ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

The Court received the attached documents from Defendant Tracy Linwood. Defendant is directed not to send documents to the Court. All documents submitted to the Court must be filed and served on all parties. Defendant did file one of the two documents. Moreover, it is not clear why Defendant provided a copy of the attached documents to the Court. The Court will disregard the attached documents.

JURISDICTION

World Prayers Answered, World Headquarter, authorised through and by the Department of Commerce, at Salt Lake City, Utah, May 2, 2002, Registration Number: 5226908-01456, and by Apostle, at Salt Lake City, USA, through and by the International Treaty, the Convention de La Hage, du 5 Octobre 1961, into Ireland may 18, 2002, Certification Number: 46255, authorized under the First Amendment, First Amendment Establishment Clause, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceable to assemble (to worship), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance; and are further protected under the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution of America, and according to The Journal of History Summer 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS.

COMES NOW, this Defendant/Petitioner to that the Citizens' Truth-In-Taxation hearing at the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, February 27-28, 2002, it was determined that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") is a Trust and Headquartered in Puerto Rico, Territory and is not a Federal Agency.

Since it is not a federal agency it has no jurisdiction over Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America, only over the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and its territories of the United States.

SEE THE FOLLOWING:

According to the IRM 5600-33, Collection Field Techniques, Exhibit 5600-24, Manual

(1) Notice of Deficiency (90 days prior to assessment) 26 U.S.C. Section 6213 (a).

(2) Notice of Assessment (within 60 days after assessment) 26 U.S.C. Section 6303

(3) Notice of Intent to levy (at least 10 days prior to levy, plus a lawsuit if non-government holder of the asset) 26 U.S.C. Section 6331 (d)

26 U.S.C. Section 6331. Levy and Distraint

INSTRUCTION: 4.21 Challenge All Liens and Levies

www.famguardian.org/tax/freedom/instrictions/4.21challen....

Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988) — supreme Court of the United States ruling that the IRS must act with a judicial warrant of distraint that can only be issued and signed by a judge ... prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon...That's right the IRS is NOT authorised....

(4) Notice of Intent to garnish wages, 26 U.S.C. Section 6331 (d) (1), requires a lawsuit upon a private citizen, see federal court case Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., of Bay View (1969), 395 U.S. 337

(5) Notice of Seizure, 26 U.S.C. Section 6335 (a) and 26 U.S.C. Section 6502(h) and requires a lawsuit upon a private citizen; Goodwin v. United States, 935 U.S. 1061 and Arford, supra.

(6) Warrant of Distraint (any seizure from private party, especially if not signed personally by the district director) 26 U.S.C. Section 6213 (a)

NOTICE: there is not a District Director for the State of Nevada

(7) Proper address used. See Cyclone Drilling v. Kelly, 769 F.2d 662 and Mall v. Kelly, 564, FS 371, 373.,

(8) Notice of Sale, 26 U.S.C. Section 6335 (d) (mail, post in 3 places, and published)

(9) Notice of Redemption Rights, 26 U.S.C. Section 6337 (b)

(10) Response to Request for Record of Assessment, 26 U.S.C. section 6203 (Form 23C), Arford, supra.

(11) Response to Request for Record of Sale

Does the term "United States" have multiple legal meanings and, hat are they?

Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United States" is used in several senses. [1] Its name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignly of the United States extends, or [3] it is a collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

This is the very same definition that is found in Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.

The IRS is trust with domicile in Puerto Rico, which is a United States Territory and violates the Lahman Act and Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which shall be explained in the following.

In Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of "income" because that term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the ratification of the 16th amendment, which would have introduced the term "income" into the U.S. Constitution for the first time ....

In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanke, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined "income" to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporation privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.

What is municipal law, and are the IRC's income tax provisions municipal law...

The IRS and IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; it also known as Private International Law. Under governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. The American Legal Encyclopedia defines "municipal" to mean "internal", and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.

Additional evidence has been assembled and published in the book "The Federal Zone" to prove that the IRC's income tax provisions are municipal law.

One .... piece of evidence is a letter from Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of "State" at IRC section 3121 (e) is restrictive to the named territories and possessions of District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

The term "State" in that statute [IRC section 3121 (e)] and all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and the State of Nevada was never names as required under statue {IRC section 3121 (e).

What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes? The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitutions is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.

For instance, if (Nevada) is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States. Stickily speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was international by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows:

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things (that are not mentioned). This phrase can be found in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary: it is a maxim of statutory construction.

The many different definitions of the term "State" that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.

If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term "United States" to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612 (a) (4) (A).

In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Attorney at Law, Private Attorney General and Qualified Federal Witness states that, "More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire (IRS) Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, that situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely. .

Has Title 26 of the United States Code ("U.S.C.") ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law? No. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851 (a) (6) (A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of "this title".

Because the term "this title" is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context.

Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code — the laws which govern all the federal courts — the term "this title" clearly refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion that "this title", as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law.

Even though federal judges may know the secret meaning of "this title", they are men and women of Uncommon intelligence.

The U.S. Supreme Court's test for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute. See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).

Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect. ("F" is for en-Forcement) Subtitle F contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRS, e.g. Filing requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement, etc.

In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth, as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone.

What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?

This question must be addressed in view of the above. Although it may appear that certain statues in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statues found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this reason, those statues do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all, appearance can be very deceiving.

On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Court of the United States ("DCUS") to "prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.

It is important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States District Courts ("USDC"). The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The DCUS are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitutions, known as the Territory Clause, and the IRS is a Trust with domicile in Puerto Rico.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Private Attorney General, Qualified Federal Witness and Attorney at Law OPENING BRIEF of June 4, 2002, A.D. to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porte Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This author's OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., et al.

Defendant/Plaintiff states that the USDC, as such, lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The UDC, are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate. For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Court of Appeals have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. Further detrails on this point are availble in the Press Release entitled "Private Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code", dated November 26, 2001, A.D. by Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Private Attorney General, and Qualified Federal Witness, Case No.: SA CV 02-03282 GLT (ANx)

Defendant/Plaintiff as this question "Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay?" No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States — Article III constitutional courts — are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.

The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorised agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).

Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau of, or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principles of Separations of Powers. This principle keeps the three (3) branches of the Federal Government, confined to their respective areas, and prevent any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong to the other two (2) branches. The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933).

The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore, supra.

In Lord v. Kelly, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, the federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS.

[A]t the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—the highest Court in the land.

Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as "employees" as the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.

Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against tax protester and Title 26, U.S. C. Section 7212 (a) — Corrupted Interference with tax administration? No. Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against illegal tax protestors and Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7212 (a) — Corrupted Interference with tax administration.

The Journal of History Summer of 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Illegal Tax Protesting has never been illegal in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express our objections to any government actions. in written and in spoken words.

Stickily speaking, the term "illegal" cannot modify the non "protesters" because to do so would constitute a violation of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.

Accordingly, for the term "illegal tax protester" to survive this obvious constitutional challenge, the term "illegal" must modify the noun "tax". An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is protesting an illegal tax. Such an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.

Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial Code; the phrases "under protest" and "without prejudice" are sufficient to reserve all of one's fundamental Rights at law. See U.C.C. 1-207.

By the way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal law according to 77 Stat. 630, P. L. 88-243, December 30, 1963.

Does IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how is this routinely done? Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries, by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as lawful employees and "Special Agents" of the Federal Government, and by misrepresenting the provisions of Subtitle F as having any legal force or effect. Such false representations of fact violates Section 43 (a) of the Lanhan Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125 (a). (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been enacted into positive law.) (The IRS) tamper with grand juries by acting as if "income" is everything that "comes in", when there is no such definition anywhere in the IRS. Such false descriptions of fact also violates Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act.

They tamper with the grand jury by presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not constitute wavers of their customers' fundamental Right to privacy, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. The high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). IRS agents tamper with the grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent presents that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.

These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal offences, since the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") is technically a Trust with domicile in Puerto Rico, and payments to the IRS Trust domicile in Puerto Rico, as such, their records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the Trust is not violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. There is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protestor, or other initiated wrongs created by the IRS. These kick-backs range from $25, 000 to $35, 000 in CASH, and they are paid at least $25,000 for an indictment that is won in a Federal District Court, which is an illegal Court, since the IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico. They also violate the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal government subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq. As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS, without a doubt, a Federal Government subcontractor that is subject to this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321 (a) (62). The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D. See 265 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) What is "The Kickback Racket", and where dan I find evidence of its existence? Defendant/Petitioner made a discovery regarding the evidenced of this "kickback racket" was discovered in the table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM")—the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees.

Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for a certifies list of all payments that had been made under color of these delegated orders in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U. S. Mail, that few records existed for these "awards" because most of them were paid in cash!

When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge, who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail that was transmitted to the grand jury.

Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offence, and federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail. See 18 U.S.C. 1702.

Obviously, the federal judge did NOT want the grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks. They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for Legal Affairs.

Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order? No. The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of American constitutional practice. Put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any property can be seized by any federal government employees, agents, departments or agencies.

A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property. i.e. the funds on deposit in that account. No such seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its course. This means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact. Only after this process has run its proper or "due" course, can a valid court order be issued. The holding in U.S. V. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it clear that the IRS can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER could ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their "day in court."

Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government services and, if so, which government services are funded by federal income taxes? No. The money trail is very difficult to flow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico. See 31 U.S.C. 1321 (a) (62). As such, their records are protected by law which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The (IRS) is technically not an "agency" of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act. The government of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of "agency" in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551 (1) (C).

All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. The IRS appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican. See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341. The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Regan, quietly admitted that non of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal depth, and income transfers payments to beneficiaries of entitlement program like federal pension plans.

How can the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") help me to answer other key tax questions? The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People. The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), at 5 U.S.C. 522 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.

As long as documents is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document(s). If the requested document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding) weekends and federal holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter. If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC)— to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of the same. See 5 U.S.C. 522 (a) (4) (B). The general rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be stickily construed.

This writer has caused and used the application of the FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes by subtitle A of the IRC.

It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an "agency" as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551 (1) (C). Address it instead to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA. This is the format for "foreign" addresses, as explained in USPS PUBLICATION #221.

As James Madison once wrote, "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, os but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Government, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."

Where can I find more information, and still protect my privacy?

There are many civic organizations throughout America who have dedicated their precious time and energy to acquire and disseminate widely these documented truths about the Internal Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue Code.

The Internet's World Wide Web ("www") is perhaps the best single source of information (and disinformation) about the IRS, and the major problems now confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains of related policies, procedures, practices, customs, rules, regulations, forms and schedules.

When learned to become a sophisticated consumer of information, and the knowledge you seek will be yours to keep and share — with those you love and end ever to free from this terrible plague that persists in America.

The Lord God of Israel has blessed me and my earnest endeavors to ensure the blessings of liberty for all of ourselves and our Posterity, as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Also, be sure to request information from Paul Andrew Mitchell, a Private Attorney General and Attorney at Law and Qualified Federal Witness about his MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INDUCTION to freeze all IRS assets and to enjoin IRS from depositing any tax collections into any account(s) other than the Treasury of the United States. These MOTIONS were filed in two appeals at the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, using FRAP Rule 8 and the special procedures available to a Private Attorney General under the RICO laws. See other federal case regarding the IRS: 70 F.3d 123, 76 A.F.T.R. 2d 95-7805.

Finally, don't miss this opportunity to request more information about his historic APPELLATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, under a specific authority granted to the District Court of the United States ("DCUS") at 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a). Refer to DCUS docket #SA CV 02-0382 GLT (ANX), Santa Ana, California.

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION

As the Undersigned, I 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 the Supremacy Clause for Constitutional authority.