04-28-2011 rod filing irs case

Upload: rodclassteam

Post on 07-Apr-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    1/33

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF

    APPEALS

    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    CIRCUIT

    Washington, D.C.

    CASE #: 11-5083

    1

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    2/33

    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

    Private Attorney General

    P.O. BOX 435

    High 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 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

    Franchise Corporation

    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA dba Corporation

    LAW FIRM ROY COOPER

    2

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    3/33

    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

    PETITIONER'S BRIEF

    ON DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE

    PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS

    LEFT BLANK

    3

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    4/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    5/33

    QUOTES ON CONGRESSIONALY ENACTED STATUTES, CODES,

    AND PUBLIC LAWS

    Any Act of Congressapplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shallbe considered to be a statute of theDistrict of Columbia. Sec. 2, Section1343 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

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI_20_176.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI_20_176_30_B.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI_20_176.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI_20_176_30_B.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    6/33

    (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 marshals 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

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003201----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003201----000-.html#a_1http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003201----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003201----000-.html#a_1
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    7/33

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    8/33

    3. Third issue: Congressional Enactment is in the United States Code Title26 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

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_75.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_75_30_D.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64_30_D.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64_30_D_40_II.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006334----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_75.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_75_30_D.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64_30_D.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64_30_D_40_II.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006334----000-.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    9/33

    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 jurisdictionfor 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 Topermit 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 personwithin thejurisdiction of the District of Columbia to the deprivation rights,privilege, orimmunity secured by the Constitution and Lawsincluding 24 Am Jur 2d, District of Columbia 21 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

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26a/usc_sup_05_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26a/usc_sup_05_26_20_II.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26a/usc_sup_05_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26a/usc_sup_05_26_20_II.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    10/33

    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 endthereof thefollowing new sentence; for the purposes of this section, Any Act of

    Congressapplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall beconsidered to be a statute of theDistrict of Columbia. Sec.2, Section1343 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 purposesby 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

    http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Acts_of_the_United_States_Congresses/Acts_of_the_73rd_United_States_Congress&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Acts_of_the_United_States_Congresses/Acts_of_the_73rd_United_States_Congress&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act#Sec._5.http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Acts_of_the_United_States_Congresses/Acts_of_the_73rd_United_States_Congress&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Acts_of_the_United_States_Congresses/Acts_of_the_73rd_United_States_Congress&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act#Sec._5.
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    11/33

    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 thePresident 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

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act#Sec._5.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act#Sec._5.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act#Sec._5.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act#Sec._5.
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    12/33

    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 andsupport 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. SenatorPat 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

    http://www.glin.gov/view.action?searchDetails.searchAll=true&search=&searchDetails.queryString=pubno%3Ahttp://www.glin.gov/view.action?searchDetails.searchAll=true&search=&searchDetails.queryString=pubno%3Ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departmentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_McCarranhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.htmlhttp://www.glin.gov/view.action?searchDetails.searchAll=true&search=&searchDetails.queryString=pubno%3Ahttp://www.glin.gov/view.action?searchDetails.searchAll=true&search=&searchDetails.queryString=pubno%3Ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departmentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_McCarranhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    13/33

    333. Interference with State and Federal law

    The 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

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2_20_IV.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000095---a000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2_20_IV.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000095---a000-.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    14/33

    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 hemay 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 timeby 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 transactionreferred 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

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2_20_IV.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_2_20_IV.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    15/33

    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 donot 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

    chapter37 of title 18.

    1

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00002404----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00002405----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_37.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00002404----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00002405----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_37.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    16/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    17/33

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    18/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    19/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    20/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    21/33

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    22/33

    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 personwithin the jurisdiction of theDistrict of Columbia to the deprivation rights, privilege, orimmunity

    2

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    23/33

    secured by the Constitution and Laws including 24 Am Jur 2d, District of

    Columbia 21 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-HHKare 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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    24/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    25/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    26/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    27/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    28/33

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    29/33

    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

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    30/33

    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 theDefendants 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

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=483&page=350http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=483&page=350
  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    31/33

    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; BuessPrivate Attorney General22014 Delaware Township Road184Arlington, Ohio [45814]419 694 5796

    __________________________Rodney Dale; ClassPrivate Attorney GeneralP. O. Box 435High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]704 742 3123

    3

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    32/33

    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; BuessPrivate Attorney General22014 Delaware Township Road184Arlington, Ohio [45814]419 694 5796

    _____________________________

    Rodney Dale; ClassPrivate Attorney GeneralP. O. Box 435High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]704 742 3123

    CCJOHN SCHMANNINTERNAL REVENUE SERVICEAPPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044

    Franchise CorporationSTATE OF OHIO dba Corporation

    3

  • 8/6/2019 04-28-2011 Rod Filing IRS Case

    33/33