Is The IRS A Federal Agency? A very nice letter to the AG of Pennsylvania

Dear Lawmen and Those On Foot:

Purnell has written a very nice letter to the AG of Pennsylvania. Use this info as you may see fit.

12 November 2005, A.D.

TO: Mr. Tom Corbett
Office of the Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, 17120

PENNSYLVANIA

FROM: Purnell J.

211 Fox

Muncy 17756

PENNSYLVANIA



Re: Response to the Pa. Lawman Committee for the Public Interest

Mr. Corbett:

It has come to my attention, through a release from the Lawman Committee for the Public Interest, that in your responce to the Lawman Committee for the Public Interest (Joseph Schiaffino, chair), signed by Eric Augustine, you all stated that your office has no authority or jurisdiction over IRS employees because they work for a federal agency.

I am not writing this on their behalf, but for myself, so I am going to pose the obvious question to you and Mr. Augustine: What is the Act of Congress that created the Internal Revenue Service as a ´federal agency´? I could not find any statute that did so (I searched in Title 31 of the United States Code, Subtitle I, Subchapter 3 [Sections 301-312]--organisation, of the United States Department of the Treasury):

SUBCHAPTER I - ORGANIZATION

Sec. 301. Department of the Treasury.

302. Treasury of the United States.

303. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

304. Bureau of the Mint.(!1)

305. Federal Financing Bank.

306. Fiscal Service.

307. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

308. United States Customs Service.

309. Office of Thrift Supervision.

310. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

311. Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

312. Continuing in office.

Source: [link to uscode.house.gov]

Notice that there is no mention of the Internal Revenue Service as an agency created by Congress. I want to point out to you that 31 U.S.C. has apparently been enacted into ´positive law´.

Additionally, it appears that the Supreme Court of the United States, in Chrysler Corp. v. (Harold) Brown, Sec. of Defence, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), euphemistically admitted (in footnote 23) that there was no Bureau of Internal Revenue (IRS´ forerunner), or any similar Washington bureaucracy created by Congress during the Civil War, only the Office of the Commissioner.

Also, if the IRS were a federal agency, why do they pay postage on mail they send? Federal agencies have ´franking´ privileges, do they not? Yet, every piece of mail I receive from them either has a postage metre or a permit number.

The only mention of the Internal Revenue Service within that subtitle and chapter referrs to the appointment of a Chief Counsel to be one of the Assistant General counselors (31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2)). The only other mention of ´Internal Revenue´ is a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico (31 U.S.C. 1321(a)--Trust Funds, # 62)["Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue)"].

Also, attached is a regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 27 CFR, Part 26 Sec. 11) that has definitions of ´Secretary´, ´Secretary or his delegate´, and ´revenue agent´, and note there which Treasury is referred to in all three. That´s right, the Department of the Treasury of PUERTO RICO! How ´bout them apples, eh? To my knowledge, this is about the only place that such specific identification can be found.

Also, based on my research, it appears the the IRS currently has no authority (either through statute and/or executive order) to operate within the fifty states of the Union, (compare, e.g., Treasury Delegation Order 150-02, dated 9 March 2001, A.D., with Treasury Delegation Order 150-01, dated 28 September 1995, A.D.), but only in the District of Columbia (see 4 U.S.C. 72).

For more, see, also, Mitchell, Paul Andrew, "31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service" online at:

[link to www.supremelaw.org]

Now, of course, if it is, indeed, found that IRS is not a lawful federal agency, then whatever agreements the Pa. Department of Revenue has with them would likely be null and void due to fraud, since:

"[Fraud] vitiates everything"--Boyce´s Exec. v. Grundy, 3 Peters (28 U.S.) 210, 220 (1830)

"Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters."--Nudd v. Burrows, Assignee, 91 U.S. 426, 440 (c. 1875)

"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."--United States v. Throckmorton,, 98 U.S. 61, 64-65 (c. 1878); see, also Nudd v. Burrows, supra.

And of course, it would close the only ´escape hatch´ you really (supposedly) had, namely the contention that the IRS is a federal agency. Uh OH!

But the thing bigger than that would be the ENORMOUS fraud taking place. The contents of such notices and letters notwithstanding, it´s what´s on their letterhead. Nearly EACH AND EVERY piece of correspondence from the IRS would constitute mail fraud! Why? Because it says "Department of the Treasury". It would be giving the false impression that the IRS is a lawful agency within the United States Department of the Treasury and that the notices sent by them are official federal agency documents. Think of the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of counts of mail fraud that various employees could have been charged with over the years, whether they are notices (more and more are unsigned with no names on them) or even the tax forms (1040, etc...) themselves, and notwithstanding the possible violation of 31 U.S.C. 333 (misuse of the term "Department of the Treasury").



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

But even IF the Internal Revenue Service is actually a federal agency, its various employees would enjoy immunity only insofar they are acting within the outer limits of their lawful duties (which are very few), and even there, it would only be ´qualified immunity´ (realise of course that such immunity is not a licence to engage in lawless conduct: Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 [1982]), otherwise they would have to be subjected individually and/or severally (in their personal capacities) to charges of violations of the laws of the United States (and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania´s ´Crimes Code´ [Act 334 of 1972, P.L. 1482, as amended], even for alledged agents that are neither Citizens of Pennsylvania nor employed by IRS in an office within Pa.--they could be tried, in the cases of issuances of notices of liens or levies or ´siezures´ of a Citizen´s property, for criminal solicitation [P.L. 1509, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 902]; criminal conspiracy [ibid, sec. 903] : to commit theft by unlawful taking or disposition [sec. 3921], theft by deception [sec. 3922], theft by extortion [3923], racketeering [sec. 911][see, also, Commonwealth v. Dellisanti, 583[?] Pa._____, _____, 876 A.2d 366 (21 June 2005, A.D.)(drug paraphernalia, Controlled Substances Act), fraudulent business practises [4107(a), cl. 6], and possibly others. That (taking action against [alledged] IRS agents in their personal, individual capacity) would necessarily be so, since it has repeatedly been held that the government cannot be held liable as the principal or be estopped for such acts by its agents: Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, 7 Cranch 366, 368, 369 (1813); Filor v. United States, 9 Wall. 45, 49 (1870); Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 (1917)

There is no compelling reason why Section 911 should not be applied to actual or alledged IRS personnel (since they, of course, derive benefits from such activities), or even to the IRS itself. See, e.g., the definitions in subsection (h), and, particularly, relating to Chapter 39 (theft and related offences) and possibly even Chapter 47 (bribery and corrupt influence), since it has come to my attention, that the IRS has been, and maybe still are, engaging in a kickback racket (under the guise of the "Performance Management and Recognition System"), this still can be found in the "Internal revenue Manual": Exhibit 1.2.45-2 (10-02-2000) Delegation of Personnel-Related Matters [Order Number 81 (Rev. 17)], and see, particularly, Chart 2, where it shows payoffs ranging from $5,000, to as much as $35,000 for ones such as the President.

[link to www.irs.gov]

Apparently, most, if not all, of the awards were paid in CASH. Golly Gee, I wonder why!

For more, see a November 1996 article by Mitchell, Paul Andrew, "The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition System" at URL:

[link to www.supremelaw.org]

Jurisdiction for prosecution of the ´outsiders´ would lie pursuant to Act 334 of 1972, P.L. 1482, 1483, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 102(a)(3)-- territorial applicability; check out, also, the ´constructive presence´ doctrine. See, especially, the latter doctrine in Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 7 Sergeant & Rawle 469, 478 (1822); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 410 Pa. 160, 167-68 (1963); Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285 (1911, Holmes, J.); Updike v. People, 92 Colorado 125, 18 P.2d 472, 476 (1933); Commonwealth v. Prep, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 442, 451 (1958)[though that matter was wholly intrastate]; Commonwealth v. Tumolo, 455 Pa. 424, 427 (1974); Commonwealth v. Corlies, 3 Brewster 575, 578 (Q.S., Phila. Co., 1869); People v. Mather, 4 Wendell 229 (1830); The King v. Brisac and Scott, 4 East (Eng.) 164, 172 (1803); and the more recent cases, applying 18 Pa. C.S.A. 102: Commonwealth v. Dennis, 421 Pa. Superior Ct. 600, 609 (1992); Commonwealth v. Giusto, 810 A.2d 123, 126 (2002)

Although none of the cases involved actual or alledged IRS personnel, there is no compelling reason why the above principle(s) should not be applied to them.

Likewise, prosecution for violations of the laws of the United States can also be brought in the various common pleas and superior courts. See 18 U.S.C. 3231, para. 2, and the ´concurrent jurisdiction´ doctrine--that state courts, unlike federal courts, are presumed to have jurisdiction with regards to federal questions such as the application of provisions of the Constitution for the united States of America, and the laws of the United States, unless expressly (or by necessary implication) denied by Congress. Kise v. Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, 574 Pa. 528, 543 (2003); Itri v. Equibank, N.A., 318 Pa. Superior Ct. 268, 280-81 (1983); Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 452 U.S. 473, 477-78 (1981); Chas. Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1962), S.C., 341 Mass. 337, 339 (1960, Wilkins, C.J.); Borden v. Enterprise Trans. Co., 198 Mass. 590, 592 (1908, Knowlton, C.J.); Calvin v. Huntley, 178 Mass. 29, 31 (1901, Hammond. J.); Claflin v. Houseman, Assignee, 93 U.S. 130, 136-38 (c. 1876). The Allegheny County Superior court, in the case of Porter, OPA Admin. v. Steinberg, 94 Pitt. L.J. 393 (1946), cited by Schiaffino in the responce to you, seemed to have taken a somewhat opposite view to the above, namely, that state courts have the authority to enforce federal law only where such powers are specifically granted (ibid at 396). Moreover, it is black letter law that the grant of jurisdiction to federal courts does not, in of itself, imply that such jurisdiction is exclusive: United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 479 (1936); Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., supra

With all that said, it stands to reason that if Pennsylvania Courts are not deprived of authority to hear matters arising under federal law, you as Pennsylvania Attorney General are also vested with the power to investigate matters arising under federal law, and not just of common-law type fraud, but mail fraud, bank fraud, extortion, racketeering, false personation, deprivation of rights under colour of law, etc... I, myself, am preparing a formal criminal complaint to submit to the District Court of the United States, since I, myself, have been victimised by alledged IRS personnel, though not to the extent of other members of the Lawman Committee, at least not yet, and am a witness to such alledged offences by (alledged) IRS personnel such as mail fraud, extortion, racketeering, false personation, false and fraudulent statements and entries, etc... (due to the failure/refusal by various alledged agents to respond to my correspondence as well as failing to substantiate their claims and authority to act, and their subsequent actions.. Also, because they had a duty to answer truthfully and completely, their acts amount to fraud, as per United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (5th Cir., 1970); United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (5th Cir., 1977); Magee v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 92 U.S. 93, 100-101 (c. 1876); Carmine v. Bowen, 104 Md. 198, 204 (1906); Eareckson v. Rogers, 112 Md. 160, 169 (1910)).

I expect that your office will reconsider and will investigate the various allegations of criminal activity and not shy away from doing so because it involves the IRS (and/or some of its personnel, actual and alledged), but, hey, it´s easier to take on hearing aid salesmen than the IRS, huh?

I will be awaiting your response.



Sincerely,

Purnell J.

Go to [link to groups.yahoo.com] and join to get instant updates.
Please use this email address [email protected] . We are America´s Posse!
Please give your name and Lawman group to which you belong. 4,000 + Lawmen.
[link to www.lawmenamerica.com]
God Bless. Chuck Conces

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "national_lawman" on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]