FWD: IRS is NOT "agency"

[B.Chandler]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/5/551.html
> 
> Sec. 551. Definitions 
> 
> For the purpose of this subchapter - 
> 

(1) ''agency'' means each authority of the
> Government of the 
> United States, whether or not it is within or
> subject to review 
> by another agency, but does not include - 
> (A) the Congress; 
> (B) the courts of the United States; 
> (C) the governments of the territories or
> possessions of the 
> United States; 
> (D) the government of the District of Columbia;
<---!!!

>IRS is not an
> "agency" either and, therefore, FOIA is
> not appropriate for them to answer.

>The implications are far-reaching;  so, we
> have petitioned a California federal court
> for declaratory relief on this important
> question.  We have asked a USDC judge to
> rule that IRS is not an "agency", as that
> term is defined in the FOIA, i.e. 5 U.S.C. 551.

> We argue they DO answer FOIA's, to maintain
> the lie that they are really a bureau within
> the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  For example,
> we have now received certified copies of 
> Form 61 Appointment Affidavits from IRS
> disclosure officers!
> 
> So, we DON'T get Form 61's for DOJ attorneys,
> who SHOULD have them;  and we DO get Form 61's
> for IRS employees, who should NOT have them.
> 
> This world of ours is upside down, yes? :)
> 
> Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?  8-)
> 
> Along these same lines, IRS employees should
> NOT be executing Form 61 Appointment Affidavits
> either;  such affidavits are counterfeits,
> once it is shown that IRS is not U.S. Treasury;
> is domiciled in Puerto Rico;  and, therefore,
> is not, and cannot be, an "agency".
> 
> The IRS is Trust #62 in Puerto Rico, and
> the exclusion of the governments of
> territories and possessions supra,
> drives another BIG nail in their coffin.