USDOJ dismisses Houston IRS summons case; IRS agent issues new summons; Petitioner responds commercially

The previous post (May 28, 2017) mentions a hearing in the Houston IRS summons case scheduled for May 30, 2017, to hear Petitioner’s motion to dismiss by reason of coram non judice (before a person not a judge), and motion to withdraw the unwarranted order included in the order to show cause.

At the hearing on May 30, 2017, the judge immediately announced that the United States Department of Justice attorney for the IRS had, that very morning, submitted a motion to dismiss and that the motion was granted and the case dismissed.

The United States Department of Justice attorney’s motion to dismiss, only half a page in length, states that the reason for the dismissal is that the original IRS summons listed “John B. Trowbridge” as the target of the investigation and that the actual target is “John Parks Trowbridge” [sic] even though the Social Security Account Number included in the summons is that of John Parks Trowbridge, Jr.’s.

In such governmental legal matters, errors in the name typically are glossed over if the intended party appears; to wit:

“Praesentia corporis tollit errorem nominis, et veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis. The presence of the body cures the error in the name ; the truth of the name cures an error in the description.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914), p. 2154.

A possible explanation is that neither the source of the summons, the Internal Revenue Service, nor its parent organization, the Department of the Treasury, are part of the government that filed the lawsuit.

The Department of the Treasury is a private organization, independent of government, 41 Stat. 654; to wit: Neither the senior executive of the Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service (the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respectively) is required by law to take an oath of office (meaning they are non-governmental, private-sector workers) and the sole beneficiary of all their collections of income tax[1] is a private bank, the Federal Reserve.[2]

The IRS revenue agent who issued the summons that resulted in the lawsuit was present at the hearing and, following dismissal of the case, presented Petitioner with a new IRS administrative summons, dated that day, May 30, 2017, for an examination 15 days later, on June 14, 2017.

The United States Department of Justice attorney (who had just dismissed the case) informed Petitioner that he would be attending the June 14, 2017, examination personally.

Dismissal of the case and issuance and presentment of the new IRS summons means there is no court case and the entire cycle starts over from scratch.


The previous post shows why there is no due process of law or remedy in any United States district court anywhere in the Union and that the immediate remedy[3] is not a legal one per se but commercial, under common-law rules, before the court gets involved.

In response to the new summons, Petitioner on June 5, 2017, sent the IRS revenue agent, IRS group manager, and Secretary of the Treasury a Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace, and the United States Department of Justice attorney a courtesy copy thereof.

The Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace is four pages in length and self-explanatory; it is intended to resolve things without the need for a lawsuit.

That is not to say, however, that things will not end up in the courts again.

Attorneys of the United States Department of Justice and United States district and magistrate judges are concerned in the face of Petitioner’s demands for a constitutional authority (because there is none) and scrambling to protect the secrets of the cabal—but recipients of the Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace may be inclined to move on to the next “customer” rather than seek the court’s assistance in enforcing the new summons, and thereby avoid non-judicial enforcement of the penalties in the Demand, Notice, and Warning of Commercial Grace against them personally.

This type of response is proper for any type of situation where an officer of the U.S. Government seeks to take territorial jurisdiction over person or property and enforce some statute against a Union-member resident or his property—because there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes it.

The Constitution confers upon Congress only power of personal (regarding certain criminal offenses only) and subject-matter legislation throughout the Union at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-16; thus, these provisions of the Constitution give executive and judicial officers the capacity to take only personal and subject-matter jurisdiction throughout the Union, in respect of the statutes enacted by Congress regarding those things.

The Constitution grants Congress no power of territorial legislation over person or property anywhere in the Union, thus depriving executive and judicial officers of the capacity to take territorial jurisdiction over person or property anywhere in the Union.

An IRS summons issued against a resident of any member of the Union and the lawsuit filed to enforce it are examples of usurpation of exercise of territorial jurisdiction against person and property by United States Department of Justice personnel and district and magistrate judges of the United States—because there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes it.

*  *  *  *

[1] 100 percent of what is collected [in income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt . . . . In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” J. Peter Grace, “President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control: A Report to the President,” dated and approved January 12 and 15, 1984, p. 3.

[2] “The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking monopoly.” Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, p. 1260.

[3] The long-term remedy is to abolish the current municipal form of government and institute a federal / constitutional form of government as provided in the Constitution.