waste Management Journal
	•	The Open Women's Health Journal
	•	The Open Zoology Journal

Supreme Law Library Still Valid

2009-01-08T02:19:00.001-06:00

Past ALERT's (America, Law, Education, Rights & Taxation) were formerly archived at http://www.givemeliberty.org and sorted by date. However, this website is no longer active.

The following ALERT covers the 100% voluntary nature of social security and tax withholding as pertains to the Citizen living and working within the (now) 50 States of the Union.

===========================================================

SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX WITHHOLDING ARE VOLUNTARY

WITHIN THE 50 STATES

===========================================================

The Social Security Act, which is part of Title 42 of the United States Code, was enacted in 1935 as a U.S. government‑sponsored, voluntary pension program for the benefit of individuals who wished to VOLUNTARILY participate in the program. The Act is administered by the Social Security Administration which handles the administration and payment of benefits under the provisions of the law.

The tax upon which the old age benefits is based is collected by the Internal Revenue Service under the provisions of Title 26 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).

Monies collected by the IRS are not sent to the Social Security Administration to fund their administrative and disbursement activities, but rather end up in the general fund along with other taxes collected. An accounting "gimmick" is created to lead the public to believe that the monies paid in are held in a "trust fund".

There is no provision in the United States Constitution for the federal government to be in the insurance business. Although it may be technically correct that a so-called "trust fund" exists, the truth is that it contains no monies or other assets, only governmental IOU's promising to pay money to itself.

Social Security is NOT a contract as some allege, but a political promise upon which Congress could renege at any time. Monies disbursed by SSA must be appropriated by Congress each year as needed. Since no contractual obligation exists for the payment of any benefits, technically the benefits could be terminated at any time, if Congress did not appropriate the funds.

This ALERT deals primarily with those statutes relative to the imposition and collection of the tax. References to Code sections are those found within Title 26 of the United States Code, which is a codification of the Statutes at Large as enacted by the Congress of the United States. All Code sections shown herein are copied directly from Title 26, United States Code, precisely as printed therein.

All Internal Revenue taxes, including the personal and corporate income taxes, self-employment taxes, as well as the so‑called Social Security tax, are imposed and collected under Title 26, United States Code, also known as the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).

The Social Security tax is imposed by the Code sections in chapter 21, subtitle C of the IRC titled: "FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT" or “FICA”.

Before examining the actual wording contained in these sections, it is important to understand that courts have repeatedly held that a statute means only that which is stated in the statute and nothing more.

Southerland's Rules of Statutory Construction, an authoritative legal guidebook, under section 66.01 titled "Strict Construction of Statutes Creating Tax Liabilities" explains the limited application of tax laws. The guidebook refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, which states:

"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen."

So the Supreme Court tells us that IRC sections mean only that which is stated; nothing else can be added to that which is stated in the Code section.

With this Supreme Court ruling in mind, let’s look at the wording of sections 3101(a) and 3111(a) which are imposition statutes for the (so-called Social Security) FICA tax -- section 3101(a) applying to employEES and 3111(a) to employers, respectively.

(CAPITALIZATION for emphasis is added to certain phrases, Code sections and court decisions in this article.)

Sec. 3101. Rate of Tax.

(a) Old-Age, survivors, and disability Insurance. In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) --

Sec. 3111. Rate of Tax.

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance. In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined In section 3121(b)) --

The popular mistaken belief is that the FICA tax, which is imposed on the income of "employees" under section 3101(a), is a "wage" tax. However, a reading of section 3101(a) shows clearly that the tax is not, in fact, a WAGE tax but rather is imposed on "income" which is MEASURED by "wages". Hence, the FICA tax is simply another INCOME tax.

However what is of vital importance in both these sections is the limited application of the terms "wages" (as defined in section 3121(a)) and "employment" (as defined in section 3121(b)). The definitions of these terms create a TERRITORIAL limitation on the application of the tax as we will see.

Section 3121 states:

Sec. 3121. Definitions.

(a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration for EMPLOYMENT, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include -–

Note that the term "wages" identifies monies paid for the activity identified by the term "employment" which is defined in section 3121(b), the essential part of which is reproduced as follows:

Sec. 3121 (b). Employment.

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an EMPLOYEE for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either,

(I) WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, or

(II) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into WITHIN THE UNITED STATES or during the performance of which and while the employee Is employed on the vessel or aircraft It touches at a port in THE UNITED STATES ....

As shown, the term "employment" means a service performed by one identified by the term "employee" within the "United States ...". United States is also a term used in this chapter as defined in section 3121(e)(2):

Sec. 3121(e)(2).

For purposes of this chapter --

(2) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

The definition of the term "United States" lists those areas in which the activity described by the term "employment" takes place. The definition lists ONLY the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa as the areas in which the tax imposed by this chapter applies. Before examining the provisions of this law, it is essential to understand the use of words as “terms” when used in laws.

When words are used as legal terms in order to establish their clear and unambiguous meanings, precise definitions of those terms are always included in the law. These definitions explain the exact meanings of terms used in the IRC. As quoted earlier in this article, the Supreme Court in the decision of Gould v. Gould established that, in taxing statutes, definitions of terms used in the statutes cannot be expanded by implication. Nothing can be added to the definition of a term; it means only that which is stated, regardless of any belief to the contrary.

At first, it may be hard to believe that the definition of the term "United States" could be limited to mean ONLY the four island possessions of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. But, that is exactly what this definition means because statutes mean ONLY that which is stated, nothing more, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Gould v. Gould, already discussed. Also, there are other decisions where the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the principle of the limited meaning of statues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained two such decisions as follows:

"We begin our interpretation by reading the statutes and regulations for their plain meaning. The plain meaning rule has its origin in U.S. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 278 U.S. 269 (1929). There the Supreme Court stated that "where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the WORDS EMPLOYED ARE TO BE TAKEN AS THE FINAL EXPRESSION OF THE MEANING INTENDED." ... The principle was more recently affirmed in Dickinson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103,103 S.C. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), rehearing denied, 461 U.S. 911,103 S.C. 1887,76 L.Ed.2d 815 (1983), where the Court stated, "In determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language. If the language is unambiguous ... IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEARLY EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THE CONTRARY." United States v. Varlet, 780 F.2d 758 on P.761 (9th Cir. 1986)

Also, Code section 3121(e)(2) uses the term "includes" which, in law, is a word of CONFINEMENT and not EXPANSION. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in the decision of Montello Salt v. Utah, 221 U.S. at page 455, wherein they stated:

"'Include' or the participial form thereof, is defined 'to comprise within'; 'to hold'; 'to contain'; 'to shut up'; and synonyms are 'contain'; 'enclose'; 'comprise'; comprehend'; 'embrace'; 'involve"'.

This U.S. Supreme Court decision, and others in support of its ruling that "includes" is a word of limitation, also support the Court's decision in Gould v. Gould that there can be no broadening of the statute by implication. Legislative drafters in the Internal Revenue Service who write the tax bills know very well this "plain meaning rule" of statutory interpretation.

If the term "United States" could constitutionally include the 50 STATES OF THE UNION, they would have specifically included them. As an example of this, Code section 4612, which relates to a tax on crude oil, defines the term "United States" as: "the FIFTY STATES, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the trust territory of the Pacific Islands."

This shows that when the term "United States" means the fifty States of the Union, it says so. Consequently, it is very clear that the term "United States", when used to describe the areas where the "Social Security" tax applies, means, and IS LIMITED TO, the four island possessions which are the only areas listed in the term's definition. Therefore, according to the wording of the law itself, the FICA tax does not apply within the fifty States of the Union.

This makes sense when one understands the limitations of the direct taxing authority of the Federal government as contained in the Constitution under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, both of which prohibit any Federal direct tax within the States of the Union other than those laid on the 50 State governments in proportion to their respective populations.

The FICA tax is administered by the IRS as if it were a direct tax on individuals. To be constitutional, any direct tax on individuals must be imposed by law ONLY OUTSIDE the 50 States of the Union: i.e. only in the four listed island possessions despite the IRS' deception of the public into falsely believing the tax applies WITHIN the 50 States of the Union.

IRC section 7655 also supports the limited meaning of the term "United States" as respects both the self‑employment tax imposed in chapter 2 of the IRC, as well as the FICA tax imposed in chapter 21. Section 7655 states:

Sec. 7655. Cross references.

(a) Imposition of tax in possessions. For provisions imposing tax in POSSESSIONS, see --

(1) Chapter 2, relating to self‑employment tax;

(2) Chapter 21, relating to the tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Clearly this section also shows the application of both the self‑employment tax and the FICA tax imposed under chapters 2 and 21 to be limited to "possessions" (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and America Samoa, as listed in IRC section 3121(e)(2) defining the TERM "United States").

SECTION 1402(d) -- THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING

THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATIONS OF CHAPTER 24 –-

WITHHOLDING OF TAX

In the Code, there are many definitions that are limited in their applications by words such as "for purposes of this chapter", "for purposes of this sub-chapter" and "for purposes of this sub-part". In contrast, IRC section 1402 contains definitions of terms upon which there are NO SUCH LIMITATIONS upon their application, so the definitions therein apply THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE IRC. Section 1402(d) states as follows:

Sec. 1402(d). Employee and wages.

The term "employee" and the term "wages" shall have the same meaning as when USED in chapter 21 (sec. 3101 and following, relating to Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

Note the absence in this Code definition of any words of limitation such as "for purposes of this chapter" or "for purposes of this subchapter". This definition means, therefore, that WHENEVER AND WHEREVER the terms "employee" and "wages" are used ANYWHERE throughout the IRC, their applications are limited to those people involved in activities within the four island possessions ONLY, the same as in chapter 21, the FICA tax chapter.

The Internal Revenue Code chapter which relates to withholding is chapter 24, titled "COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE". It is extremely important to note that this chapter contains NO section imposing any tax. Rather, the entire chapter is written to establish and authorize provisions for withholding of tax merely as a method for the payment of taxes which may be imposed in OTHER sections of the IRC.

Whenever a tax is imposed, there is always a section containing words such as "there is hereby imposed a tax ...." But, in chapter 24, no such wording exists in any section; so clearly the entire chapter merely sets forth the PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING TAXES IMPOSED ELSEWHERE in the IRC by the withholding methods described in the Code sections of the chapter. Provisions of this withholding chapter are applicable only to "employees" as defined in Code sections 1402(d) shown above, and 3401(c) reproduced here:

Sec. 3401(c). Employee.

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

It is revealing that this definition INCLUDES the term "State" which is defined in Code section 7701(a)(10) as the District of Columbia (ONLY). Remember that "includes," as a word used in laws, is a word of CONFINEMENT, not of ENLARGEMENT according to the Supreme Court in Montello Salt v. Utah, as discussed earlier. Hence this definition limits the application of the term "employee" to those working for the Federal government, for the District of Columbia, for U.S. possessions, and officers of a government owned corporation.

Section 3401(d) identifies the "employer" as one for whom the "employee" works. This means that the meaning of the term "employer" is limited to those entities listed in section 3401(c) -- the U.S. government, District of Columbia, etc. The term does NOT apply to any non‑government employer or business. On the basis of these definitions alone, most of the nation's population is not subject to the withholding provisions in this chapter.

In addition to those limitations on the application of the term "employee" shown above, section 1402(d) LIMITS the application of the term "employee" and the term "wages" to activities within the four island possessions ONLY. Therefore, the withholding provisions of chapter 24 can apply only to those working for the Federal government or the District of Columbia, etc., within these four island possessions -- not within the fifty States of the Union.

IRC section 3402(a)(1) contains tricky wording which could readily lead businesses and individuals into erroneously believing that they are required to deduct and withhold taxes from the pay of those they hire. It is worded as follows:

Section 3402. Income tax collected at source.

(a) Requirement of withholding.

(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall -- ....

Note that this section 3402(a)(1) says that the "employer" (Federal government, District of Columbia, etc.) shall deduct and withhold from "wages" a tax determined in accordance with the Secretary's tables and computational procedures. We previously showed that the meaning of the term "wages" is limited by section 1402(d) to payments for activities occurring within the four island possessions ONLY, the same as provided in chapter 21 imposing the so-called Social Security (FICA) tax. These "tables and procedures" are authorized to be provided by the Secretary under section 3402(p)(3):

Sec. 3402(p)(3). Authority for other voluntary withholding.

The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding --

(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

(B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter, IF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, OR THE PERSON MAKING AND THE PERSON RECEIVING SUCH OTHER TYPE OF PAYMENT AGREE TO SUCH WITHHOLDING. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated AS IF THEY WERE WAGES PAID BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is In effect.

Note that the Secretary is authorized to provide for withholding by issuing tables, computational procedures and other instructional material on withholding that apply ONLY to those who have VOLUNTARILY AGREED to withholding. An agreement exists only when an individual who is hired voluntarily REQUESTS that money be deducted and withheld from his pay for payment of taxes and the one for whom he works completes the agreement by his VOLUNTARY act of collecting money as an unpaid tax collector for the government.

Despite the general mistaken belief that the deduction and withholding of money for taxes is required by law, a simple reading of this Code section shows that such is not the case. Mandatory withholding would conflict with two key provisions in the U.S. Constitution: the Fifth Amendment right to due process states that no person shall be deprived of property (having his pay withheld) without due process of law (a ruling by a court) and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude, such as being forced to be an unpaid worker (slavery) or an unpaid Federal tax collector.

The use of the words "the person making" and "the person receiving such other type of payment" relates to non‑federal employers and employees who voluntarily "agree to such withholding". Federal regulation number 31.3402(p)(1) states:

Sub-Section 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. (T.D. 7096, filed 3-17-71; amended by TD 7577, filed 12‑19‑78).

(a) In general. An employee and his employer MAY enter into an AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) to provide for the withholding OF INCOME TAX upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sub-Section 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement MAY be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder.

(b) Form and duration of agreement.

(1)

(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, AN EMPLOYEE WHO DESIRES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) SHALL FURNISH to his employer Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING.

(ii) in the case of AN EMPLOYEE WHO DESIRES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the AGREEMENT the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or IF the employee wishes to specify that the AGREEMENT terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a REQUEST for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain --

(a) The name, address, and social security number of the employee making the REQUEST,

(b) The name and address of the employer,

(c) A statement that the employee DESIRES WITHHOLDING of Federal income tax, and, if applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of Sub-Section 301.6361-! of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration)), and

(d) If the employee desires that the AGREEMENT terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the AGREEMENT. If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the REQUEST shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee's Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer A REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer.

(iii) No REQUEST for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an AGREEMENT between an employer and employee UNTIL THE EMPLOYER ACCEPTS THE REQUEST BY COMMENCING TO WITHHOLD from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

Note the wording in sub-sections (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this regulation: "... an employee who desires to enter into an agreement" and "REQUEST for withholding", "DESIRES withholding" and "mutually agree upon", all of which clearly and unambiguously show the VOLUNTARY nature of the entire withholding system. The significance of a Form W-4 "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" is clearly explained in this regulation which states:

"The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING ...."

The printed heading on the Form W-4 confirms the voluntary nature of withholding; it states "Employee's Withholding ALLOWANCE Certificate". If withholding were mandatory, why would the form be called an "Allowance" Certificate? To "allow" means to “permit”; if the law REQUIRED the withholding of tax from your pay, no PERMISSION or request form would be needed! To have a non‑deceptive, clear‑meaning heading, the words could be rearranged to "Employee's Certificate ALLOWING Withholding".

Regulation Section 31.3402(p)(2). states:

Sec. 3402(p)(2). An AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE upon. However, EITHER THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT PRIOR TO THE END OF SUCH PERIOD BY FURNISHING A SIGNED WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. Unless the employer and employee AGREE to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the AGREEMENT is in effect which is made on or after the first "status determination date" (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.

This regulation states that the AGREEMENT "shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE UPON", and that either the employer or the employee "MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other." Therefore, it is obvious that the withholding must be REQUESTED by the employee, must be AGREED TO by the employer, and MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. The regulations merely state that the notice terminating withholding must be a signed, written notice -- no particular form is ever required!

HOW NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS
ARE DECEIVED AND INTIMIDATED

Because employers have possession and control over their employees' earnings before the money is paid over to the employees, the key to the operation of the withholding scam is the deception and intimidation of the employers to withhold money from their employees' pay even if their employees object to the withholding.

Most employers, as well as their accountants and attorneys, have never studied the IRC carefully enough to understand its complexity. They are not aware of the geographical and other limitations in the Social Security (FICA) tax, and upon the withholding provisions in chapter 24 of the IRC. They do not understand (as explained earlier in this article) that the FICA tax and the withholding provisions apply only within Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa; that under chapter 24, withholding is not mandatory for either the employer or the employee, and that the withholding provisions apply ONLY to cases where BOTH the employer and the employee voluntarily agree to the withholding.

If a non‑government employer considers NOT withholding when his employees demand their full pay and consults his accountant, tax lawyer or the IRS about the matter, his attention is usually called to IRC section 3403. This section is a psychological bombshell designed to intimidate the non-government employer into ignoring and defying any employee's refusal to agree to withholding. IRC section 3403 states:

Sec. 3403. Liability for tax.

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AND WITHHELD UNDER THIS CHAPTER, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

This section usually erroneously convinces non‑government employers that they are personally liable to pay to the IRS the amount the withholding tables specify EVEN IF THEY DO NOT WITHHOLD THE MONEY FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES PAY.

Non-government employers rarely understand that the term "employer" used in this section does not apply to them because the term "employer" as defined in the withholding provisions, means ONLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATED AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES (listed in section 3401(c) quoted earlier in this article).

Even then, withholding applies ONLY within the four island possessions and then only when there is a VOLUNTARY MUTUAL AGREEMENT for withholding requested by the "employee" and agreed to by the "employer". Because of these facts, there is no way a non‑government employer within the 50 states can be required to withhold tax under chapter 24. He cannot be "LIABLE" for payment of the tax unless he voluntarily acts as an unpaid tax collector for the government.

SUMMARY

The provisions of the Constitution cited heretofore, under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, prohibit any Federal direct tax on the people or their property within the States of the Union. If it were constitutionally lawful for the Federal government to impose upon us a direct tax on our wages in the fifty States of the Union without being in conflict with these constitutional limitations, why would all the above cited sections clearly show the VOLUNTARY nature of all withholding?

Why, in fact, would the Federal government not have a clear and unambiguous single section in the IRC which would simply say that all of us who work for a living in this country are required to give Big Brother whatever portion of our earnings it decides to take? If such a law were constitutional, it would surely be included in the IRC. Why all the convoluted, complicated provisions showing geographical and other limitations and voluntary "requests" for withholding?

The answer is clear: No such simple taxing statute is possible, because it is constitutionally prohibited to lay a Federal direct tax on the fruits of our labor inside the fifty States of the Union. All the provisions of the IRC and the implementing regulations are strictly limited in order to be in conformity with these constitutional limitations.

As shown herein, the FICA tax imposed on workers under the provisions of section 3101 is a territorial income tax which applies ONLY in the four island possessions. The regulations implementing the withholding provisions in the IRC clearly show that all withholding is voluntary for all individuals ‑‑ both government employees, (under 3402(p)(l)(A)) and non‑government workers (under 3402(p)(3)). In order to institute withholding, a voluntary REQUEST must be made by the employee and ACCEPTANCE must be made by the employer.

After studying these Code sections carefully, and understanding that they say what they mean and mean what they say, the complexity of the Code becomes much easier to unravel. Terms such as "United States", as defined in section 3121(e)(2), show the restricted meaning of "United States" in chapter 21 to mean the four island possessions only.

A student of the Code will find that FIVE other definitions of the term "United States" therein: Sections 638(1), 927(d)(3), 3306(j)(2), 4612(a)(4) and 7701(a)(9), also define the term "United States" for RESTRICTED USE in various parts of the IRC.

Each definition is different, in one or more ways, from the others as to the geographical boundaries included in the meaning of the term. But, as discussed previously, when a particular Code section intends to include "the fifty States" in its definition, it says so -- as in section 4612(a)(4). But, the term "United States" as defined in section 3121(e)(2) limits this FICA tax to the four island possessions.

Because of the dispersed placement of Code sections defining COMMON, EVERYDAY WORDS THAT ARE USED AS LEGAL TERMS in the IRC, most people who read the Code without thorough study are unaware of the unique Code definitions of these terms. These definitions limit the applications of the tax laws so that they do not conflict with the Fifth or Thirteenth Amendments, or with the constitutional prohibition against unapportioned direct taxes inside the fifty States of the Union.

The highly paid and well-trained attorneys who write the tax bills which are given to Congress for enactment are not dummies; they know very well the necessity of drafting these statutes in conformity with these Constitutional limitations forbidding direct taxation of the people within the fifty States.

But, through careful framing of statutes and the use of confusing and misleading words, terms and definitions, they make the IRC almost impossible to understand without deep study. Such actions perpetuate the intentionally created and false popular belief that the Federal government has the constitutional authority to tax us directly in these 50 united States.

But once these Code sections are carefully analyzed, one is reminded of the old adage: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!"

INFORM AMERICANS of their rights! Show this to your friends! Copy this article and distribute it.

# # #

2008-12-17T18:49:00.003-06:00

Home Categories:

Minnesota & Local Law

Minnesota & Local Government

Federal Law

Federal Government

Other U.S. States & Jurisdictions

Legal Reference

Legal History

Legal Education & Careers

Legal Topics & Problems

Services & Products for Lawyers

Pro Bono & Pro Se

Spanish Language Legal Resources

2008-12-17T18:49:00.001-06:00

Federal Law Find the law itself from the federal government bodies that create and publish it. The topics under this general heading are organized as wyou ould expect to find the sources of law presented in a law library. The Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, court cases, court rules, administrative decisions, etc. Supplement these "primary" law sources with everything else in our collection. Note: Our subscriber edition has more extensive topics and tens of thousands of additional resources compared to our public edition.
Sub-Categories:
U.S. Constitution U.S. Code Public Laws United States Statutes at Large Code of Federal Regulations Federal Register U.S. Supreme Court Decisions U.S. Court of Appeals Decisions (all circuits) Federal Court Rules Federal District Court Decisions Federal Bankruptcy Court Decisions

Resources in this category:
LawMoose Federal Law QuickLookUp This page makes your federal legal research more convenient than ever by concentrating the forms and links you need to dig out U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Federal Court of Appeals Cases, U.S. Code, U.S. Tax Court Opinions, and Code of Federal Regulations sections. A LawMoose exclusive! See also: Minnesota & Local Law Federal Government Forms & Documents Legal Reference Legal Topics & Problems Similar resources in our Wisconsin Legal Reference Library

2008-12-17T18:34:00.001-06:00

Minnesota Pro Bono Resource Center
Sub-Categories:
Legal Ethics and Pro Bono

Resources in this category:
3M and Smrls Relationship (CorporateProBono.org) Describes a joint venture between 3M and Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) to provide pro bono services, raise funds for legal services, and promote law firm and other corporate support. Contact a Low Income Taxpayer Clinic in Minnesota (U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service) "If you are a low income taxpayer who cannot afford professional tax assistance during audits of your federal income tax return, you may qualify for help from Low Income Taxpayer Clinics or other organizations that provide free assistance in tax disputes." Minnesota Legal Articles About Pro Bono Articles drawn from the Minnesota Legal Periodical Index. The articles this link retrieves span the period 1993 - present. If you want articles in the 1984-1992 time period, please use the Minnesota Legal Periodical Index Articles Finder and specify any earlier time period you wish or use other limiting selection criteria, such as periodical or author name. Minnesota Multi-Profession Business Law Clinic Volunteer Form (University of Minnesota Law School, Kommerstad Center for Business Law and Entrepreneurship) The Clinic is seeking alumni who practice in transactional business law as volunteers to supervise law students in the clinic. According to "Business Law Clinic Forges New Path", an article appearing in the University of Minnesota Law School's Law Alumni News, Fall 2003, the goal of the Minnesota Multi-Profession Business Law Clinic is to provide transactional legal services to minority-owned businesses. Faegre & Benson has provided attorneys to supervise students and Lurie Beisikof Lapidus & Company provided supervising accountants. Clients come by referral from the Metropolitan Economic Development Association, a nonprofit assisting minority businesses. Minnesota Organizations Offering Pro Bono Services to Clients (William Mitchell College of Law) Pro Bono: It's Good and It's Good for You! (Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility) Article by Patrick R. Burns that originally appeared in Minnesota Lawyer, April 19, 1999: "Lawyers have a virtual monopoly on access to the legal system. Because of this, it has long been believed that there is a corresponding obligation of the profession to help the disadvantaged in need of legal services. ... " ProJusticeMN.org (Pro Bono Net. Inc.) "Minnesota's online poverty law resource for anyone advising low-income or disadvantaged clients." "Legal materials for attorneys serving low-income clients, including legal services and pro bono attorneys. Materials include pleadings, practice aids, links to statutes, etc., organized by topics common to low-income clients (such as housing, family law, SSI, etc.)." " University of Minnesota Law School Housing Clinic Supervised law students represent tenants "facing eviction, housing repair problems, privacy violations, utility shutoff and lockouts in Hennepin County Housing Court." "The Clinic does not do its own intake. The Clinic takes its cases on referral from the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis." Volunteer Lawyers Network Legal Advice Clinic Resource Handbook (Volunteer Lawyers Network) It was a mere 34 pages in 2005. This version is 93 pages. Working Effectively with Pro Bono Clients (Bench & Bar of Minnesota) "All lawyers must strive to understand their client, communicate clearly and effectively, and help their client succeed in the legal system. Pro bono lawyers representing people in chronic poverty often will find that the concrete steps to achieving these goals play out in unfamiliar ways." Collected tips from Minnesota lawyers on cultural and communications issues and explaining the legal system. Corporate Pro Bono "Best Practices" Resources (CorporateProBono.org) Handbook on American Law School Pro Bono Programs (Association of American Law Schools) 180 pages. Help Close the Justice Gap, Unleash the Power of Pro Bono (Legal Services Corporation) 5 pages. Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service) "Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs) represent low income taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service in audit, appeals, and collection issues, and federal tax litigation for free or for a nominal charge." A list of such clinics is available in Publication 4134 National Pro Bono Opportunities Guide (American Bar Association) See also: Minnesota Legal Aid & Pro Bono Lawyers Minnesota State Court Forms Business and Non-Profit Corporations Forms & Documents Consumer Complaint Forms & Documents Consumer Law Family Law Forms & Documents Government Benefits Forms Immigration Forms & Documents Insurance Forms & Documents Poverty Law Similar resources in our Wisconsin Legal Reference Library