This Month we have something a bit different for you, the following is a look at what I've been doing this month for fun and entertainment :)

This is a Certiori for my Problem Miner:
     This has been my greatest cost of time and effort for six years.  In past years I have discussed this question.  NOW I WANT YOU TO THINK HOW THESE IMPLICATIONS may just affect other burocracies.  We are finally getting the benefit of a lot of drudgery.  The IRS and Department of treasury are Executive Branch agencies; however,ONLY CONGRESS CAN LAY AND COLLECT TAXES for the federal or national government.  Yes, I am serious!

The United States Department of Interior's Bureau of land Management (BLM) had no subject matter jurisdiction or venue  to make a determination of invalidity and abandonment and the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) had no Constitutionally delegated Subject matter jurisdiction or venue to rule the PETITIONER's claim invalid nor to hear the appeal of the administrative ruling by BLM.  Further IBLA is not authorized by the Constitution for the United States to enforce rules or regulations against citizens of the several states because IBLA is not an article three court nor is the statute over which it claims authority enacted as positive law.

Article One of the Constitution for the united States of America proscribes the specific limited authorities delegated to the Legislative Branch of the Federal United States government.  None of the powers enumerated and delegated even remotely suggest that the federal Congress could have the authority to create CONFISCATORY AND DRACONIAN kinds of regulations and statutes involved in the Petitioner's case anywhere other than the exclusive legislative authority in Article 1; Section 8; Clause 18 (1;8;17).  It remains unclear as to whether the IBLA is an article one administrative tribunal under some alleged authority of congress OR an article 2 military or administrative court of some sort created without delegated authority by the Executive branch. In either case it does not have Article 3 Judicial authority.

Article Three Section Two of the Constitution for the united States of America grants to the United States Judicial Courts SPECIFIC LIMITED JURISDICTION, for example;
".. to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;- to controversies  between two or more States;- between a State and Citizens of another State;- between  Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under  Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign  states, citizens of subjects…"

Notice that Article Three Section Two does not delegate the authority for controversies "between STATE Citizens and Federal Administrative agencies".  Nor does any other article.
 
 

Further in Article One, Section Eight the Constitution for the united States of America delegates this limited authority;
 …To make Rules for the Government and Regulations of the land and naval forces;..

Note that the rules are for the Government; the Regulations for the land and Naval Forces  AND NOT FOR THE PEOPLE in the general population of any of the States in the Union..  Therefore the administrative ruling of BLM could have only been made on a federal government agent or national government entity.

In New York v. United States 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992) at page 154 the court addressed ratification and consent of authority which is not specifically granted in the United States constitution,…
  "Where congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan can not be ratified by the "consent" of the State officials.  An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government  clarifies this point.  The constitution's division of powers among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment.   In Buckley v Valejo, 424 US 1, 118-137, 46 L.Ed 2d 659, 96 S. Ct. 612 (1976), for    instance, the court held that congress had infringed the President's appointed  power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the   statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law, See National League of  Cities v. Usery, 426 US, at 842, 96 S. Ct. 2465….Congress can not be expanded by  the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the executive branch or the State."

The Federal Executive Branch through the BLM has acted to expand the federal government to the narrowing of the State's authority in control of sovereign territorial lands belonging to Arizona.  There is no evidence of cession or sale approved by the Arizona Legislature or of purchase by the United States Congress to satisfy the requirements of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 and therefore no federal jurisdiction is established by congress.  There is no DELEGATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO OWN OR CONTROL LANDS  anywhere much less WITHIN ARIZONA.  Even though the Chief Executive has command of the land and naval forces the executive is dependent on congress for a place to house those forces on land or at sea.  Congress is the only one who can spend money to purchase land for Federal use within any state, or approve a purchase.

The department of interior is an executive department agency and therefore can have no authority to expand the congressional or executive authority; jurisdiction; or venue beyond Constitutional limits at the peril and narrowing of ARIZONA.  Utah Division of State Lands v US 482 US 193, (1987) clearly states at page 169:
 "When the 13 Colonies became independent from Great Britain, they claimed title to   the lands under navigable waters within their boundaries as the sovereign successors to the British Crown. Id., at 15, 38 L Ed 331, 14 S Ct 548.  Because all    subsequently admitted States enter the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 States they too hold title to the land under navigable waters within their boundaries upon entry into the Union.  Pollard's Lessee v Hagan, 3 How 212,    11 L Ed 565 (1845).

The Court further stated at page 170;
 "Thus, under the Constitution, the Federal Government could defeat a prospective    State's title to land under the navigable waters by a prestatehood conveyance to the  land to a private party for a public purpose appropriate to the Territories."
And at page 177 the court continues:
 "..we find it inconceivable that Congress intended to defeat the future States' title to all such land in the western United States.  Such an action would be wholly at odds with Congress' policy of holding this land for the ultimate benefit of the future states.  In sum Congress did not definitely declare or otherwise make very plain    either it's intention to reserve the bed of the Utah Lake or to defeat Utah's title to the bed under the equal footings doctrine.  Accordingly we hold that the bed of Utah   Lake passed to Utah upon the State's entry into statehood….."

And it is equally inconceivable that Congress defeated Arizona's rights in statehood to the land that is subject to the erroneous arbitrary and capricious action that fosters this case.  The Constitution for the State of Arizona has a very clear definition of the sovereign territory of Arizona in Article 1.

The legal effect of the United States Constitution was to declare each new State a separate and independent Sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power of jurisdiction.  This was clearly shown in M'ilvaine v Case's Leasing 8 US (4 Cranch) 209, page 212, (1808), where the court held:
 This opinion is predicated upon a principal which is believed to be undeniable, that    the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as it regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that    they did not derive them from concessions made by the British King.  The treaty of    peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it.  From hence it    results, that the law of the sovereign states, and as such were obligations on the people from the time they were enacted.

Note that there is no suggestion that joining the Union narrowed or destroyed the Sovereignty of the States or changed the law and regulations to which the states and the people were subjects.

In New York v US at page 137 the court further states;
 "… if a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment  expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States; if a power is an attribute of State Sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Article of amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress…….
  It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."…….. As JUSTICE STOREY put it, "..    this amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpretation the Constitution.  Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is     withheld, and belongs to the State authorities….Congress exercises its conferred    powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution."  Emphasis added.

The actions taken by BLM and IBLA WITHOUT PROPER VENUE OR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION flies in the face of the separation of powers between Congress and Executive and TRESPASSES on the SOVEREIGN TERRITORY of ARIZONA narrowing it and on the rights reserved to the people subjecting them to involuntary servitude..

It is a well established principle of law that the Federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears";  see Caha v United States, 152 US 211, 215; 14 s.ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v United Fruit Company, 213 US 347, 357, 29 S. Ct. 511 (1909); US v Bowman, 260 US 94,97,98, 43 S. Ct. 39; Blackmer v United States, 284 US 421, 437, 52 S. Ct. 252; Foley Brothers v Filerdo, 336 US 281,285, 69 S. Ct. 575 (1949); United States v Spelar,338 US 217, 222, 70 S. Ct. 10 (1949)
The United States Department of Interior does not have the authority through the BLM to regulate activities contained in and limited to the territorial sovereignty of the States.  The Supreme Court was very concise in Caha supra in stating;
 " The laws of congress in respect to these matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." 152 US, at 215.

Both title 43 and 30 of the us code are absent any "contrary intent" appearing to give public or private notice within the states of their application to the property and rights of the people.

The Petitioner is not conducting Interstate Commerce and is only subject to the regulations of the state.  The Supreme Court in Carter v Carter Coal Co., 298 US 238, 56 S. Ct. 855 (1936) states:
 "One who produces or manufactures a commodity, subsequently sold and shipped by   him in interstate commerce, whether such sale and shipment were originally  intended of not, has engaged in two distinct and separate activities.  So far as he  produces or manufactures a commodity, his business is purely local.  So far as he sells and ships, or contracts to sell and ship, the commodity to customers in another state, he engages in interstate commerce.  In respect to the former, he is subject  only to regulation by the state,; in respect to the latter, to regulation only by the
 federal government," Id., at 303.

This concept is further defined in the NINTH Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America which states:
  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed  to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

It can then be seen that there is no US Congressional ownership in the subject property as it is not a site for a needful building, or other territorial provision in 1;8;17.

Congress was not delegated the authority to make rules and regulations to destroy the property rights of the people.  The Presidency is not delegated any authority over land within any state with the exception of the forts, docks, magazines and needful buildings congress purchases with the consent of the STATE legislature.  Therefore the only venue for IBLA is interior to the 1;8;17 territorial authority and forts, docks, magazines and needful buildings purchased and ceded to Congress.  Even then New York supra would consider that a Narrowing of Congress in favor of the President in violation of the Separation of Powers requirements of the federal constitution.

When the analogy of Ninth and Tenth amendments are united it becomes clear that the BLM AND IBLA have acted outside the Constitutional bounds for VENUE AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.  Furthermore the Federal District Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth circuit acted outside their CONSTITUTIONAL authority for Subject matter in ratifying these unlawful acts.  Petitioner submits that the Courts had the duty and authority to discipline and overrule the encroachment and trespass.

The problem is even worse when we extend the analysis to the United States Code titles 43 and 30 which are used as the statutory basis for the exertion of FEDERAL REGULATIONS against the people and the Sovereignty of the States.  Neither title 43 or 30 have been ratified as positive law to create a broad general jurisdiction within the States of the Union.

Neither Title 43 or 30 contain an enacting clause TO DECLARE THEIR AUTHORITY WITHIN THE STATES.  This of necessity means these Titles can only be applicable within the Congress' lands in the territories, possessions and purchases under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 with consent of the State Legislature duly elected in ARIZONA.  The Preface in each Code Title LISTS the titles which are codified as positive law and the reason others are not.

 Therefore USC Titles 30 and 43 are only prima facia evidence of redundant, inconsistent, and obsolete statutes with no constitutional or statutory application of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Federal Venue to be exercised against Petitioner.  The general mining act of 1872 is one of those redundant, obsolete statutes as it was written for the territorial jurisdiction in the western territories.  With statehood the States became the Lawful owners and GOVERNMENT over these lands.(Utah supra).

Furthermore 43 Code of Federal Regulations is written for the promulgation of regulations to carry out Congressional authority over lands it holds as territories in trust for future States.  As each territory attains Statehood it gains equal footing ownership with the original 13 and the title 30 and 43 jurisdictions moves to the purchased and ceded property within that state.  This was true in New York; in Utah; and is true in Arizona.

THEREFORE the BLM AND IBLA were and are in want of Subject matter jurisdiction and totally absent federal Venue within the sovereign territory of Arizona and have no governing authority over FREEMAN or the Little Pan mine AMC # 43697.  FURTHERMORRE all administrative actions against FREEMAN were outside the legal venue for the United States Department of Interior which can only be as defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.  The arbitrary and capricious way in which these Codes And Regulations are forced upon Petitioner creates violations of Civil Rights.  This process may even be criminal and worthy of prosecution AND no immunity can exist in this over-zealous exertion of federal police powers through the ARMED RANGER FORCE TO INTIMIDATE AND COERCE.

This Jurisdiction and Venue argument is submitted as a case of first impression because of the fact that the information was only recently understood well enough to present.  The court has well established the fact that subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time in the process.  Venue and Subject Matter Jurisdiction are critical to any act by any Court with judicial Powers.  The Administrative Procedures act must constitutionally govern the acts of all administrators of Government but is of no effect as against the people.

Because Congress does not own the land in question within the confines of 1;8;17, it can not make these rules apply to Petitioner's property or property rights in Arizona.  Because the Presidency does not own the land in question the Secretary of Interior can not have the constitutional authority to make these rules apply to Petitioner or Petitioner's property rights in Arizona.

The other Salient point on Jurisdiction is the confusing language and confiscatory nature of this arbitrary and capricious exercise of ADNINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  There is no delegation in Article 1 of the Constitution for the united States of America that could in any way be construed as allowing congress to pass laws or promulgate regulations that would destroy property rights by a clerical error.  The interpretation by BLM that the LOCKE decision created such an authority is necessarily in error within the sovereign territory of Arizona.  Furthermore there is no such concept of authority delegated to the President in Article 2 by the Constitution for any such draconian regulation of the people.

The Article Three Judicial courts has spoken clearly and resoundingly on the limited federal jurisdiction in the Michigan abortion cases where 5 convictions were overturned because there was no US ownership in the property and no interstate commerce; Also in the Lopez case on the Gun free school zones law being declared unconstitutional and conviction overturned because there was no US property and no Interstate commerce.

Mr. Justice Suter penned a brilliant opinion in the Lanier decision just last year on the requirement for clarity of language.  This opinion further emphasized the language restrictions from Railroad v. Hecht in 1808  which declared mandatory language to operate against government but be voluntary for the people.  Title 43 and 30 and the accompanying volumes of regulations do not qualify as acceptable without enormous judicial gloss.

Surely judicial gloss can not be extended to totally discard the constitutional restrictions on federal authority, jurisdiction, or venue exercised to diminish the State's and Petitioner's rights..  It must hold that the Sovereign Lands of Arizona and the people in Arizona are beyond the reach of Washington DC administrative venue.

THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND NO US CONGRESSIONAL TERRITORY  as defined in 1;8;17 involved in the claims, property right, and business of Plaintiff delivering sand and gravel to the local market or selling his gold in the local market in and around Phoenix, Arizona.

For all the above there was and is no legal jurisdiction for the federal agents of BLM AND IBLA to take the administrative action of invalidating and declaring abandoned the active nine  and mining claim of Petitioner.  There is no stretch of Constitutional authority or judicial gloss that can reach so far as to put the federal government in the business of destroying the occupation and livelihood of Petitioner.

Because there was no Jurisdiction or venue for the determination the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to affirm by summary judgment.

Because the District court had no Constitutional authority to affirm by summary judgment the administrative acts the Ninth Circuit had no authority to affirm.

The Bureau of Land Management was created for the stated purpose of aiding in the development of needed resources.   Using such principles as making a clerical error fatal to the rights of the people is directly opposite the statutory intent and the principle of justice stated in the Unanimous Declaration to serve  "the just needs of the governed".  This might be possible in the Article 1 Section 8 clause 17 jurisdiction but not within the State known as ARIZONA.

Title 43 of the United States code is not enacted as positive law and has no enactment clause to give it broad general jurisdiction within the several states.  Section 1744 ( c) further has language adequately confusing that scholars of law debate its application.. "…but it will not be considered a failure to file if the instrument is defective"…(APP B  Pg 1)
This is the simple fact of the clerical error in the Petitioner's filing.  And when accompanied by 43 CFR 3833.4( c).."The fact that an instrument is filed….for record thereof and is defective….shall not be considered failure to file under this subpart."

Title 30 of the United States code is not enacted as positive law and has no enactment statement to give it broad general jurisdiction within the several states.  (APP B  Pg 2)

Arizona is one of the several states that enjoys the jurisdiction over its sovereign territory.  Arizona Constitution article 1.                                            (App B  Pg 3)

It is well settled that all property matters are governed and decided by state law.

The Locke and several other decisions are off point to the Petitioner's incident case.  Locke did not timely file.  The proper question was not asked in some cases.  And Subject matter jurisdiction has not been addressed for the Interior Board of Land Appeals within the several states and without the United States.  THIS ESTABLISHES THE CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.

Furthermore the Locke Decision and others based on it do not rise to the status of precedent because they are not fully adjudicated cases being based on the summary administrative acts by IBLA and summary judgment of the court.  Common Law property rights; Subject Matter Jurisdiction and federal venue were not before the court in those cases.  The Dicta is just the discussion of the court on some points irrelevant to Petitioner's point in this case.

The Petitioner asks the court how the BLM can have JURISDICTION AND VENUE to destroy a property right without due compensation within the State of Arizona and without the United States?   The property in question is not Ceded to the United states by the Legislature; nor was it purchased to fulfill the Constitutional requirements for jurisdiction and venue as territory of Washington DC.  Upon claiming Little Pan AMC #43697 was segregated from the public domain and title held (in trust) for the Petitioner until patented.  ( American law of mining).  The BLM is in breach of its fiduciary duty to the Petitioner.

In the broadest interpretation and with the application of enormous judicial gloss this voluntary reporting can not be enforced at the draconian level applied to Petitioner.

Because the "act" creating the Bureau of Land Management was passed in 1976 as a voluntary reporting for the protection of claimant's rights and to assist in the development of needed resources it can not now rise to the level of taking Plaintiff's property and rights to property without due compensation.

The purpose for initial reporting in 1976 was to enable the removal of long abandoned claims from the record so those abandoned areas of resource could then be developed by new claimants.  To conceive a scheme to administratively take property and invalidate active businesses in a voluntary reporting would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

Congress could perhaps have such an authority under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 in its exclusive authority that is not subject to limited delegation, separation of powers, or checks and balances of authority as is every power delegated to the US Congress which can be exercised within the States.  However there is no concept even under the worst interpretation that would give the Executive Branch of the Federal Government such a power within the State known as Arizona.

Little Pan Claim AMC # 43697 was lawfully located marked and claimed in 1950; 26 years before the voluntary recording measure was passed.  It is inconceivable that a claim and mine that has been worked and developed at great expense in time and money over 42 years could be lost on a clerical error.  This draconian taking is very anti people and the job of the government is to serve the just needs of the governed.  Government of the people by the people and for the people can not be conceived to have the power to take away 42 years of work and hundreds of thousands of investment in developing the mining of needed resources by a single clerical error.

The fact that this scheme to impose federal rules upon the people came 26 years after the fact of Little Pan Claim certainly appears ex post facto.  The fact that it conceives a method by 1981 to take property and rights to property from the people of the States without due compensation or due process sure sounds like a Bill of Attainder.

Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are constitutionally prohibited.

This court is the venue and has the jurisdiction for stopping Congressional And Executive acts under the separation of powers.  Congress and The Presidency can not be enlarged at the narrowing of the States or the rights of the people to their property and the product of their labor in the development of needed resources.  The courts have erred in allowing this expansion of Executive and administrative powers at the peril of the Petitioner.

Joseph J. and Eileen H.

30 October, 1998

The Honourable Congressman, William Archer, Chairman
Ways and Means Committee
United States House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Independence & New Jersey Avenues, SE
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Permit me to start off thanking you on behalf of so many of us "little people" for your interest in addressing the abuses of power of the Internal Revenue Service.  In speaking with your aide Wednesday, I felt that you were sincerely determined to end this "reign of terror" that has gone on far too long in this country.  Let me assure you that everything I am about to relate is true and provable through documents and/or sworn firsthand witness testimony.  I do not take this task lightly, there is so much at stake, not just for my husband and myself, but for voiceless, frightened citizens who are waiting to be heard.

To begin, my husband of 22 years, Joseph is a chiropractor.  He enlisted in the United States Navy, received SEAL training, and served in LJDT for three tours of duty in Vietnam.  He was decorated for his service, returned to Missouri and graduated cum laude from Logan College.  He is a staunch supporter of our country and believes in the principles as set forth by the Founding Fathers.  I have raised a child, been very active in Republican politics and volunteer at the senior center preparing tax returns for the Vita Program ... but mainly I am just a housewife.

About 7 years ago, in a desire to protect our assets and plan for our estate, Joe and I were introduced to a man, a minister by the name of Jimmy C. Chisum.  He and his wife, Donna, were kindred spirits and we entrusted him with the duty of planning for our needs.  He generated trust documents, doing an admirable job, beyond the call of duty.  He is an honest, fearless man of God, in whom we placed our full faith and confidence.  Shortly thereafter, I was diagnosed with a terminal illness (Multiple Sclerosis) and with the trust in place, my husband and I knew everything would be fine.  Then the bomb dropped.

The trust received a Notice of Audit, and Mr. Chisum (the trustee) prepared to meet the auditor in Phoenix.  She was belligerent, totally uncooperative and refused to recognize him or any of his authority.  Instead, she disallowed all legal deductions and issued a Notice of Deficiency for taxes, interest and penalties on the full gross income for that

year.  Furthermore, it was made quite clear, that her word would be final, with no possibly of appeals or even a manager's meeting, as is outlined in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.  The trust was sent a Notice of Deficiency, which was mailed to the wrong address.  Because of their clerical error, the IRS could not collect the alleged monies due.  Instead, they sent us a Notice of Deficiency, also, claiming that suddenly the trust was a sham, therefore Joe and I owed the taxes, penalties and interest on the gross income of the trust.  I must interject that at no time during our 22-year marriage, have we ever been audited, and this time was no exception.  Instead, a notice for taxes due was sent to us, no explanation other than the auditor had determined the trust was a sham and "cough up the bucks".  We decided to fight and paid our filing fees to go to Tax Court.

According to Tax Court Procedure, our case,  v. Commissioner, Docket
18650-97, was automatically sent to the Appeals Officer, William Keebler for possible
pre-trial settlement.  It was to remain there until May 16 , 1998.  Imagine our confusion when we discovered that the case was remanded to District Counsel, Richard Rappazzo, for immediate calendaring on May 13th ! Appeals never attempted to settle or discuss this case.  I was soon to discover the reason.

We received communication from Mr. Rappazzo, requesting a meeting.  I had to reschedule his originally requested date, as I drive a 17 year-old car in bad need of an engine.  I have no air-conditioning in that vehicle, and drive using hand controls.  The trip to Phoenix is 150 miles, one way, and with the heat of summer, my disease worsens. Nevertheless, I scheduled and attended a meeting, the afternoon of Thursday, July 16 District Counsel refused to recognize a duly executed, notarized Power of Attorney for my friend, John Wilde, to attend the meeting for moral support and as my witness.  He told Mr. Wilde to leave the room and if he refused to follow orders, he (Mr.  Rappazzo) would have my friend forcibly removed from the building.  My friend left the room.  Mr. Rappazzo then asked me to produce documents that I did not have, as neither Joe or I are the settlors, trustees or beneficiaries of the trust in question.  He insisted I was lying, that I had everything in my possession, was hiding it or refusing to cooperate and if I didn't given him what he wanted, he'd force me to comply.

I told him that Mr. Chisum had all the records, to contact him and solve the problem.  He told me that "trust promoters like Mr. Chisum" were basically con artists who preyed on people to get their possessions and when the time came to defend the trust, they (the promoters) would "scamper into the desert".  Thus leaving persons such and my husband and myself high and dry and totally unprepared to fight off the IRS.  Rappazzo said that it was his duty to put these con men out of business and unfortunately, we were caught in the crossfire.  Casualties of war had to make choices and we were given several options:

1 .  Surrender, pay all kinds of taxes, interest, penalties, etc.;
2.   Fight, only to lose and have the IRS take everything anyway,
3 .  Hire an attorney (which we couldn't afford) who would only agree with the IRS position to pay
      anyway and risk the possibly of jail;
4.   Cooperate to put this minister out of business and they (IRS) would work  something out;
5.   Continue in our fruitless effort in Tax Court, as District Counsel would seek  sanctions of up to
      $25,000 for our filing of a frivolous lawsuit!

Well, Mr. Chairman, that was quite a menu of choices.  The problem was that during that meeting he lied to me, threatened me, slandered my husband and friends and tried to scare me with a veritable buffet of horrible alternatives.  I believe he thought he had selected a "weak one" from the herd and was going in for the kill.  Numerous times he violated my civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  When I finally arrived home (yes, the car broke down), I was in bed for 4 days, with full exacerbation of my MS symptoms, but the determination to fight on ... even if I died in the process.

As pro se's, Joe and I were unsophisticated litigants, ill-prepared for the barrage of dirty tricks and stall tactics that came from District Counsel.  We had to learn the law, prepare papers, motions and answers in less than 6 weeks.  We were inundated with "busy work".  Mr. Rappazzo refused to answer informal discovery, claiming our questions were vague, irrelevant and over-broad ... questions about his educational background and trust experience.  Questions that, had he been forced to answer them, would have proved that he had misrepresented the case to the Tax Court from the very beginning.  I attempted to discover where he went to law school, I was told he wasn't even licensed by the Arizona Bar.  Although he has a Tax Court Bar number, I believe that's all.
Administrative courts are not Courts of Law?  What chance did we have?  How were his subpoenas valid and what about summonses?  He compelled discovery, refused our discovery.  We discovered that we had no rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights or the Reform Act because the Phoenix Offices refused to abide by congressional mandates.  They still do.  We were intentionally "short-calendared" and before we could compel his answers in formal discovery, that window had closed.  Again, that window was only 6 weeks.  Then the Tax Court judge refused our motion for a continuance.  However, others were getting continuances during the calendar call, so why were we being steamrollered along?  Rappazzo admitted there was a Task Force operating through the Ogden Service Center, designed to put a quick end to the trust problem.  I guess we had our answer.

So, Joe and I were forced to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in order to move the venue and get an automatic stay.  It was only two short weeks ago that we enjoyed perfect credit, gold and platinum cards; with never a late payment, all our bills were paid in full for the past 7 years.  Now, unrelated businesses are ruined.  Our income is under $8,000 for the year and we qualify for Food Stamps (not that we'd ever take them).  There will be no heat this winter, no Thanksgiving dinner, and no way to put gas in the car.  And although Christmas will always be with us, there will be no outside trappings of that holiday, either.  I don't know what to do anymore.

Joe and I are not the only ones in this predicament.  I can provide names and addresses of persons who have suffered at the hands of the Phoenix Offices, these additional taxpayer abuses enumerated below:

1.   A District Counsel who tells a witness that it is his goal to run a man out of  business.
2.   A Revenue Officer who refuses to cooperate with Appeals because she's upset  with the trustee.
3 .  An Appeals Officer who refuses to do his sworn duty, even though he  acknowledges it, but then
      declares that District Counsel won't let him settle the  case.
4.   A Revenue Officer, who declares in writing that she will not honour the  Taxpayer Bill of Rights
      to reschedule a meeting, but will go directly to  enforcement.
5 .  A Revenue Officer who, when the taxpayer (under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights),  requests a
      change of Revenue Agent for the examination because of her  refusal to follow the TBR, issues
      fraudulent, made-up Notices of Deficiency for  4 (four) additional years.
6.   A Department of Justice attorney who is thrice reprimanded by a judge for  failure to follow Due
      Process Rules for Service of Process.
7.   A Revenue Officer who refuses to accept a valid Power of Attorney for  examination and/or
      witness at a meeting.
8.   A District Counsel attorney (non-bar) who insists there be no witnesses to his  meeting with a
      female taxpayer, by expressly removing the witness from the  room.
9.   A District Counsel who declares to a proposed witness, it is his job to "run Mr.  Chisum out of
      business", a legal business of contractual trusts.
10.  A 250-pound, 6'4" Collections Officer who insists there are no witnesses  present to a
       collection with a 120-pound female, and when she tells him that  she can't pay, he tells her
       "we'll work something else out".
11.  A 10-year old case, pursuing another minister to seize and sell his $50,000 home; at an
       expense to the Government of $2 to $3 million dollars.
12. Officers who hold a 56 year-old grandmother at gun-point to ransack her home,  tearing open
       her grandchildren's Christmas gifts, digging up her yard and  preventing her from using the
        bathroom or getting medicine for nearly IO hours.
13. A Revenue Officer, refusing to identify or validate his authority or answer any  questions about
      the process, who does an undefined administrative proceeding  where the taxpayer is barred
      from that proceeding, and then issues a Notice of  Deficiency.
14. District Counsel who deliberately short-calendars cases where pro se litigants  or trustees are
       involved.
15. A Revenue Agent who tells a Power of Attorney at an audit, that the taxpayer's  failure to attend
       the meeting will result in criminal prosecution of the taxpayer,  whose wife, at the time, was
       dying of terminal cancer.
16. A District Counsel who approves of an IRS clerk conspiring with a clerk in the  Bankruptcy
      Court to get the Chapter 13 filings of an Osteopath "thrown out" to  compel a trial.  The
      Osteopath had set his affairs to care for the needs of his  mentally challenged child.  District
      Counsel obtained old divorce papers to  intimidate and threaten the ex-wife of this taxpayer, to
       use information against  her, unless she testified for District Counsel.
17. A couple, in their seventies, who were evicted from their home, just last week,  and now live in
       a travel trailer, due to an unlawful MS seizure and sale.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and it must no longer continue.  To that end, Mr. Chisum, Mr. Wilde, myself and others are ready to show you any documents, prove each allegation and cooperate in any way possible.  We would be willing to travel to Washington to testify before the Committee or any Sub-committee of your choice.  And I know I speak for others, when I state that I am willing to serve on any Citizen Review Panel or Board that can help to address these abuses.

Mr. Chairman, please forgive the length of this letter; for there is so much to say and so much at stake, that I felt 5 pages would be less cumbersome than boxes and boxes of evidence.  I know, too, that even those who serve Congress are not immune.  At any moment, your estates and properties could be seized, your freedom threatened, everything you had hoped to achieve, destroyed.  Two hundred twenty-two years ago, these were the very reasons, Americans broke from the parent stem.  This time, however, the destroyer, the interloper is not a country thousands of miles away, a vague enemy we seldom meet.  Rather it is a sniper from within, a thief operating under the guise of law, who attacks at the very heart of our security, our homes and families.  And because we fail to acquiesce, we are bad, unpatriotic scum, part of the radical lunatics who support anti-government causes.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Many are veterans, who answered when their country called.  Just "we the people", believing in our Republic and what it represents, believing you care about the faceless millions who enter that booth and vote their conscience.  Please don't let us down.

Especially during the holidays, please don't forget those Americans who are suffering, homeless, destitute, cold, scared, at their wits end, and those who will end their lives because this government agency is out of control (especially in Phoenix).  You know, my Dad was in his early twenties during the Great Depression.  Once, he told me "Honey, always remember that the government can take everything you own and put you on the street.  They won't be happy until someday they strap a meter on your back and charge for the air you breathe." I always thought he was being cynical.  For the love of God, please, don't prove he was right.

Respectfully submitted,

Eileen H.
PS:  To date there have been 5 replies from congress promising everything from forwarding to the appropriate committee to a full congressional investigation. Trent Lott promises to be watching closely and desiring to be sure she gets the proper help.  NOTE NEWT personally signed the green card and PHONED to say it would get to the right pople.  PRAISE GOD!

J. C. Chisum, Trustee
5804 W. Vista #347
Glendale, Arizona  85301

                                                                                        6 November, 1998

Senator Trent Lott                                                             by CERTIFIED MAIL
U S Senate
Washington, D C 20510

REF: Letter from Eileen Lipari dated 30 October, 1998

Subject.  Follow-up and supplement to confirm the unlawful acts of the Phoenix District, IRS

I am aware my name was mentioned prominently in Mrs. Lipari's letter.  I am also aware her correspondence was in response to a request by members of congress.

My purpose in writing to you is to introduce myself and to offer my services in confirming the horror stories she can relate.  In fact it is I who am directly or indirectly involved in most of the stories she has related.  I am the man the IRS and District Council have declared they intend to run out of business.  WHY?  Somehow I do not believe that was your purpose in the Taxpayer bill of rights or RRA 98.

INTRODUCTION:   Jimmy C. Chisum, aged 54 years, native to Oklahoma, begotten of Cecil and Borne by Myrtle in the house of Chisum.  I am a high school graduate and a 9 year veteran of the Navy.  During my time under Admiral Richover I attended schools for three years; taught Nuclear plant operators and engineers for three years; and was assigned to Nuclear submarines the other three years.  My rank at discharge was petty officer First class.  Nuclear submarine duty kept me out of Vietnam.  I was a very good student and teacher for the Admiral.

Upon leaving the Navy I became an electrical contractor specializing in electronics and security.  The National Electrical code like Nuclear reactor safety is VERBATIM COMPLIANCE you must follow the exact letter of the law, rule, code, and procedure.  Having been a very good student of verbatim compliance and trained in engineering by the admirals methods left me well equipped the tasks which were ahead of me in law.

Your lapdog at IRS just does not like the fact that a plain man like myself can learn to read the language and figure out the loopholes to use.  You can not close the trust loophole without hurting yourself. So You fund a Trust task force to run me out of business for doing nothing more than learning to read and having the faith to apply the knowledge .

The whole process you will review is one that starts with the TCMP examinations you have repeatedly refused to fund.  Well the trust task force starts the Process with a TCMP demand letter.  Next they refuse to comply with Law, Administrative procedures act, Supreme Court rulings, or Taxpayer bill of rights.  Then we are forced into a tax court process that is just another ride on the denial of due process railroad.  The district Council trespasses on the jurisdiction of the Appeals officer who is a coward and afraid to do his job appointed by law.  By applying undue, illegal influence the District council forces Appeals not to settle cases.  Then the railroad continues with such a short calendar there is no time for discovery.  AND ALL THIS WITH A DECLARED INTENT TO RUN ME OUT OF BUSINIESS AND TRUST. Do you want to be run out of trust?

Let me give you the downside to me as a witness.  I am a religious zealot; when I find something is wrong by God's law and Man's law I am going to refuse to knowingly do evil.  Because of my study of law and scripture I came to a point Of Choice.  I chose to surrender the benefits of this governments welfare state and withdraw from Social Security.  I surrendered the program, number, and all its attachments.  Beginning in 1981 I followed the law and asked my government for answers about the law and their refusal to follow it. For 17 years this government has written laws and policies but refused to answer even the simplest of questions.  Now for the first time I may get an answer; because I have learned more of the law than my enemy government and its agents at IRS.

IT IS UP TO YOU to provide the answers for the acts of your servants at the IRS.  Yes; it is your job to lay and collect taxes.  The fact that you delegated the administration to the treasury or IRS does not change your responsibility in this reign of terror on the people.  Where is the just need of the governed (the people you represent)?

The Phoenix district continues its policy of intentionally violating the taxpayer bill of rights and due process requirements of law and you continue to fatten their budget for the reign of terror.  Yes I am labeled an illegal tax protester for the simple reason I asked a question no one was competent to answer.  After I was promised answers to the questions in 1983 I had hope; I wanted my government to have a conscience and follow the law.  I am still waiting and repeatedly being refused answers even by congress.

In my study of law I have learned some interesting things about codes, regulations, and policies.  I am willing bear the responsibility of law.  I am sure of my sincerely held beliefs and my right to religious freedom.  The supreme court says the IRS is bound to the exact letter of the law; and that law is code plus regulations.  Your hired thugs at the IRS select portions of each and interpret those fragments to be the governing law. They are wrong and you are wrong to tolerate such evil out of fear or lack of knowledge.

I can be trusted to tell all the facts and relate all my knowledge of law without fear of reprisals, There is nothing man can do to cause me to fear or serve the IRS rather than GOD.  This trust business is my ministry. Is it your desire that I be run out of business and ministry?

The foundation of everything we do is trust How can you support a task force to destroy Trust and men with the integrity to trust and be trusted?  Will your trust be next?  Will it have an advocate who will not surrender or compromise?

Thank you for the Opportunity and the Professional attention to your duties.
 

J.C. Chisum
PS...  I have not received the kinds of replies Eileen has received.  She was asked for her story I just butted in.
I am also in the midst of composing motions to abate notices of deficiency; and motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the Tax court.
NONE of this is to be credited to me.  All has come over time from others more dedicated to law and research than I; however God has granted me the privilage or assigned me the duty of pushing the point.  I hope it is a blessing to you...........
I gladly accept all contributions of knowledge...................SO all of you who have it better figured out let me know.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The children are all growing rapidly and doing well.  Donna is about resdy to forgive me for being so far out of my normal sweet personality.

We Now Have A Web site, check us out at: http://www.angelfire.com/az/covenantkeeper

Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Now it is even easier to share with your friends and family.

See you on the Web. You may also drop a line and let us know what you think.

E-Mail Us at: covenantkpr@hotmail.com

If Your still Not convinced, Go HERE !