irs d.c. objection final 06.11.2011

8/6/2019 IRS D.C. Objection Final 06.11.2011

1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIRCUIT

Washington, D.C.

David Lee; Buess

Private Attorney General

l22014 Delaware Township Road 184

Arlington, Ohio [45814]

Rodney Dale; Class CASE #: 11-5083


P.O. BOX 435

High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]

Petitioners

Vs.

UNITED STATES dba Corporation

JOHN SCHUMANN

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044

Franchise Corporation

STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation

LAW FIRM RICHARD CORDRAY

AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286)

30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

Employee of Corporation

REGINALD J. ROUTSON300 South Main Street

Findlay, Ohio 4584


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA dba Corporation

LAW FIRM ROY COOPER


2/13

9001 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Employee of Corporation

GASTON COUNTY dba

Corporation TAX DEPARTMENT

P.O. Box 1578 Gastonia, NC 28053-1578

Defendants

OBJECTION:

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIESFRAUD UPON THE COURT

Reference:

HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322

U. S. 238 (1944)

1. Upon the record, the Circuit Court of Appeals had the power and

the duty to vacate its 1932 judgment and to give the District Court

appropriate directions. P. 322 U. S. 247.

(a) Even if Hazel failed to exercise due diligence to uncover the fraud,

relief may not be denied on that ground alone, since public interests

are involved. P. 322 U. S. 246.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/322/238/case.html#247http://supreme.justia.com/us/322/238/case.html#246http://supreme.justia.com/us/322/238/case.html#247http://supreme.justia.com/us/322/238/case.html#246


3/13

NOW, comes, the Petitioners, David-Lee; Buess, and Rodney-Dale;

Class, with this OBJECTION: NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES FRAUD UPON

THE COURT.

1. The Petitioners will refer the Circuit Court, and the Defendants, to Title

28, Judiciary & judicial procedures, section 1652;

The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or

treaties of the United States orActs of Congress otherwise require

or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions inthe courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

2. Congress created the Fair Debt Collection Procedure under Title 28 USC

Judiciary & judicial procedures. Did the Defendants follow procedure or the

Acts of Congress ? "NO."

3. Congress created Title 26 USC Internal Revenue Code and has defined

meaning of words as to how they are to be used. Section 6331(a) and section

7343 is clearly written out. Did the Defendants follow procedures or the Acts

of Congress as defined by Congress ? "NO"

4. Did Congress pass into LAW, Public Law, 10 ch. 48, 48 stat 112 (HJR

192) and remove all gold & silver from the people under the threat of

imprisonment ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved evidence of this Act

of Congress ? "NO."


4/13

5. Did Congress pass into LAW, Public Law, 1 48 stat C 1 (HR 1491)

placing all the people of this Nation under a Declared Emergency ? "YES."

Have the Defendants disproved evidence of this Act of Congress ? "NO.

6. Did Congress pass into LAW, Public Law, 73-10, 40 stat 411(H.R. 4960)

Trading with the Enemy Act of Oct 6 1917, and make this part of the

Declared Emergency ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved evidence of

this Act of Congress ? "NO."

7. Did Congress not pass a Congressional mandate to allow the President of

the United States to invoke a State of Emergency under Title 12, USC Bank

& Banking, section 95b & 95a ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved

evidence of this Act of Congress? "NO."

8. Have the Defendants rebutted or disputed ANY of these acts of Congress

as being of no force and effect ? Again, "No."

9. Can the Defendants provide proof that such "Acts" by Congress did NOT

place the United States under Bankruptcy and insolvent ? "NO."

10. Have the Defendants disproved that this Nation is NOT operating under

the National Emergency Power which is just one of the issues of the

Petitioners' complaint ? "NO."

11. The Defendants are making fraudulent statements, stating that the

Petitioners have challenged the authority of the government to collect taxes,


5/13

however, the Petitioners have merely asserted, and are backed up by Law,

that the IRS' efforts and methods of collection constituted a fraud on the

American people "NOT TAXES"

12. The above false and fraudulent statements in the Defendants' filed

paperwork is misleading and twisted. The Petitioners' issue is HOW these

taxes are/were collected. The Defendants violated Title 28 USC, Fair Debt

Collection Procedures. The Defendants are, or should be, aware of the 1953

Hearing before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means on

the Restructuring of the IRS (83rd Congress)in the House of

Representatives. Here is a quote from Dwight E. Avis, February 3, 1953,

former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS,asstated

on the floor of Congress: There is just no such thing. That is where the

structure differs. Let me point this out now. YOUR INCOME TAX IS 100

PERCENT VOLUNTARY TAX and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced

tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your

same rules just will not apply...". This Congressional Hearing provided the

facts of the intent of taxes. Can the Defendants disprove this Congressional

Hearing quote from Mr. Avis as wrong ? "NO."

13. All of the Defendants are pointing their justification to Fed. R. App. 27

as being untimely to the Circuit of Appeals.


6/13

14. Again, a reference to HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V HARTFORD-

EMPIRE CO., 322 U. S. 238 (1944). This Case deals the Hartford Empire

placing fraud on the court in order to get a favorable ruling against Hazel

Atlas Glass.

15. The Defendants actions are no different. The Defendants filed for 11th

Amendment dismissals after giving the District Court unauthorized

jurisdiction. The Defendants did, with intent, set out to defraud the Court

and the Petitioners.

16. Reference: clean hands doctrine. a rule of law that a person coming to

court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair

conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to

the subject matter of his/her claim. The Defendants have acted unethically

and have acted inbad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint

17. The Petitioners point out that this seems to be the Standard Operating

Procedures (SOP) for the Defendants. What the Defendants are doing in this

case, as in all cases, is that they are avoiding Administrative Procedures and

Acts of Congress to get unlawful and fraudulent convictions of the American

people. The Petitioners knowingly placed this case in Title 26 IRS, app.

Rule 10, Administrative Court knowing that the Defendants probably could
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complainthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint


7/13

not have allowed such an Administrative Hearing to happen. The Defendants

did not fail in their SOP to deny the people a fair and unbiased court hearing.

By this action it shows a Title 42 USC 1983 cause of action.

18. Fed. R. Civ. P .Rule 60(b) permits a court to "relieve a party ... from a

final judgment for, inter alia, mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect,

newly discovered evidence, or fraud.

(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.

(1) Timing.

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time

and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of

the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

19. The Petitioners' justification under Rule 60 was FRAUD. As the

Defendants point out when they filed under the 11th amendment the Court

had no subject matter in law or equity. The Docket 24, Memorandum in

Support, addressed that the District Court had no subject matter to make a

Ruling. The Defendants are relying on a judgment of a Court that they

pointed out DID come under the 11th amendment.

20. Reference: The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section. 2.


8/13

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and

Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to

all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controver

sies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies

between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another

State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between

Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different

States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,

Citizens or Subjects.

21. Note 10: This above Clause has been affected by Amendment XI

[Article XI]

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted

against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by

Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State

22. The 11th Amendment (or Article) was an Act of Congress to amend

Article III and was ratified by the States into Law. The Defendants can not

have this both ways. The Defendants can not bring claims under Article III

and then deny the People a defense under the 11th Amendment has they

have done. The People have been told by judges they can not use Statutes or

the Constitution in court as their defense. However, the Petitioners picked up


9/13

on this when the Defendants filed into this case using the 11th Amendment

argument against the Petitioners. The Defendants KNOW that the courts in

this country are only administrative, and not judicial. The Defendants have

knowingly defrauded the People/Petitioners in their claim on the liability of

taxes.

CONCLUSION

The Defendants, being highly schooled in laws, by going to college to

learn law, and practicing law for a number of years, can not claim they do

not know the law as this is a paid profession. If the Defendants claim

ignorance of the law then this is a procedural violation of the Defendants'

own professional job description to which this Court has jurisdiction, and

can address this matter.

The Petitioners should not have had to file for a leave of court when

fraud has been placed upon, not one, but two Courts by the Defendants on

Administrative procedures violations, and violations of Acts of Congress.

This is why the Petitioners filed into an Administrative Court to start with. It

was to address these procedural violations and violations of congressional

acts. And, this is why the Petitioners have filed into the Circuit for a Petition

for Review.


10/13

The Defendants, and attorneys, having full knowledge of the laws

and of the Constitution, knowing full well that when the Defendants bring

claims against the American people on tax issues or any other issue into the

District Court of the United States or other Courts that that Court lacks

subject matter under the 11th Amendment and the Defendants fail to

disclosure this fact to the American people and their clinics.

Now comes, yet, another issue: if the Defendants are trying to deny

proper Administrative procedures, Acts of Congress, and all Congressional

Reports of the intent of the public laws, and to how they are to be

interpreted, and then infer that the Petitioner's previous arguments were

frivolous, unintelligible, and incomprehensible, then the 64 Million dollar

question is: what set of procedures, statutes, codes, rules and regulations

are the Defendants invoking if it's not Acts of Congress ?

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF

COURT

___________________________

David-Lee; Buess


22014 Delaware Township Road 184


419 694 5796


11/13

__________________________

Rodney-Dale; Class


P. O. Box 435


704 742 3123

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, David Lee; Buess, and I, Rodney Dale; Class, come with thisOBJECTION: NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

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


22014 Delaware Township Road 184


419 694 5796

_____________________________

Rodney-Dale; Class


P. O. Box 435


704 742 3123


12/13

CC:

JOHN SCHUMANN








Columbus, OH 43215

Employee of CorporationECCLESTON AND WOLG, P.P.

BALITMORE-WASHINTON LAW CENTER

1629 K STREET,N.W., SUITE 260


GRADY L. BALENTINE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPT OF JUSTICE

9001 MAIL SERVICE CENTER

RALEIGH, N.C. 27699

GEORGE ARTHUR MCANDREWS

ALEXANDRIA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

301 KING STREET, SUITE 1300

ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314


13/13

JOHN SCHMANN







Columbus, OH 43215

ECCLESTON AND WOLG, P.P.

BALITMORE-WASHINTON LAW CENTER

1629 K STREET,N.W., SUITE 260WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

MELISSA TAYLOR

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

333 CONSTITUTION AVE N.W.

ROOM 5523

Washington, D.C. 20001-2866

irs d.c. objection final 06.11.2011

Documents