UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS - - Get a
Transcript of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS - - Get a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Washington, D.C.
CASE #: 11-5083
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUITWashington, D.C.
David Lee; BuessPrivate Attorney Generall22014 Delaware Township Road 184Arlington, Ohio [45814]
Rodney Dale; Class CASE #: 11-5083 Private Attorney General P.O. BOX 435High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]
Petitioners
Vs.
UNITED STATES dba Corporation JOHN SCHMANN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044
Franchise CorporationSTATE OF OHIO dba CorporationLAW FIRM RICHARD CORDRAY AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286)30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215
Employee of CorporationREGINALD J. ROUTSON300 South Main StreetFindlay, Ohio 4584
Franchise CorporationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA dba CorporationLAW FIRM ROY COOPER
2
9001 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-9001
Employee of Corporation GASTON COUNTY dba Corporation TAX DEPARTMENTP.O. Box 1578 Gastonia, NC 28053-1578
Defendants
PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS
LEFT BLANK
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES
1. HEADER OF THE COURTS AND PARTIES TO THE CASE 1-3
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
3. QUOTES ON CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED STATUTES,
CODES, AND PUBLIC LAWS 5 -15
4. NATURE OF THE CASE 16
5. GROUNDS FOR THE PETITIONERS TO FILE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 17 -20
6. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS 20 - 24
7. Conclusion 24 -28
8. CURE 28 -31
9. Proof of Service 32 -33
LEFT BLANK
4
QUOTES ON CONGRESSIONALY ENACTED STATUTES, CODES, AND PUBLIC LAWS
Any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall
be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Sec. 2, Section
1343 of title 28 UNITED STATES CODES is amended
1. First issue: to begin with is clarification of Congressional language 28
USC Judiciary & Judicial Procedure manual, (especially) section 1652
28 U.S.C. § 1652 : US Code - Section 1652: State laws as rules of decision
The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or
treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise
require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil
actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.
2. Second issue: Congressional Enactment of Title 28 USC, Chapter 176
Federal Debt Collection Procedure as to how such are to be collected:
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER B > § 3102
§ 3102. Attachment
(d) Levy of Attachment.—
(1) The United States marshal receiving the writ shall proceed without
delay to levy upon the property specified for attachment if found
within the district. The marshal may not sell property unless ordered
by the court.
5
(2) In performing the levy, the United States marshal may enter any
property owned, occupied, or controlled by the debtor, except that the
marshal may not enter a residence or other building unless the writ
expressly authorizes the marshal to do so or upon specific order of the
court.
(3) Levy on real property is made by entering the property and posting
the writ and notice of levy in a conspicuous place upon the property.
(4) Levy on personal property is made by taking possession of it.
Levy on personal property not easily taken into possession or which
cannot be taken into possession without great inconvenience or
expense may be made by affixing a copy of the writ and notice of levy
on it or in a conspicuous place in the vicinity of it describing in the
notice of levy the property by quantity and with sufficient detail to
identify the property levied on.
(5) The United States marshal shall file a copy of the notice of levy in
the same manner as provided for judgments in section 3201 (a)(1).
The United States marshal shall serve a copy of the writ and notice of
levy on—
(A) the debtor against whom the writ is issued; and
(B) the person who has possession of the property subject to the writ;
in the same manner that a summons is served in a civil action and
make the return thereof.
(e) Return of Writ; Duties of Marshal; Further Return.—
(1) A United States marshal executing a writ of attachment shall
return the writ with the marshal’s action endorsed thereon or attached
thereto and signed by the marshal, to the court from which it was
issued, within 5 days after the date of the levy.
6
(2) The return shall describe the property attached with sufficient
certainty to identify it and shall state the location where it was
attached, the date and time it was attached, and the disposition made
of the property. If no property was attached, the return shall so state.
(3) If the property levied on is claimed, replevied under subsection (j)
(2), or sold under section 3007 after the return, the United States
marshal shall immediately make a further return to the clerk of the
court showing the disposition of the property.
(4) If personal property is replevied, the United States marshal shall
deliver the replevin bond to the clerk of the court to be filed in the
action.
CHAPTER 176—FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURETITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER B > § 3104
§ 3104. Garnishment
(a) In General.— If the requirements of section 3101 are satisfied, a
court may issue a writ of garnishment against property (excluding
earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest and
which is in the possession, custody, or control of a person other than
the debtor in order to satisfy a claim for a debt. Co-owned property
shall be subject to garnishment to the same extent as co-owned
property is subject to garnishment under the law of the State in which
such property is located. A court may issue simultaneous separate
writs of garnishment to several garnishees. A writ of garnishment
issued under this subsection shall be continuing and shall terminate
only as provided in section 3205 (c)(10).
7
3. Third issue: Congressional Enactment is in the United States Code Title 26 section 7343
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > § 7343
§ 7343. Definition of term “person”
The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or
employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform
the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
4. The Fourth issue: Congressional Enactment applies to on whom the IRS
can place a levy on and who has to give authorization
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 64 > Subchapter D > PART II >
§ 6331
§ 6331. Levy and distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same
within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the
Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be
sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property
and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under
section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien
provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be
made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or
elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any
8
agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of
Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in
section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the
Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in
jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may
be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax,
collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day
period provided in this section.
5. The Fifth issue: Congressional enactment of the Tax Court
TITLE 26 App. > TITLE II. > Rule 10. Name, Office, and Sessions
(a) Name: The name of the Court is the United States Tax Court.
(Note: The District of Columbia Tax Court was consolidated into a
single court known as the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.)
Congress established the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as
the trial court of general jurisdiction for the District of Columbia in
1970. Definition (General jurisdiction" as used in reference to subject
matter jurisdiction.) Public Law 96-170 Dec 29 1979. “AN ACT” To
permit civil suit under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42
USC 1983) against any person acting under color of any law or
custom of the District of Columbia who subject any person within the
jurisdiction of the District of Columbia to the deprivation rights,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and Laws
including 24 Am Jur 2d, District of Columbia ß 21 ß 21 Superior
Court of the District of Columbia and divisions thereof The District of
Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile Court of the
9
District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court were
consolidated in a single court known as the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. (Title 28,). (2) by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence; “for the purposes of this section, Any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Sec.2, Section
1343 of Title 28 UNITED STATES CODES is amended.”
6. Public Law 10 ch. 48, 48 Stat. 112 (HJR 192) 1933 of March 9. It is
an established fact that the United States Federal Government confiscated
all the gold and silver thereby denying the ability to pay any debts which
includes taxes.
7. Public Law 1, 48 Stat C 1 (HR 1491) United States Federal Government
has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act.
Public Law 73-1. To provide relief in the existing national emergency in
banking, and for other purposes by the 73rd Congress of the United
States
SECTION 1.
The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations
heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the
President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since
March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b)
1
of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby
approved and confirmed.
8. Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411
SEC. 2.
Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency
declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that
he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit,
under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers
of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by
the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or
silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United
States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the
President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred
to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information
relative thereto, including the production of any books of account,
contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the
custody or control of such person, either before or after such
transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the
provisions of this subdivision or of any license, order, rule or
regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more
than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more
than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any
1
corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be
punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both. As used in this
subdivision the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership,
association, or corporation.”
9. Public Law, 404, 60 stat 237, S.7. An Act to improve the administration
of justice by prescribing fair administrative procedure.
The Act of June 11, 1946, c. 324 (designated as Public Law 404) (60 Stat.
237-244), the Administrative Procedure Act, establishes the procedure for
obtaining public information and the exceptions to obtaining that
information. The Act sets forth procedures for agency rulemaking,
adjudications following the opportunity for agency hearings, agency
hearings, and agency decisions. The Act sets forth limits on sanctions and
powers and provides for judicial review. The Act provides for examiners
for agency hearings and decisions
10. United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 12. To raise and
support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a
longer Term than two Years;
Note:
(The APA applies to both the federal executive departments and the
independent agencies. U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA "a bill of
rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are
controlled or regulated" by federal government agencies)
11. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 15 > § 333
1
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal lawThe President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
12. FLAG Martial Law; "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834,
August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the
regular flag of the united States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE bor-
der on three sides. The president of the United States designates this devi-
ation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Com-
mander-in-Chief.
13. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 95b
§ 95b. Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the Treasury under section 95a
The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title, are approved and confirmed.
1
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 95a
§ 95a. Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties
(1)During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
(A)investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
(B)investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the
1
President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.
(2)Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.
(3)As used in this subdivision the term “United States” means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision the term “person” means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.
(4)The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 2404 of title 50, Appendix, or under section 2405 of title 50, Appendix to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18.
1
NATURE OF THE CASE
NOW, COMES, The Petitioners, David-Lee; Buess and Rodney
-Dale; Class, with this Judicial Review as the real parties in interest in this
case against the Defendants in their administrative standing to the petitioners
with this PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS.
The issue that was placed before the proper Tax Court (Superior Court
of the District Of Columbia) conformed to Congressional Enactment. The
issue before the Court was Not if taxes were legal or illegal, But the means
by which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Defendants were
allowed the collection of these taxes. The means by which these taxes were
collected was FRAUDULENT and Not whether or not TAXES were illegal
or illegal. The Petitioner's issue was never addressed, it was avoided and
side stepped by the Defendants making claim that they can not be held
accountable. 12 b 1, 12 b 2, 12 b 6, etc., etc., etc., etc., and etc...
The Petitioners placed this issue before an Administrative Tax Court
in compliance with 60 stat 237, S.7, The Administrative Procedure Act of
1946 and in compliance with IRS 26 USC, App. Rule 10, in order to address
1
the administrative and procedural violations by the Defendants.
GROUNDS FOR THE PETITIONERS TO FILE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
1. David-Lee; Buess, after being a victim of the IRS, set a claim in his local
court against the Internal Revenue Service in front of Judge REGINALD J.
ROUTSON for fraud and their failure to follow procedure and rulings of the
United States Supreme Court; and procedures for garnishment and levy on a
bank account and his Social Security check.
2. David-Lee; Buess addressed the Bankruptcy laws.
3. David-Lee; Buess addressed the IRS Title 26 Codes.
4. David-Lee; Buess addressed Supreme Court decisions; Lower Court
Decisions as well Constitutional grounds, and filed a Notice of Felony and
Affidavits which went unanswered.
5. David-Lee; Buess followed the law and addressed these issues before
Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON who acted as an Administrative Law
Judge.
6. David-Lee; Buess filed Defaults on the IRS for their failure to appear.
7. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON ruled in favor of the IRS even when
they failed to appear or file in any documents into the case.
8. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON covered up the fraud of the IRS
1
knowing the Public Laws on the Bankruptcy, The State of Emergency and
the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1933; he also Ignored Some 60 Rulings
of the UNITED STATES Supreme Court and made Motions from the Bench.
9. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON had full knowledge that the Federal
Reserve Notes are not backed by gold or silver but by the credit of the
People.
10. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON had full knowledge and understanding
of the IRS Codes under section 6331 & 7343 as well Title 28, section 1652
and the Federal debt collection procedure chapter 176, and section 3102 and
3104 as to how the IRS was to be properly collected. (IF THERE WAS
REAL MONEY.)
11. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON had full knowledge and understanding
of the United States Codes and the Public Laws created by Congress in
Congressional enactments. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON action did not
come in compliance with the United States Codes or Regulation or with
Public Law 1 48 stat 1, Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411, Public Law 10
ch.48,48 stat 112, Title 12 95 b, Statute at Large Vol. 48 pages 1-112 and
fling a Military Flag signifying administrative proclamations.
12. David-Lee; Buess contacted the Attorney General's office in Ohio and
reported the misconduct and abuse, and that his bank account was being
1
accessed and levied illegally. He reported this crime to the Highest Ranking
Law enforcement in the State and they failed to protect and serve Mr. Buess
and breached their fiduciary trustee duty to the public. This was outlined in
an Affidavit: “Destroyed By OAG Office.”
13. Rodney-Dale; Class was also a victim of the Gaston County Tax
Department of illegal and fraudulent tax collection, and their failure to
follow procedures for garnishment and levy on a bank account.
14.Rodney-Dale; Class had previously given notice in what the federal
statute and state statues explains on garnishment and levy only to have the
Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department disregard the Statutes.
15.The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, being a lawyer and having
been schooled in the law of Taxes, was aware of the Procedures to collect.
16. The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, being aware of the Federal
debt collection procedure, violated Title 28 USC of that section.
17. The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, being aware of Title 26
USC section 6331 and 7343, had full knowledge that Rodney-Dale; Class
did Not come under those definitions.
18.The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, having knowledge, as a
lawyer, of the 1933 Public Laws dealing with the Bankruptcy, State of
Emergency and the Trading with the Enemy Act, knew he was required to
1
discharge the debt through the Comptroller of the Currency.
19. The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, knowing his actions
required a Court order, failed to get a lawful court order before he removed
the funds from Rodney-Dale; Class' wife's bank accounts and charged an
additional 100 dollars for attorney's fees. He did this Not once, but but three
times.
20. The Lawyer for the Gaston Tax department had full knowledge and
understanding of the United States Codes and the Public Laws created by
Congress in Congressional enactments. The Lawyer for the Gaston Tax
department action did not come in compliance with the United States Codes
or Regulation or with Public Law 1 48 stat 1, Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411,
Public Law 10 ch.48,48 stat 112, Title 12 95 b, Statute at Large Vol. 48
pages 1-112 and fling a Military Flag signifying administrative
proclamations.
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS
1. The Petitioners filed their Civil Suit into the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia at Moultrie Courthouse, 500 Indiana Ave., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20001 on a Tax Fraud violation. (Note: the District of Columbia Tax
2
Court was consolidated into a single court known as the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia as mentioned in a previous note.)
2. The IRS Attorney, Christopher Wright Sanders, removed, without
authority, the original case from the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA under the pretense of jurisdiction TITLE 28 >
PART IV > CHAPTER 89 > § 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or
prosecuted.
3. The IRS Attorney, Christopher Wright Sanders, then filed for dismissal on
the grounds that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
case after he had clearly attempted to invoke its jurisdiction and have the
case heard in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. This makes no sense, as I'm sure the court will
agree.
4. The Petitioners, in order to save time and duplication for the court, will
not outline all the various Co-Defendants actions in following Christopher
Wright Sanders' incorrect and unlawful moving of the original case to the
procedurally wrong court, and blindly following Mr. Sanders' lead. The Co-
Defendants acquiesced to the removal of the case from the, clearly,
2
authorized, Tax Court and all gave jurisdiction to the UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and then, again,
acquiesced to Mr. Sanders' motion asking for dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. I bring your attention to the fact that this is misuse of
public funds, and violates 31 USC, section 3729, False claims, which
constitutes these actions as being Fraud.
5. The Petitioners formally objected to this case removal action on the
grounds that the Defendants removed the original complaint from a proper
Administrative Tax Court in compliance with Title 26 USC, App. Rule 10,
and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 60 stat 237, S7, to have this
case heard before a proper Tax Court as defined by Congressional
Enactment.
6. The Defendants have failed to prove that the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia was Not a proper Tax Court before removing the Petitioners
complaint from that Congressionally mandated Tax Court.
Public Law 96-170 Dec 29, 1979. “AN ACT” To permit civil suit
under section 1979 of the Revise Statutes(42 USC 1983) against any
person acting under color of any law or custom of the District of
Columbia who subject any person within the jurisdiction of the
District of Columbia to the deprivation rights, privilege, or immunity
2
secured by the Constitution and Laws including 24 Am Jur 2d, District of
Columbia ß 21 ß 21 Superior Court of the District of Columbia and divisions
thereof The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile
Court of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court
were consolidated in a single court known as the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
7. The issues in this CASE #: 1:09-cv-02151-HHK are procedural
violations; one by Judge KENNEDY for failure to remand it back to the Tax
Court from which the Defendants removed it, and two, because the
Defendants removed it from a Tax Court without any proof that the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia was not a Tax Court as Congress has
mandated.
8. Did the Defendants not violate Congressional mandates and procedures
and the Petitioners' Due Process by removing the Petitioners complaint from
a Congressionally Enacted Tax Court as defined in Public Law 96-170, Dec
29, 1979, in compliance with IRS Rule 10 of a hearing before a Tax Court?
9. Did the Defendants not violate the Canon Rule of Ethics and the Rule of
Ethics when the Defendants removed and did give jurisdiction to the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA to hear this case pursuant to 28 USC 1442, and then asked
2
them to have the case dismissed on their behalf for lack of subject matter
pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. Rule 12 b 1, 12 b 2 after removing the case from a
Tax Court and giving the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA jurisdiction to hear the case?
CONCLUSION
Congressional mandates have created Procedures for Administration,
Departments, Agencies and Independent entities to follow within Public
Laws, Title 28 Judiciary and judicial procedure, especially section 1652, an
Act of Congress, which covers "ALL" Enactments of Congress which
includes, but is not limited to; The Federal debt collection procedures in
Title 28 USC, the IRS CODE statutes found in Title 26 USC, and 26 and 27
of the CFR's.
Again, the Petitioners have "NOT CLAIMED TAXES ARE
ILLEGAL" but that the means by which they are collected are illegal. This
was and is the complaint into the Tax Court.
1. Did Congress create a Tax Court to address these issues or not?
2. Did Congress not create the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 60 stat
237, S7 and Title 5 to address these complaints before an Administrative
body?
2
3. Were not the Petitioners denied their administrative remedy in law when
the Defendants removed this action out of a Tax Court?
4. Did the Defendants place into the record that the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia was not the proper Tax Court
or
Did the Defendants just claim 12 b 1, 12 b 2 without addressing the issue at
hand?
5. Where, in any of their filings, did the Defendants address the main “issue”
of the complaint?
6. Where, in the filings, did the Defendants address that the UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA was
the proper jurisdiction to hear any tax issue?
7. The Defendants violated the Rules of Ethics and Procedures by removing
a case from a proper venue and jurisdictional Court, by filing a Motion to
give another Court Subject matter jurisdiction by filing such a Motion, and
then turn around and file another Motion into that same Court and Move the
Court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
2
case after the Defendants had clearly, and non-procedurally, attempted to
give subject matter to that Court to start with?
The Petitioners in their, latest filing into their case in the UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA have
addressed the United States Bankruptcy issue, and listed Congressional
Report Records from 1916 up to 1993 on the Hearing that the Federal
Reserves Note has no gold value. What does this mean? It means that even
Public Officials, and the People, are unable to pay any Taxes because the
FRN has no value it is based on credit. How do you pay taxes on credit
when the FRN has ZERO VALUE WORTH? This Government is in
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. This Country is, and has been, under a State of
Emergency since 1933, and up until to this date in 2011, without any means
of paying its debts. This violates United States Constitution, Article 1,
section 8, clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”
These are Enactments of Congress by Public Law, not mere
“Resolutions.” For example, PUBLIC LAW 10 CH 48 , 48 STAT 112,
PUBLIC LAW 1 48 STAT 1 and PUBLIC LAW 73-10, 40 STAT 411. The
IRS and the Defendants knew this and were required to discharge the debt
under the Bankruptcy Clause that Congress provided in these Public Laws.
2
Taxes are not Illegal, just the means in which they have collected
them. These actions violate Congressional mandates and Procedures.
8. The Defendants and their Attorneys and ALL COURTS had full
knowledge and understanding of the United States Codes and the Public
Laws created by Congress in Congressional enactments. The Defendants and
their Attorneys and ALL COURTS action NOW has to come in compliance
with the United States Codes and Regulation or with Public Law 1 48 stat 1,
Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411, Public Law 10 ch.48,48 stat 112, Title 12 95
b, Statute at Large Vol. 48 pages 1-112 when fling a Military Flag signifying
administrative proclamations of the Bankruptcy clause.
The Defendants and their Attorneys and the Courts have always
played on the ignorant of the people like the Petitioners, knowing that a
deception, fraud, sham can easily be use to con the public/ people. The
Petitioners have acted in good faith and have disclosed the facts in
Congressional Enactment not only of the United States Codes and the Code
of Federal Regulation but also of the Congressional Enactment of the 1933
Bankruptcy Act and the Public Law that shows their is no income but just
credit /debt. The Defendants and their Attorneys having full Superior
knowledge of these issue are in violation of their fiduciary duties as Trustee.
2
CURE
The Administrative Procedure Act (1946), Title 5 USC, section 551
(10) “sanction” includes the whole or a part of an agency, and the Attorney
General Manual under Rule Making Decisions gives remedy in law.
III SECTION 4--RULE MAKING
In general, the purpose of section 4 is to guarantee to the public an op-
portunity to participate in the rule making process. With stated excep-
tions, each agency will be required under this section to give public
notice of substantive rules which it proposes to adopt, and to grant in-
terested persons an opportunity to present their views to it. Where
rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity
for an agency hearing, the provisions of sections 7 and 8 as to hearing
and decision will apply in place of the less formal procedures contem
plated by section 4 (b). With certain exceptions, no substantive rule
may be made effective until at least thirty days after its publication in
the Federal Register. Section 4 also grants to interested persons the
right to petition an agency for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a
rule.
The Petitioners are NOW required, under the Ruling Making
Procedure, to place their input into this policy problem of these agencies as
this has become a case of National interest. The Petitioner's IRS case is not a
private issue, but has been made a Public issue because of “how” the
2
collection is being conducted in relation to the People of the nation. Taxes
are legal when the Congressional Public Laws and Congressional
Enactments are followed.
As the policy of the Defendants are in conflict with Congressional
Enactments and Public Law they now must come into compliance with the
Acts of Congress. (See Title 28 USC section 1652)
It is a fact that no sitting Judge has ever received any wages based on
gold or silver, as required by the Constitution, for their time and duties of
that position. Likewise the People have not been paid in compliance with the
Constitution's mandated definition of money, as the Federal Reserve Bank's
Federal Reserve Notes are a “compelled” currency. The Federal Reserve
issues a private currency with their name on the NOTE, and it is not a
UNITED STATES TREASURY NOTE. It is a Congressional Fact that the
Congress and the UNITED STATES are the Trustee of the public debt and
those who hold public office hold Trusteeship to that debt and is their job to
discharge it. Whether or not the Petitioners made the issue or did not make
the issue, that is not the issue. The Defendants can not play on the ignorant
of the public/ people, fraud is fraud breach of the Trust created by the
Bankruptcy is still a breach of trust whether the people understood it or not.
2
You have the duty as the Trustee to be honorable and operate in good faith.
The Petitioners have been damaged financially and mentally, in their
time in dealing with these issues that should have been discharged by the
Defendants in their fiduciary duty per 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and
Employees, §247
63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are
held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the
government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the
officer. Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public
officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government,
and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,
and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed
by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain
from a discharge of their trusts. That is, a public officer occupies a
fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she
serves, and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has been said that
the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than
those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any
enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken
public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual
rights is against public policy.”
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)
“Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit -- and this is
one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute, see
3
United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) -- includes the
deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary
obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in
the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he
deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud.
When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not
telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing
material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations.”
The Petitioners' have suffered financial damage, mental stress, time in
research, filing of paperwork in court, court costs, filing fees, expenses of
paper, ink, computers, electric, gas, wear and tear on personal property, as
well as spousal and household issues over this case. The damages,
minimally sought, total to $600 Million.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF
COURT
___________________________
David Lee; Buess Private Attorney General 22014 Delaware Township Road 184Arlington, Ohio [45814] 419 694 5796
__________________________ Rodney Dale; Class
Private Attorney General P. O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]
704 742 3123
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, David Lee; Buess, and I, Rodney Dale; Class, come with this
PETITIONERS' BRIEF ON THE DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS, this filing being placed before the Clerk of
Court of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT on this day of _____________ and
month of_____________ in the year of our Lord 2011 AD. Service will be
delivered by U.S.P.S. certified mail.
___________________________
David Lee; Buess Private Attorney General 22014 Delaware Township Road 184Arlington, Ohio [45814] 419 694 5796
_____________________________
Rodney Dale; Class Private Attorney General P. O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]
704 742 3123
CCJOHN SCHMANN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044
Franchise CorporationSTATE OF OHIO dba Corporation
3
AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286)30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215
Employee of CorporationECCLESTON AND WOLG, P.P.BALITMORE-WASHINTON LAW CENTER1629 K STREET,N.W., SUITE 260WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
GRADY L. BALENTINE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT OF JUSTICE 9001 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, N.C. 27699
GEORGE ARTHUR MC ANDREWS ALEXANDRIA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 301 KING STREET, SUITE 1300 ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314
3