Memorandum in Support of Administrative Appeals,
            Civil Litigation &/or Criminal Complaints


     This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely
to provide  all interested parties with sufficient information to
constitute notice, and thereby compel due diligence necessary for
determining law which governs the conduct of the various parties.
Each matter  at issue  is being  treated with  as much brevity as
possible.  Should   it  be   necessary  to  independently  pursue
administrative and/or  judicial remedies,  matters set out below,
anchored in  published law,  court  cases  and  other  government
publications, and  privately  published  material  to  which  the
Internal  Revenue  Service,  Department  of  Justice,  and  other
government agencies  have acquiesced, will be deemed accurate and
sufficient cause  for  action  should  Internal  Revenue  Service
officers or agents and/or interested third parties fail to rebut,
supporting contentions  with legal  authorities and other needful
documentation adequate to overcome assertions herein.

     This memorandum  will be construed to comply with provisions
necessary to  establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure,  and attending  State rules)  should  interested
parties fail  to rebut  any given  allegation or  matter  of  law
addressed herein. The memorandum is construed as adequate to meet
requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law.
Application of  matters established  herein will  be construed to
have general application.


             1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest

     In 1953,  the Internal  Revenue Service  was created  by the
stroke of  a pen  when the  Secretary of the Treasury changed the
name of  the Bureau  of Internal  Revenue (T.O.  No. 150-29, G.M.
Humphrey, Secretary  of the  Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no
congressional  or  presidential  authorization  for  making  this
change has  been located,  so the  source  of  authority  had  to
originate  elsewhere.   Research  to  which  IRS  officials  have
acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as
trustee of  Puerto Rico  Trust #62  (Internal  Revenue)  (see  31
U.S.C.   1321), and as will be demonstrated, the Secretary does,
in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

     The solid  link between the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of  the Treasury,  Puerto Rico, was first published in
the September  1995 issue  of Veritas Magazine, based on research
by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In October,
a criminal  complaint was  filed in  the office  of  W.  A.  Drew
Edmondson, attorney  general for  Oklahoma, against an Enid-based
revenue officer,  and in  the time  since,  IRS  principals  have
failed to  refute the  allegation that  IRS is  an agency  of the
Department  of  Treasury,  Puerto  Rico.  In  November,  criminal
complaints were  filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the
United  States  district  court  for  the  District  of  Northern
Oklahoma, Tulsa,  and the  office of  Attorney General Edmondson,
and both  the office  of  the  United  States  Attorney  and  IRS
principals have  yet to  rebut the  allegations in  that instance
(UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  v. Kenney  F. Moore,  et al.,  95 CR-
129C).

     By consulting  the index  for Chapter  3, Title  31  of  the
United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and  Firearms are  not listed  as agencies  of the United
States Department  of the  Treasury. The fact that Congress never
created  a   "Bureau  of   Internal  Revenue"   is  confirmed  by
publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971
- 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490;
and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.

     Implications are  condemning both  to IRS  and third parties
who knowingly  participate in IRS-initiated scams:  No legitimate
authority resides  in or  emanates from  an office  which was not
legitimately created  and/or ordained either by state or national
constitutions or  by legislative enactment. See variously, United
States v.  Germane, 99  U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S.  425, 441,  6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v.
Commissioner, 138  F.2d 1006,  1009 (6th  Cir. 1943);   where the
state is  concerned, the  most recent  corresponding decision was
State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

     Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR  1,
which prescribes  basic requirements  for securing  permits under
the Federal  Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that
Congress promulgated  the Act  in 1935,  and the  same year,  the
United States  Supreme Court  declared the  Act unconstitutional.
Administration of  the Act  was subsequently  moved off-shore  to
Puerto Rico,  along with  the Federal Alcohol Administration, and
operation eventually  merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
Puerto Rico,  which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Philippines,  created  by  the  Philippines  provisional
government via  Philippines Trust  #2 (internal  revenue) (see 31
U.S.C.   1321 for  listing of  Philippines  Trust  #2  (internal
revenue)), administered  the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue
collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines).  This line
will be  resumed after  examining additional evidences concerning
IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.

     Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority
in  the  several  States  is  found  in  the  Parallel  Table  of
Authorities and  Rules, beginning  on page  751 of the 1995 Index
volume to  the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that
there are  no regulations  supportive of 26 U.S.C.  7621, 7801,
7802 &  7803 (these  statute listings are absent from the table).
In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal
Register, extending  authority to  the  several  States  and  the
population at  large, (1)  to establish  revenue districts within
the several  States, (2) extending authority of the Department of
the Treasury  [Puerto Rico]  to the  several States,  (3)  giving
authority to  the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants
within the  several States,  or (4)  extending authority  of  any
other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.

     Authority  of   the  Internal   Revenue  Service,   via  the
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  is convoluted in regulations,
but makes  an amount  of  sense  by  citing  various  regulations
pertaining to  the Service  and application of the Commissioner's
authority. General  procedural  rules  at  26  CFR    601.101(a)
provide a beginning-point:

     (a)  General. The  Internal Revenue  Service is  a bureau of
     the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction
     of the  Commissioner of  Internal Revenue.  The Commissioner
     has general superintendence of the assessment and collection
     of all  taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue.
     The Internal  Revenue Service  is the  agency by which these
     functions are performed...


     The  fact   that  there   are   no   regulations   extending
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  or Department of the Treasury
authority to  the several  States  (26  U.S.C.    7802(a)),  has
greater clarity  in the light of the general merging of functions
between  IRS   and  other  agencies  presently  attached  to  the
Department  of   the  Treasury.   The   Commissioner   is   given
responsibility for  issuing rules and regulations for the Code at
26 CFR   301.7805-1,  with approval  of the Secretary, but there
are no  cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury
Order, publication in the Federal Register, or even statute cite.
In other  words, there is no actual or effective delegation which
vests the  Commissioner with  significant  independent  authority
which might  be conveyed  to IRS,  BATF,  Customs  or  any  other
Department  of   the  Treasury  agency  with  respect  to  powers
extending to  or affecting  the several States and the population
at large.

     The link  between IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms is  significant as  the tie  with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, is through this
door. Reorganization  Plan No.  3 of  1940, Section  2, made  the
following change:

      2. Federal Alcohol Administration

     The Federal  Alcohol  Administration,  the  offices  of  the
     members thereof,  and the  office of  the Administrator  are
     abolished, and  their function  shall be  administered under
     the direction  and  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the
     Treasury through  the Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue  in  the
     Department of the Treasury.


     Again, the  Federal Alcohol  Administration Act  of 1935 was
declared unconstitutional  in 1935,  and the operation thereafter
transferred off  shore to  Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue  was changed  to the Internal Revenue Service in
1953 (cite  above), then  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
Firearms,  a  division  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Service,  was
seemingly separated  from IRS  (T.O. 120-01,  June 6,  1972).  In
relevant part, the order reads as follows:

     1.   The purpose  of this order is to transfer, as specified
          herein,  the   functions,  powers  and  duties  of  the
          Internal Revenue  Service arising under law relating to
          Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the
          Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal
          Revenue Service,  to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
          Firearms herein  after referred  to as the Bureau which
          is hereby  established. The  Bureau shall  be headed by
          the Director  of  the  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and  Firearms
          herein referred to as the Director...

     2.   The Director  shall perform the functions, exercise the
          powers and  carry out  the duties  of the Secretary and
          the administration and the enforcement of the following
          provisions of law:

     A.   Chapters 51  and 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code
          of 1954  and Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar
          as they  relate to  the commodity  subject to tax under
          such chapters.

     B.   Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue Code
          of  1954   insofar  as   they  relate   to   activities
          administered and  enforced with respect to chapters 51,
          52, 53. (emphasis added)


     Transfer of  functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to
Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important
where the  instant matter  is concerned  as the  only regulations
published in  the Federal  Register  applicable  to  the  several
States are  under 27  CFR, Part  70 and other parts of this title
relating exclusively  to alcohol,  tobacco and  firearms matters.
However, the  charade doesn't  end there.  In Reorganization Plan
No. 1  of 1965  (5 U.S.C.  903), the original Bureau of Customs,
created by  Act of  Congress in  1895, was  abolished and  merged
under the Secretary of the Treasury.

     In a  Treasury Order  published in  the Federal  Register of
December 15,  1976, the  Secretary of the Treasury used something
of a  slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, "The
term Director,  Alcohol, Tobacco,  and Firearms has been replaced
with the term Internal Revenue Service."

     Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing
when it  comes to  administrative  responsibility.  However,  the
order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely
operating with  interchangeable hats.  Therefore, definitions and
designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.

     In definitions  at 27 CFR  250.11, the following provisions
are found:

     Revenue Agent.   Any  duly authorized  Commonwealth Internal
     Revenue Agent  of the  Department of  the Treasury of Puerto
     Rico.

     Secretary.  The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

     Secretary or  his delegate.  The Secretary or any officer or
     employee of  the Department  of the  Treasury of Puerto Rico
     duly authorized  by the  Secretary to  perform the  function
     mentioned or described in this part.


     In the  absence of  any other  definition describing revenue
officers and  agents, the  Secretary, or  the Department  of  the
Treasury, definitions  above are  uniformly applicable to all IRS
and BATF  departments, functions  and personnel. In fact, it will
be found  that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the
Internal Revenue  Code applies  only to United States territorial
jurisdiction exclusive  of the  several States  and  to  imported
petroleum. BATF  has authority  only with  respect  to  firearms,
munitions, etc.,  produced outside  the several  States  and  the
first sale of imports.

     To date  only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as  currently amended,  have been located that specifically
reference the  several States,  exclusive of  the federal  States
(District of  Columbia, Puerto  Rico, Guam,  the Virgin  Islands,
etc.):   26 U.S.C.   5272(b),  5362(c) &  7462. The  first  two
provide certain  exemptions to  bond and  import tax requirements
relating to  imported distilled  spirits for  governments of  the
several States  and their  respective political subdivisions, and
the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax
Court will  constitute evidence  of the  reports in courts of the
United States  and the several States. None of the three statutes
extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within
the several States.

     IRS is  contracted to  provide collection  services for  the
Agency for  International Development,  and case law demonstrates
that the  true  principals  of  interest  are  the  International
Monetary Fund  and the  World Bank  (Bank of the United States v.
Planters Bank  of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244;  U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242;   see  22 USCA   286,  et seq.).  In other  words, IRS
seemingly provides  collection services  for undisclosed  foreign
principals  rather  than  collecting  internal  revenue  for  the
benefit of  constitutional United States government operation. To
date,  IRS  principals  have  failed  to  dispute  the  published
Cooper/Bentson allegation  that the  agency,  via  these  foreign
principals, funded  the enormous  tank and military truck factory
on the Kama River, Russia.

     The Internal  Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect
to the  several States,  is not  registered to do business in the
several States.


             2.  Preservation of Due Process Rights

     The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by
statutory courts  both of  the  United  States  and  the  several
States, with  the latter  operating in  the framework  of adopted
uniform laws  which ascribe  a federal  character to  the several
States. Both  operate under  the presumption of Congress' Article
IV  jurisdiction  within  the  geographical  United  States  (the
District  of  Columbia,  Puerto  Rico,  etc.),  both  accommodate
private  international   law  under   exclusively  United  States
treaties on  private international  law, and  both operate in the
framework of  admiralty rules  to  impose  Civil  Law  (see  both
majority &  dissenting opinions  variously, Bennis  v.  Michigan,
U.S. Supreme  Court No.  94-8729,  March  4,  1996)  ,  which  is
repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority
of Department  of  Justice  as  representative  of  the  "Central
Authority" established  by U.S. treaties on private international
law at  28 CFR   0.49;  also, "conflict of law" as a subcategory
to "statutes"  in American Jurisprudence). However, this house of
cards will  shortly fall  as  Cooperative  Federalism,  known  as
Corporatism well  into the 1930's, has been thoroughly documented
and  is  rapidly  being  exposed  via  state  and  United  States
appellate courts and in public forum.

     In reality,  the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process
rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:

                         [Sec. 7804(b)]

     (b)  PRESERVATION  OF   EXISTING  RIGHTS  AND  REMEDIES.  --
     Nothing in  Reorganization  Plan  Numbered  26  of  1950  or
     Reorganization Plan  Numbered 1  of 1952 shall be considered
     to impair  any right  or remedy, including trial by jury, to
     recover any  internal  revenue  tax  alleged  to  have  been
     erroneously or  illegally  assessed  or  collected,  or  any
     penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or
     any sum  alleged to  have been  excessive or  in any  manner
     wrongfully collected  under the  internal revenue  laws. For
     the purpose  of any action to recover any such tax, penalty,
     or sum,  all statutes,  rules, and  regulations referring to
     the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for
     the internal  revenue district,  or the  Secretary, shall be
     deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to
     in the  preceding sentence  gave rise  to such  action.  The
     venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing
     law.


     The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via
the Internal  Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at
Large, and  codified as  title 26  of  the  United  States  Code.
Savings statutes  have been  in place  since the  beginning,  but
generally not  understood by  the general population or the legal
profession. The  statute set  out above  is easier  to comprehend
when references  are consolidated.  Further, the dependent clause
"including trial  by jury"  relates to a constitutionally-assured
right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location
in the  sentence. Finally,  the matter  of venue  is important as
"existing law" is constitutional and common law indigenous to the
several States.  In the  absence of  legitimate federal law which
extends to  the several  States, those who operate under color of
law, engage  in oppression,  extortion, etc.,  are subject to the
foundation law  of the  States. Venue is determined by the law of
legislative jurisdiction.

     Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of
due process  rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and
Fourteenth Amendments  to the  Constitution for the united States
of America  and corresponding  provisions in constitutions of the
several States. The example represents the class.

     Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus
assessments as  well as  collections, and (2)  7804(b), unlike 
7433,  does   not  presume   that  the  complaining  party  is  a
"taxpayer". Finally,  there is  26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support
for   7804 where  there are  no  regulations  published  in  the
Federal Register  in support  of   7433 (see  Parallel Table  of
Authorities and  Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index volume
to  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations).  Therefore,    7804(b)
preserves rights  and determines  the nature of civil actions for
remedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable
portions of  7804(b) read as follows:

     Nothing in  [the Internal  Revenue Code] shall be considered
     to impair  any right,  [including trial by jury], or remedy,
     [***], to  recover any  internal revenue tax alleged to have
     been erroneously  or illegally assessed or collected ... The
     venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing
     law.


     The necessity  of due  process is implicitly preserved by 28
U.S.C.   2463, which  stipulates that  any seizure  under United
States revenue  laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and
subject solely to disposition of courts of the United States with
proper jurisdiction.  In other  words, even if IRS had legitimate
authority in  the several  States, the  agency would of necessity
have to  file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment,
seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty
or property  of any  given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment
citizen-subject of  the United  States or  a Citizen principal of
one of  the several  States. Due  process assurances in the Fifth
and Fourteenth  Amendments do  not equivocate  --  administrative
seizures without  due process  can be equated only to tyranny and
barbarian rule.  Further, even  regulations governing IRS conduct
acknowledge and  therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at
26 CFR  601.106(f)(1).

     (1)  Rule I.  An exaction  by the  U.S. Government, which is
     not based  upon law,  statutory or otherwise, is a taking of
     property without  due process  of law,  in violation  of the
     Fifth Amendment  to the  U.S. Constitution.  Accordingly, an
     Appeals representative  in his or her conclusions of fact or
     application of  the law,  shall  hew  to  the  law  and  the
     recognized standards  of legal construction. It shall be his
     or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with
     strict  impartiality   as  between   the  taxpayer  and  the
     Government, and  without  favoritism  or  discrimination  as
     between taxpayers.


     Even  officers,   agents  and  employees  of  United  States
agencies are  assured due  process where garnishment is concerned
(5 U.S.C.   5520a),  so the  notion that  IRS has  authority  to
execute garnishment  and other  seizures via  the private  sector
without due  process is  clearly absurd.  In the English-American
lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury
under rules  of the  common law indigenous to the several States;
the de  jure people  of America  are not  subject to admiralty or
administrative tribunals.

     In sum,  the mandate  for due  process, meaning  initiatives
through judicial  courts with  proper  jurisdiction,  is  clearly
antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except
where licensing  agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether
by  garnishment,  attachment  of  bank  accounts,  administrative
seizure and  sale of  real or  private  property,  or  any  other
initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.


                3.  Current Internal Revenue Code
            & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same

     Consult 26 U.S.C.  7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal
Revenue Code  of 1954,  as amended  in  1986  and  since,  simply
reorganized the  Internal Revenue  Code of 1939. Read  7852(b) &
(c),  then   read  the  balance  of    7851  &  7852  for  best
comprehension.

     The importance  of making  this connection rests on the fact
that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely codification of
the Public  Salary Tax  Act of  1939. There was no general income
tax levied  against the population at large in 1939 or since. The
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal Revenue Code
of 1939  incorporated the  Social Security  tax  activated  after
1936, was  premised  on  the  notion  that  working  for  federal
government is a privilege. Income and related taxes prescribed in
Subtitles A  & C  of the current Internal Revenue Code have never
been  mandatory  for  anyone  other  than  officers,  agents  and
employees of  the United  States, as  identified at  26 U.S.C.  
3401(c), and  agencies of  the United  States, identified  at   
3401(d), particularized at 5 U.S.C.  102 & 105.

     The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the
Sixteenth Amendment,  fraudulently promulgated  in 1913,  did not
alter or  repeal  constitutional  provisions  which  require  all
direct  taxes   to  be   apportioned  among  the  several  States
(Constitution, Article  I   2.3 &  9.4). In Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S.  189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and numerous
decisions since,  the United  States Supreme Court has repeatedly
affirmed that for purposes of income tax, wages and other returns
from enterprise  of common  right are  property, not  income.  In
fact, returns  from enterprise of common right are fundamental to
all property,  and the  sanctity is  preserved as  a  fundamental
common law  principle dating  to signing  of the  Magna Charta in
1215.

     The nature  of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR 
31.3101-1:   "The employee tax is measured by the amount of wages
received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936..."

     In other  words, the  wage is not the object, but merely the
measure of the tax. This verbiage constitutes so much legalese in
an effort  to circumvent  the duck  test, but the fact that taxes
collected by  the Internal  Revenue Service  fall into the excise
category  was  confirmed  by  the  Comptroller  General's  report
following the  initial effort  to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). It
is further  suggested  at  26  CFR    106.401(a)(2),  where  the
regulation concedes  that, "The  descriptive terms  used in  this
section to  designate the  various classes  of taxes are intended
only to indicate their general character..."

     By referencing  the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules,
cited above, it is found that the definition of "gross income" is
still preserved  in Section  22 of  the Internal  Revenue Code of
1939, thus  cementing the  link between  the  Code  of  1939  and
Subtitles A   &  C of  the Code  of 1954,  as amended in 1986 and
since. The  Internal Revenue  Code of  1939 merely  codified  the
Public Salary  Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in
Senate Committee On Finance and House Committee On Ways and Means
reports on H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which  22
of the  Internal Revenue  Code of  1939 and   61 of the Internal
Revenue Code  of 1954  (current code)  were solidly  linked. Both
reports stipulate  that the  current definition of "gross income"
is intended to be constitutional.

     This intent  is articulated  at 26  CFR  1.61-1(a):  "Gross
income means  all income  from whatever  source  derived,  unless
excluded by law."

     An "Act  of Congress" is policy, not law, and per definition
located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has only
local application  in the  District of  Columbia and other United
States  territories   and  insular   possessions  unless  general
application is  manifestly expressed:   Rule  54(c) --  "'Act  of
congress' includes  any act of Congress locally applicable to and
in force  in the  District of  Columbia, in  Puerto  Rico,  in  a
territory or in an insular possession."

     Where the  Internal Revenue  Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol.
68A, Statutes at Large, p. 3), the legislation is in fact styled,
"An Act"  "To revise  the internal  revenue laws  of  the  United
States."

     As  demonstrated   above,  wages   and  other  returns  from
enterprise  of  common  right  are  exempt  from  direct  tax  by
fundamental law,  and the  regulation for  the  current  Internal
Revenue Code  definition for  "gross income"  clearly articulates
the fundamental law exemption.

     The exemption  as it  pertains  to  the  several  States  is
demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules (Index  volume to  the CFR,  p. 751  of the  1995 edition):
There are 26 CFR, Part 1 regulations listed for 26 U.S.C.  61 &
62, the  latter being  the definition  for adjusted gross income,
but there  is no  26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26 U.S.C. 
63, the definition for taxable income.

     While definitions  for gross  and adjusted  gross income are
clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have
no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross
income which  is not  taxable within  the several States is of no
consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.

     Further, on  examination of  26 CFR   1.62-1, pertaining to
"adjusted gross  income", it  is found that subsections (a) & (b)
are reserved  so the  published regulation  is  incomplete,  with
"temporary" regulation  1.62-1T serving as the current authority
defining "adjusted  gross income."  Temporary regulations have no
legal effect.

     Definitions at   3401,  Vol. 68A  of the  Statutes at Large
(the Internal  Revenue Code  of 1954),  make it  clear  that,  (
3401(a)(A)), "a  resident of  a contiguous country who enters and
leaves  the   United  States   at  frequent  intervals..,"  is  a
nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of
the several  States included),  and the  exclusion  from  "wages"
extends even  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  provide
services for employers "other than the United States or an agency
thereof" ( 3401(a)(8)(A)).


               4. The Employer or Agent is Liable

     Volume 68A  of the  Statutes at  Large, the Internal Revenue
Code of  1954, makes  it perfectly  clear  who  is  "liable"  for
payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:

     SEC. 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS.

     In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control,
     receipt, custody,  or disposal  of, or  pays the wages of an
     employee or  group of  employees, employed  by one  or  more
     employers, the  Secretary of his delegate, under regulations
     prescribed  by   him,  is   authorized  to   designate  such
     fiduciary, agent,  or other  person to  perform such acts as
     are required  by employers  under this  subtitle and  as the
     Secretary or  his delegate  may specify.  Except as  may  be
     otherwise prescribed  by the  Secretary or his delegate, all
     provisions  of   law  (including  penalties)  applicable  in
     respect to  an employer  shall be applicable to a fiduciary,
     agent, or  other person  so designated,  but, except  as  so
     provided, the  employer for  whom such  fiduciary, agent, or
     other person  acts shall remain subject to the provisions of
     law  (including   penalties)  applicable   in   respect   to
     employers.


The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d):

     (d)  TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation
     of the  provisions of  this chapter,  fails  to  deduct  and
     withhold the  tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax
     against which  such tax  may be credited is paid, the tax so
     required to  be deducted and withheld shall not be collected
     from the  employer;   but this  subsection shall  in no case
     relieve the  employer from  liability for  any penalties  or
     additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such
     failure to deduct and withhold.


     These provisions  from Vol.  68A of  the Statutes  at  Large
comply with  and verify  liability set  out at  26 CFR, Part 601,
Subpart D  in general. Further, territorial limits of application
are made clear by the absence of regulations supporting 26 U.S.C.
  7621,   7802,  etc.,   which  are  the  statutes  authorizing
establishment of  internal revenue  districts and  delegations of
authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants.
The fact  that the liability falls to the "employer" (26 U.S.C. 
3401(d)) and/or  his agent,  with no  compensation for serving as
"tax collector," narrows the field to federal government entities
as "employers"  if for  no other  reason than  the population  at
large is  not subject  to the edict of government officials. As a
matter of  course, government cannot compel performance where the
general population  is concerned.  The  subject  class  that  has
"liability" for  Subtitles A  & C  taxes is the "employer" or his
agent, fiduciary, etc., as specified above.

     The matter  is further  clarified in Sections 3403 & 3404 of
Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:

     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.


     SEC. 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER.

     If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory,
     or  political   subdivision  thereof,  or  the  District  of
     Columbia, or  any agency  or instrumentality  of any  one or
     more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and
     withheld upon  any wages  may be  made  by  any  officer  or
     employee of  the United States, or of such State, Territory,
     or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or
     of such  agency or  instrumentality, as  the  case  may  be,
     having  control   of  the   payment  of   such   wages,   or
     appropriately designated for that purpose.


     The territorial  application, and  limitation, is made clear
by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

      31.3121(3)-1 State, United States, and citizen.

     (a)  When used  in the regulations in this subpart, the term
     "State" includes  the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
     of Puerto  Rico, the  Virgin  Islands,  the  Territories  of
     Alaska and  Hawaii before  their admission  as  States,  and
     (when used  with respect  to services  performed after 1960)
     Guam and American Samoa.

     (b)  When used  in the regulations in this subpart, the term
     "United States",  when used  in a  geographical sense, means
     the several  states (including the Territories of Alaska and
     Hawaii before  their admission  as States),  the District of
     Columbia, the  Commonwealth of  Puerto Rico,  and the Virgin
     Islands. When  used in  the regulations in this subpart with
     respect to  services performed  after 1960, the term "United
     States" also  includes Guam and American Samoa when the term
     is used  in a  geographical sense.  The term "citizen of the
     United States"  includes a  citizen of  the Commonwealth  of
     Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1,
     1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.


     Definition of  the terms  "includes" and "including" located
at 26  U.S.C.  7701(c) provides the limiting authority which the
above definitions,  beyond constructive  application, are subject
to:

     (c)  INCLUDES AND  INCLUDING. --  The terms  "includes"  and
     "including" when  used in  a definition  contained  in  this
     title shall  not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
     within the meaning of the term defined.


     Two principles  of law  clarify definition  intent:  (1) the
example represents  the class, and (2) that which is not named is
intended to  be omitted. In the definition of "United States" and
"State" set  out above,  all examples  are of federal States, and
are exclusive  of the  several States,  with  the  transition  of
Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving
the point.  This conclusion  is  reinforced  by  the  absence  of
regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts
in the  several States  (26 U.S.C.   7621),  authority  for  the
Department of  the Treasury  [Puerto Rico]  in the several States
(26 U.S.C.   7801),  and no grant of delegated authority for the
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  assistant  commissioners,  or
other Department  of the  Treasury personnel  (26 U.S.C.  7802 &
7803).


  5.  Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax

     Here again,  the Parallel  Table of Authorities and Rules is
useful as  it demonstrates that Subtitles A & C taxes do not have
general  application   within  the  several  States  and  to  the
population at  large. The  regulation for 26 U.S.C.  1 refers to
26 CFR   301,  but that  amounts to  a dead  end --  there is no
regulation under  26 CFR,  Part 1  or 31 which would apply to the
several States and the population at large. Further, there are no
supportive regulations  at all  for 26  U.S.C.   2 &  3, and of
considerable significance,  no regulations  supporting  corporate
income tax, 26 U.S.C.  11, as applicable to the several States.

     Where  the   instant  matter   is   concerned,   regulations
supporting 26  U.S.C.   6321, liens  for taxes, and  6331, levy
and distraint,  are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is
that Title  27 of  the Code of Federal Regulations is exclusively
under Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration for
Subtitle  E   and  related  taxes.  There  are  no  corresponding
regulations for  the Internal  Revenue Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1
or 31,  which extend  comparable authority  to the several States
and the population at large.

     The necessity  of regulations being published in the Federal
Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures
Act, at  5 U.S.C.  552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at
44 U.S.C.   1501  et seq. Of particular note, it is specifically
set out  at 44  U.S.C.   1505(a), that  when regulations are not
published in  the Federal  Register,  application  of  any  given
statute is  exclusively to  agencies of  the  United  States  and
officers, agents  and employees  of the  United States, thus once
again confirming  application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated
above. Further,  the need  for regulations  is detailed in 1 CFR,
Chapter 1,  and where  the Internal Revenue Service is concerned,
26 CFR  601.702.

     The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the
Supreme Court  of the  United States,  as  stated  in  California
Bankers Association  v. Schultz,  416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494,
1500, 39  L.Ed.2d 812  (1974):   "Because it has a bearing on our
treatment of  some of  the issues raised by the parties, we think
it important  to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties
attach only  upon violation  of regulations  promulgated  by  the
Secretary;   if the  Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself
would impose no penalties on anyone."

     Because  there  is  a  citation  supporting  these  statutes
applicable under  Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it
is important  to point  out that,  "Each agency shall publish its
own regulations  in full  text," (1 CFR  21.21(c)), with further
verification that  one agency  cannot use regulations promulgated
by another at 1 CFR  21.40. To date, no corresponding regulation
has been  found for  26 CFR,  Part  1  or  31,  so  until  proven
otherwise, IRS  does not  have  authority  to  perfect  liens  or
prosecute seizures  in the  several States  as pertaining  to the
population at large.


                 6.  Misapplication of Authority

     Regulations pertaining  to seized  property are  found at 26
CFR  601.326:

     Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to
     the personal  property seized  by officers  of the  Internal
     Revenue Service  or  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
     Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended
     to be  used, to violate certain Federal Laws;  the remission
     or mitigation  of such  forfeiture;   and the administrative
     sale or  other disposition,  pursuant to forfeiture, of such
     seized  property   other  than  firearms  seized  under  the
     National Firearms  Act and  firearms and  ammunition  seized
     under title  1 of  the Gun Control Act of 1968. For disposal
     of firearms  and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control
     Act  of   1968,  see  18  U.S.C.  924(d).  For  disposal  of
     explosives under  Title XI of Organized Crime Control Act of
     1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c).


     The only  other comparable authority thus far found pertains
to windfall profits tax on petroleum (26 CFR  601.405), but once
again, application  is not supported by regulations applicable to
the several States and the population at large.

     Where the  mandate for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the
only  regulatory  reference  presently  known  is  at  26  CFR  
601.401(d)(4),  and   this   application   appears   related   to
"employees" who  work for  two  or  more  "employers",  receiving
foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States.
The mandate  is mentioned  in instructions  applicable to  United
States citizens  and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date
has not  been located  elsewhere. Reference  OMB  numbers  for  
601.401,  listed  on  page  170,  26  CFR,  Part  600-End,  cross
referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the
Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign application.

     The "notice  of levy"  instrument forwarded to various third
parties is not a "levy" which warrants surrender of property. The
Internal  Revenue  Code,  at    6335(a),  defines  the  "notice"
instrument by  use --  notice is to be served to whomever seizure
has been  executed against  after the  seizure  is  effected.  In
short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for
action. The  term "notice"  is clarified by definition in Black's
Law Dictionary,  6th Edition,  and other law dictionaries. Use of
the "notice  of levy"  instrument to  effect seizure  is fraud by
design.

     Proper  use   of  the   "notice"   process,   administrative
garnishment, et  al., is specifically set out in 5 U.S.C.  5514,
as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees
of agencies  of the  United States  (26 U.S.C.   3401(c)).  Even
then, however,  the process  must comply  with provisions  of  31
U.S.C.   3530(d), and  standards set forth in  3711 & 3716-17.
In accordance with provisions of 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the
employer, meaning  the  United  States  agency  the  employee  is
employed by,  is responsible  for  promulgating  regulations  and
carrying out garnishment.


            7.  Liability Depends on a Taxing Statute

     General  demands  for  filing  tax  returns,  production  of
records, examination  of books,  imposition and  payment of  tax,
etc., are  of no  consequence to  the point  a taxing statute (1)
defines  what  tax  is  being  imposed,  and  (2)  the  basis  of
liability. In  other words,  even if the Internal Revenue Service
was a  legitimate agency  of the  United States Department of the
Treasury and  had authority  in the  several States,  the Service
would have  to be  specific with respect to what tax was at issue
and would  have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute
with the  necessary elements  to establish  that any given person
was obligated to pay any given tax.

     This mandate  has been  clarified  by  the  courts  numerous
times, with  the matter  definitively stated by the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d
797, at p. 800 (1964):

     Without question,  a taxing  statute must describe with some
     certainty the  transaction, service,  or object to be taxed,
     and in  the typical  situation it  is construed  against the
     Government.   Hassett v.  Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559,
     82 L.Ed. 858.


     In other  words, to  the point Service personnel produce the
statute which  mandates a  certain tax  and which specifies, "...
the transaction, service, or object to be taxed..," the burden of
proof lies  with the  Government, with the consequence being that
no obligation  or civil  or criminal  liability can  ensue to the
point a  taxing statute  that meets  the above requirements is in
evidence.

     This conclusion  is supported  by the statute which provides
the  underlying   requirements  for   keeping   records,   making
statements, etc., located at 26 U.S.C.  6001:

     Every person  liable for  any tax  imposed by this title, or
     for the  collection thereof, shall keep such records, render
     such statements,  make such  returns, and  comply with  such
     rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time
     prescribe. Whenever  in the  judgment of the Secretary it is
     necessary, he  may require any person, by notice served upon
     such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render
     such statements,  or keep  such records,  as  the  Secretary
     deems sufficient  to show  whether or  not  such  person  is
     liable for  tax under  this title. The only records which an
     employee shall  be required  to keep  under this  section in
     connection with  charged  tips  shall  be  charge  receipts,
     records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies
     of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).


     The control  statute for  Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter
A, Part  I, concerning  records, statements, and special returns,
clearly returns  the  matter  to  the  "employee"  defined  at  
3401(c), and  the "employer"  defined at   3401(d).  In general,
however, (1) the Secretary must provide direct notice to whomever
is required  to keep  books, records,  etc., as being the "person
liable," or  (2) specify  the person liable by regulation. In the
absence of  notice by  the Secretary,  based on  a taxing statute
which  makes   such  a  person  liable  according  to  provisions
stipulated in  United States  v. Community  TV, Inc.,  Hassett v.
Welch, and  other such  cases, or  regulations which specifically
set establish general liability, there is no liability.

     Sec. 6001  also exempts  "employees"  from  keeping  records
except where  tips and the like are concerned. This is consistent
with constructive  demonstration  that  "employers"  rather  than
"employees" are  required to  file returns,  as opposed to paying
deducted  amounts   as   income   tax   returns,   constructively
demonstrated  in  a  previous  section  of  this  memorandum  and
specifically articulated  in 26  CFR  601.104. Clarification via
26 U.S.C.  6053(a) is as follows:

     (a)  REPORTS BY  EMPLOYEES. --  Every employee  who, in  the
     course of  his employment  by an  employer, receives  in any
     calendar month  tips which  are wages (as defined in section
     3121(a) or  section 3401(a))  or which  are compensation (as
     defined in  section 3231(e))  shall report  all such tips in
     one or  more written statements furnished to his employer on
     or before the 10th day following such month. Such statements
     shall be  furnished by  the employee under such regulations,
     at such  other times  before such 10th day, and in such form
     and manner, as may be prescribed by the Secretary.


     Unraveling   6001 straightens  out the  meaning of   6011,
which requires  filing returns,  statements, etc.,  by the person
made  liable  (  3401(d)),  as  distinguished  from  the  person
required to  make returns  (payments) at  6012 ( 3401(c)). Even
though a  person might  be a  citizen or  resident of  the United
States employed by an agency of the United States, and thereby be
required to  return a  prescribed amount  of United States-source
income, he  is not  the person  liable under  6011 and attending
regulations.

     The "method of assessment" prescribed at 26 U.S.C.  6303 is
therefore dependent  on the  taxing  statute  and  must  rest  on
authority  specifically   conveyed  by  a  taxing  statute  which
prescribes  liability   where  the  Secretary  (1)  has  provided
specific notice,  including the  statute and  type of  tax  being
imposed, or (2) supports assessment by regulatory application. In
the absence  of one  or the other, an assessment by the Secretary
is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating.

     The requirement  for the  Secretary  to  provide  notice  to
whomever is  responsible for  collecting  tax,  keeping  records,
etc.,  is   clarified  at   26  CFR    301.7512-1,  particularly
(a)(1)(i), relating  to "employee  tax imposed by section 3101 of
chapter  21   (Federal   Insurance   Contributions   Act),"   and
(a)(1)(iii), relating  to "income  tax required to be withheld on
wages by  section 3402 of chapter 24 (Collection of Income Tax at
Source on  Wages)..." The  person liable  is the  employer or the
employers, agent,  and of  particular significance,  it  is  this
"person" who  is  subject  to  civil  and  particularly  criminal
penalties (26  CFR   301.7513-1(f);   26  CFR    301.7207-1  &
301.7214-1, etc.).   Officers  and employees of the United States
are specifically  identified as  being  liable  at  26  U.S.C.  
301.7214-1.

     The matter  of  who  is  required  to  register,  apply  for
licenses, or  otherwise collect  and/or pay  taxes imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code is ultimately and finally put to rest under
"Licensing and  Registration", 26  U.S.C.   301.7001-1, et seq.
Each of  the categories  so addressed has liability based on some
particular taxing statute which creates liability.


           8.  The Necessity of Administrative Process

     The requirement  for a  specific  taxing  statute,  with  26
U.S.C.   6001 clearly  providing  the  first  leg  in  necessary
administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at
length in  Rodriguez v.  United States, 629 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ill.
1986).   Presuming:  (1) the Secretary has provided the necessary
notice, or  (2) a regulation prescribes general application which
makes any  given person  liable for a tax and requires tax return
statements to  be filed,  each  step  in  administrative  process
prescribed by  26 U.S.C.   6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must
be in place for seizure or any other encumbrance to be legal.

     Here again,  regulations published  in the  Federal Register
are significant,  with provisions  of 5  U.S.C.  552 et seq., 44
U.S.C.  1501 et seq., 1 CFR, Chapter I, and 26 CFR, Part 601 all
supporting the  mandate for  regulations to  be published  in the
Federal Register before they have general application. It will be
noted by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules,
beginning on  page 751  of the  1995 Index  volume to the Code of
Federal  Regulations,  that  application  by  regulation  to  the
several States  is only  under Title  27 of  the Code  of Federal
Regulations, or  that there  are no  regulations published in the
Federal Register.  The following  entries,  or  non-entries,  are
found:

  26 USC 6201  Assessment authority        27 C.F.R., Part 70
  26 USC 6212  Notice of deficiency        No Regulation
  26 USC 6213  Restrictions applicable to
               deficiencies;  petition to
               Tax Court                   No Regulation
  26 USC 6303  Notice and Demand for Tax   27 C.F.R., Part 53, 70
  26 USC 6331  Levy and distraint          27 C.F.R., Part 70


     The assessment authority under 26 U.S.C.  6201, in relevant
part as applicable to Subtitles A & C taxes, are as follows:

     (a)  AUTHORITY OF  SECRETARY. -- The Secretary is authorized
     and  required  to  make  the  inquires,  determination,  and
     assessments of  all taxes  (including  interest,  additional
     amounts, additions  to the  tax, and  assessable  penalties)
     imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal
     revenue law,  which have been duly paid by stamp at the time
     and in  the manner  provided by  law. Such  authority  shall
     extend to and include the following:

     (1)  TAXES SHOWN  ON RETURN.  -- The  secretary shall assess
     all taxes  determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as
     to which returns or lists are made under this title. ...

     (3)  ERRONEOUS INCOME  TAX PREPAYMENT  CREDITS. -- If on any
     return or  claim for refund of income taxes under subtitle A
     there is  an overstatement  of the  credit  for  income  tax
     withheld at  the source,  or of the amount paid as estimated
     income tax,  the  amount  so  overstated  which  is  allowed
     against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed as a
     credit or  refund may  be assessed  by the  Secretary in the
     same manner  as in  the case  of a  mathematical or clerical
     error appearing  upon the return, except that the provisions
     of section 6213(b)(2) (relating to abatement of mathematical
     or clerical  error assessments)  shall not apply with regard
     to any assessment under this paragraph.


     (b)  AMOUNT NOT TO BE ASSESSED. --

     (1)  ESTIMATED INCOME  TAX. -- No unpaid amount of estimated
     income tax  required to  be paid  under section 6654 or 6655
     shall be assessed.

     (2)  FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT  TAX. -- No unpaid amount of Federal
     unemployment tax for any calendar quarter or other period of
     a calendar year, computed as provided in section 6157, shall
     be assessed. ...


     (d)  DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS. --

     For special  rules applicable  to  deficiencies  of  income,
     estate, gift,  and certain  excise taxes,  see subchapter B.
     [emphasis added]


     The grant  of assessment  authority with  respect  to  taxes
prescribed in  Subtitles A  & C  is limited to provisions set out
above even  where the  Service might  have authority  relating to
those made  liable for  the tax, meaning the "employer" specified
at 26 U.S.C.  3401(d). Clearly, returns made either by the agent
of the  United States  agency required  to file  a return, or the
Secretary, are  to be evaluated mathematically, and errors are to
be treated as clerical errors, nothing more. The Secretary has no
authority to  assess estimated  income tax  (individual estimated
income tax  at   6554;   corporation estimated  income tax  at 
6655), or unemployment tax (  6157). For all practical purposes,
the trail effectively ends here.


      9.  The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election

     In order  for there  to be  an opportunity for a nonresident
alien of  the United  States (a  Citizen of  one of  the  several
States) to  elect to be taxed or treated as a citizen or resident
of the  United States,  one or  the other of a married couple, or
the single "individual" making the election, must be a citizen or
resident of  the United  States (26  U.S.C.   6013(g)(3)).  Some
party must  in some  way be connected with a "United States trade
or business" (performance of the functions of a public office (26
U.S.C.   7701(a)(26)).  A  nonresident  alien  never  has  self-
employment income  (26 CFR  1.1402(b)-1(d)). In the event that a
nonresident alien  is an  "employee" (26  U.S.C.   3401(c)), the
"employer" (26  U.S.C.   3401(d)) is  liable for  collection and
payment of  income tax (26 CFR  1.1441-1). And in order for real
property to  be treated  as effectively  connected with  a United
States trade  or business  by way of election, it must be located
within the geographical United States (26 U.S.C.  871(d)).

     Provisions cited  above preclude any and all legal authority
for Citizens of the several States, or privately owned enterprise
located in  the several States, to participate in federal tax and
benefits programs  prescribed in  Subtitles A & C of the Internal
Revenue  Code  and  companion  legislation  such  as  the  Social
Security Act  which  provide  benefits  from  the  United  States
Government, which is a foreign corporation to the several States.


                      Summary & Conclusion

     Again, this memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but
merely sufficient to support causes set out separately.  The most
conspicuous conclusions  of law are that Congress never created a
Bureau of  Internal Revenue,  the  predecessor  of  the  Internal
Revenue Service;   Subtitles  A &  C of the Internal Revenue Code
prescribe excise  taxes, mandatory  only for  employees of United
States Government agencies;  the Internal Revenue Service, within
the geographical  United States  where the agency appears to have
colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to
seizing or encumbering assets;  and the law demonstrates that the
people of  the several  States, defined  as nonresident aliens in
the Internal  Revenue Code, cannot legitimately elect to be taxed
or treated  as citizens  or residents  of the United States. If a
Citizen of  one of  the several States works for an agency of the
United States  or receives  income from a United States "trade or
business" or  otherwise effectively  connected  with  the  United
States, the employer or other third party responsible for payment
is made  liable for  withholding taxes at the rate of 30% or 14%,
depending on classification.


     To the  best of  my knowledge  and understanding, matters of
fact and law set out above are accurate and true.


Dan Meador (May 14, 1996)


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents