Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
2
PLAINTIFFS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED ACTION, ALLEGE(S) AS FOLLOWS
1. Believing that the United States of America was created as a Judeo-Christian Nation,
Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene hold that the United States
Declaration of Independence1 itself offers much to define the meaning and purpose of our
believe that irrespective of the historical use of the terms Inalienable and Unalienable2 in
relation to their God given Right of Liberty3 it must necessarily include freedom from all
1
The United States Declaration of Independence was an act adopted on July 4, 1776 by the Second
Continental Congress, formally entitled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of
America." See "The Declaration of Independence: A History" at http://www.archives.gov/national-
archives-experience/charters/declaration_history.html
2
"Inalienable" and "Unalienable" are terms borrowed from English common law. Some property rights
were alienable in that they could be sold or granted while others were inalienable meaning that they could
only be inherited according to fixed rule. The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights were
popularly understood because of literary works like Francis Hutcheson’s A System of Moral Philosophy
(1755), which was based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience whereby one could not
in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external
contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." In the context of social
contract theory, "Inalienable Rights" were thought to be the Natural Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or
property)", which were independent of positive law. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which
they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity." (See Pauline Maier, American Scripture:
Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, p. 134.) "Jefferson took his
division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and
important." (See Garry Wills, Inventing America. New York: Vintage Books, 1979, p. 213) Such that,
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. . ." And although this was changed
to unalienable by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration, it has been argued, in many cases
other than this, that the axiom of inalienable rights was written into the Bill of Rights as the Ninth
Amendment rights “retained by the people.” For example, as a lawyer, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
argued in his briefing on behalf of John Van Zandt (frequently spelled Vanzandt in court documents) who
had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that our Rights are Inalienable: “The law of the
Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any
interior law which asserts that man is property.” Argument for the Defendant, Jones v. Van Zandt, 2
McLean 597 (Ohio Cir. Ct. 1843). When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chase argued: “No court is
bound to enforce unjust law; but to the contrary every court is bound, by prior and superior obligations, to
abstain from enforcing such laws.” Argument for the Defendant, Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. 215 (1847).
3
While most people are familiar with the phrase "give me liberty or give me death", very few are also
aware that Patrick Henry’s reference to “liberty” was as opposed to the forms of "slavery" being
experienced, which is self-evident from the statement/sentence Mr. Henry just before that: "Is life so dear,
or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"--Patrick Henry, in a speech March
23, 1775.
3
forms of slavery; including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery which was later
addressed by the Thirteenth Amendment.4 As such, the term Liberty as used throughout
this action is used in accordance with its original intent which included political slavery,
land slavery and tax slavery, and with respect to the subjects of taxation and the right to
trial by jury, hold that the United States Declaration of Independence offers the
our Rights and Liberties as American’s, which include(ed) “For imposing Taxes on us
without our Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by
Jury.”5 Therefore, these clauses are actually very dispositive of the Declaration's
philosophy of unalienable natural law rights into positive law, presenting the basis of
basic statutes representing the underlying creative legal force for the proposed United
States Government, and/or the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter "IRS" and/or
hereinafter “Government Contractor” (See Exhibit 1 and Footnote #11), and therefore
Plaintiffs bring their complaint to this Honorable Court, as a Qui Tam Action, that is a
public interest suit, contending that they as well as every American have a First
Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, which does not only mean a
Right to Petition but implicitly a Right to a Redress of Grievances as well, and pending
the Redress of Grievances, Plaintiffs assert legal rights to their property - namely, their
money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and
4
The clause "[h]e has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life
and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into
slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither." (Franklin 88)
was removed from the earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence submitted to the Continental
Congress, because the Southern delegation insisted that the charge be deleted so as to not confuse the
subject of chattel slavery with the other forms of slavery being protested.
5
See Declaration of Independence, as an act of the Second Continental Congress adopted on July 4, 1776,
at the National Archives; http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html
4
profits “derived from” the labor of others), the hard-earned fruits of their labor,6 as well
to the extent that Plaintiffs believe that the IRS does not have the right to their souls.7 In
this context, Plaintiffs assert their Right to Religious Freedom and believe it is the Right
called the biblical beast, and have an understanding of the role of the same in terms of the
census in connection with the birth of the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef’s (a.k.a. Jesus) as
a method on numbering (Wo)man for the purpose of tax slavery. Plaintiffs in this action,
support their beliefs with respect to the opposition to tax slavery by reference to the
history of the establishment of America as a nation as well as the Bible,8 and therefore,
affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very
difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people are
6
See “Continental Congress To Inhabitants of Quebec, an Act passed unanimously by the Congress.”
Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113; “Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775.”
Papers 1:225.
7
Plaintiffs use of definition of (a) the soul being physically manifest in terms of one’s very life and
productivity and therefore defined in terms of the vital force of the body, (b) such that the definition of the
First Death as falling into physical or mortal danger as a result of the loss of God’s Grace as well as that of
overcoming the First Death by being restored to the land of the Living as a result of the infusion of God’s
Grace, (c) and the definition of the Second Death as the physical death, (d) and as opposed to, and therefore
not to be confused with the definition of the Shade as the sinful self represented after the physical death as
the persistent elements of the personality and mind which are not burned off through repetitive experiences
of union with God, (e) with reference to the Book of Wisdom being the first book of the bible in which the
definition of the soul was changed from that of the vital force of the body so as to define the soul in terms
of the shade which is a trait of Baalistic Theory as the Semitic/Hebrew culture as they came in contact with
the Greek culture, and (f) the definition of the god referenced in certain sections of the bible (e.g., Psalm
68:5) as being Baal, may all be found in many religious documents, including the ''Encyclopedic dictionary
of the bible'' (1963). A translation and adaptation of A. van dun Born's Bijbels Woordenboek, Second
Revised Ed, 1945-57, by Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., Executive Secretary of the Catholic Biblical
Association of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
8
Particular attention is also given to reference from American history in support of Plaintiffs as Americans
and Christians (pgs. 91-113) as well from the Talmud in support of Plaintiffs beliefs that Jesus was
convicted as a criminal for encouraging the people to rebel and to not pay taxes when the basis of such
taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God (pgs., 109-111).
5
endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those
rights.
JURISDICTION
1344(2), 1346, 1621, 1622, & 2113 in terms of the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well
as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 3231
and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to the violations of First and Fifth Amendments of the
United States Constitution, in terms of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Petition for a
Redress of Grievances and Due Process Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with
respect to Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs wherein the loss of their Self-Evident God
given Right of Liberty9, when defined in terms of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e.,
political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), is in violation of the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians, our Self-Evident
price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of
divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the
ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast,10 which is definable in terms of
9
, Plaintiffs used of the term Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of freedom chattel
slavery, also includes freedom from peonage and freedom from all other forms of slavery as well.
10
…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are
contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666).
And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of
novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of
the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the
rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation
(the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact
6
slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and
42 U.S.C. § 1994.
3. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief by the Declaratory Judgment Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2202. This Court is authorized to grant preliminary and permanent relief
VENUE
4. Venue is founded with this Honorable Court on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) to restrain and
enjoin the IRS from the retaliatory acts of engaging in any and all IRS administrative
actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs
guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the
communications to the government, the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the
people the right to petition government officials for the redress of grievances (We the
People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007),
such that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First
Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148,
1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United
States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), which the IRS Officials
a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system
whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all
adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and
monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be'
perpetrated ad infinitum."
7
have admitted to in public form (e.g., During 2003, as indicated in paragraph #28 of this
complaint, both I.R.S. senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, explained that “enforcement
actions taken by the I.R.S. … and the new agreement with the states, show other ways that
government is answering the petition” and as outlined in paragraph #30 of this complaint,
IRS senior official, Dale Hart, said the IRS was “after mailing lists.”), and as
evidenced by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of
the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit (United States of America v. Robert L.
Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People
WTP Organization, where the statement of the Government assigned Counsel reveled
that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants or the Government could know
whether those individuals used the materials … the IRS obviously can't investigate
whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of
individuals" a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim
occurred in this District Court to violate the Plaintiffs Rights of Privacy and Free
bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and
Liberties as American’s, which include “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”
5. Venue could have been equally considered in terms of the fact that Plaintiffs’
Employer and one of their Banks being located in other States, as well as the fact that
both Plaintiffs also were Plaintiffs in We the People v. United States (USDC Case No.
04-cv-01211) and the very nature of this Qui Tam Action lends itself to being a public
8
interest suit on behalf of all Americans, whether or not they were signatories, but
Plaintiffs’ legal address is also in Albany County, which is within the Venue of The
Northern District of New York with one of the Court locations being in Albany, and as
such, Venue is founded with this Honorable Court for this action as a direct result of the
Rights, including recent Summons and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer
and Notice of Levies served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, and these administrative
actions and seizures and violations of our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property
and our Right to Trial by Jury have all been undertaken either without court orders or by
the IRS’ fabrication of damages within the courts which is patently illegal (26 CFR §
601.106(f)(1)).
6. Given that both House Report No. 1337 (p. A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p.
168), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session,
pages 4155 and 4802, respectively (1954), specifically declared that the word “income”
as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense”
rather than its ordinary sense, it is clear to Plaintiffs that neither of these Branches of our
government authorized peonage or tax slavery, and for that reason this complaint is not
against the United States for act(s) of fraud involving only silence wherein-by duty and
unless it shall be shown and sworn to, by IRS officials, that officials of the United States
were complicit in more than the act(s) of fraud involving silence,11 who with knowledge
11
As a matter of litigation of WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, We the People v.
United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), the remedy for the act(s) of fraud involving only silence in
9
and forethought “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the
People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and
Christians, designated as "Citizens of the United States" in the Constitution for the United
States of America, long before the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ever
thought of, who, when it comes to actions by the said People against or involving the
the only remedy of We, The People, who have the Right to Petition for Redress of
Grievances against the Federal Government of the United States of America, by going
directly to the Executive and Legislative Branches of government for our Right to a
Redress of Grievances to be honored in remedy or relief, and given that Plaintiffs in this
case do not have a traceable lineage to those who were chatteled and released to a high
standard of living as a result of the Thirteenth Amendment and thereafter afforded other
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore are not “persons under the law”
and are not subject to the kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in the Fourteenth
Amendment and any application of the Fourteenth Amendment which might serve to
Constitution given their standing as Americans and Christians, and as Americans and
Christians who are not “subject” to the redefinitions of citizenship associated with the
the face of the People who act to peaceably procure relief is set forth as having been defined long ago in
Act passed unanimously by the Continental Congress. (See Journals of the Continental Congress.
Journals 1:105-113.), and expounded upon by Thomas Jefferson as the People’s Right of “…intercession
for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights…” (See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North,
1775. Papers 1:225.).
10
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, for the Plaintiffs in the action are “not subject”
to any Acts of Congress, other than the Eighteen-powers specifically enumerated in the
Constitution for the United States of America, without Congress itself repealing the
Constitution and every other Amendment to the Constitution, such that even Congress
can not pass laws such as the Anti-Injunction Act nor honor any provision of the Internal
Revenue Code (hereinafter “IRC”) that diminish or abrogate the People’s Right to
Liberty, let alone the enumerated First Amendment Right of the Plaintiffs to seek and
Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations into the Code (26
C.F.R. § 301.7805-1) with approval of the Secretary, without cites of authority for the
offensive CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, nor
even statute cite, the fact is, Plaintiffs are therefore left to conclude that it is written for
no other purpose that to allow the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful
abridgement of certain Inalienable Rights, simply because the final wording of 26 CFR §
601.106(f)(1) allows an Appeals representative at a later time to hew to the law and the
Constitutional Torts such as these, and the very idea that 26 U.S.C. 6673(a)(1) would be
used as an authority for an IRS Administrative Office (Tax Court) to impose a Civil
questions, which the IRS has consistently refused to provide, as well as the very idea that
upon any attorney or other person to personally pay excess costs, expenses, and
attorneys’ fees incurred because of such conduct when that attorney or other person was
11
honestly standing upon the individual’s Constitutional Rights is outrageous and the list of
additional reasonable Constitutional Torts therefore seems almost endless, for based upon
our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include
freedom from all forms of slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery,
political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, our natural Rights of Association, Privacy,
Property and our Right to Trial by Jury, and particularly our Right to Trial by Jury must
be recognized before we might be deprived of any of these other Rights, and finally, in
the context of 28 U.S. § 455, one has to wonder if anyone can truly receive a fair trial in
light of such bias, and in the context of Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 U.S. § 238 (1980),
the Supreme Court has also recognized the same, therefore in presenting this action,
Plaintiffs can only pray that the presence of such underlying factors does not necessarily
establish similar biases12 with respect to their having founded Venue with this Honorable
Court.
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
7. Plaintiff William M. Greene is a citizen of the United States of America and one of
America’s many homeless truck drivers on wheels, maintaining a legal postal address of
12
e.g., “This complaint is developed in the spirit of the teachings one of the foremost founders of this
country; i.e., "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action
according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn
around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but
the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter
to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819 in Appleby and Ball (1999) p 224 (Emphasis Added). As a Qui Tam
Action, the information provided in the present text will allow the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department
to review the case and decided whether or not the U.S. Attorneys will investigate charges against the
Government Contractor (IRS), as well as to outline the fraud that has been perpetrated even upon this very
Court. After review by the U.S. Attorney and Justice Department, permission will be sought from the
Court to downsize the text presented within this suit such that most if not all the referencing footnotes will
be removed.
12
has never been convicted of anything greater than a traffic infraction or log book
violation, as interferences with their Right of Liberty which Plaintiffs would also seek to
8. Plaintiff Karen M. Greene is a citizen of the United States of America and one of
America’s many homeless truck drivers on wheels, maintaining a legal postal address of
She has never convicted of anything greater than a traffic infraction or log book violation,
as interferences with their Right of Liberty which Plaintiffs would also seek to correct
9. Defendant, IRS, is a “Government Contractor” for the United States of America with
principle offices located at 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20224.
13
Although, the United States of America has long been recognized to be a corporation subject to suit (See
Dickson v. U.S., 125 Mass. 311, 1878 WL 10951, 28 Am.Rep. 230 (Mass., 1878)) and 28 U.S.C. § 451
does define “agency” as including “any department, independent establishment, commission,
administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United
States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more
limited sense”, the term “Government Contractor” is appropriate per the pleadings in Diversified Metal
Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-
E-EJL, UNITED STATES’ ANSWER AND CLAIM) wherein both Betty Richardson, a United States
Attorney, and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax
Division,“Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government ...” (See
Page #2 – Exhibit 1, 2 of 6, paragraph 4), and contrary to the other assertions made in that same case,
Plaintiffs in this action assert that the IRS can not also be defined as an "instrumentality of the United
States" in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 3002(C) because other court documents on the subject shows that
“There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432,
the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.” (See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441
U.S. 281, 292 (1979)), and research on Title 31 of the US Code, as currently published by the US
Government, reflecting the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006, for the codification and
"classification" to corresponding US Code sections contained in SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION,
from Jan. 2, 2006 to the most recent entry on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, shows that although 31 U.S.C. §
301(f)(2) is a reference authorizing the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS, the IRS itself is not even listed as an
13
organization within meaning of TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER which
explicitly lists the organizational structure of the United States Department of the Treasury. Moreover,
although 5 U.S.C. § 105 defines an "Executive agency" as an "Executive department", "Government
corporation" or an "independent establishment", the provisions of which are covered by section 101 of Title
5, Government Organization and Employees, and Section 1 of Title 5, referred to in text, is section 1 of
former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, the provisions of which
are covered by section 101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and the definitions of
agency and department conform with such definitions in section 6 of revised title 18, U.S.C. (H.R. 3190,
80th Cong.), Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953 is the only authoritative document under which the pure
Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed
to the Internal Revenue Service, thereby creating the illusion of the IRS being an actual agency of the
Department of the Treasury with all regulations, mimeographs, forms, and other Internal Revenue and
Treasury documents amended to conform to Treasury Order 150-06. In fact, according to the Code of
Federal Regulations Title 26 is the authority for the Internal Revenue and Chapter I is entitled the Internal
Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, and, of course, it is easy to surmise why this statute was
adopted because it clearly appears to lack any substance given that the Internal Revenue is actually listed as
a Trust at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2), with Districts and Boundaries established by the President 26 U.S.C. §
7621. Additionally, according to 26 U.S.C. § 7802, the Department of the Treasury the Internal Revenue
Service is supervised by a Trustee or corporate body of independent of the Managers called an “Oversight
Board” composed of nine members, with one of those nine members being the Secretary of the Treasury or,
if the Secretary so designates, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(B)), with
the Authority of the “Secretary” or “Secretary of the Treasury” being set forth at 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and
according to 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a)(2)(A) the terms “Secretary” or “Secretary of the Treasury” means the
Attorney General. Additional Oversight Board members include the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(C)), appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(1)(A)), and who can be removed from office at the discretion of the
President (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(1)(C)), and while one of the other nine members Oversight Board must
be a full-time Federal employee or a representative of employees and who again is appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(D)), the six other
members need not even be Federal officers or employees but are simply defined as individuals appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(A)), and
according to 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a)(2)(A) the term “internal revenue officer” means any officer of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the Attorney General, and finally, in
accordance with the US Attorney’s statement that the IRS is NOT an agency of the US government,
operationally, rather than applying Levys at maximum allowable “15 percent levy”, the Government
Contractor (IRS), more often than not, operating as a judgment creditor, is reported to Levy in accordance
with 26 U.S.C. § 6331(h)(3) which appears to the Plaintiffs in this case to be the only possible justification
under the Code for substituting “100 percent levy” which is ONLY applicable in terms of any specified
payment due to a vendor of goods or services sold or leased to the Federal Government, and, as such,
Plaintiffs maintain that the term “Government Contractor” is appropriate as used throughout this action,
and more importantly, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional right to
Contract, in which they would be entitled to the fruits of their labor as their Property, only as long as they
pay a percentage of their labor property at 15% or at 100% is slavery or peonage and therefore criminal, for
state ownership they have only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is definable in terms of
slavery and/or peonage and therefore criminal – state ownership of their labor property, which if
constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%. But, if it should be argued and this Honorable
Court should find that Congress has in fact passed a law for the codification and "classification" to
corresponding US Code sections wherein-by the IRS could lawfully be defined as an agency or
instrumentality of the United States Government, and/or that Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953, being
the only authoritative document under which the pure Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and
thereinafter the named Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the named Internal Revenue Service, is
sufficient to warrant a definition of the IRS as a legitimate agency or instrumentality of the United States
Government, Plaintiffs respectfully demand that as a Qui Tam Action, the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice
Department and/or the Private Attorney General(s) submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or
also seek damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be sued in
14
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
10. The price of a (wo)man’s Soul (as the vital force of the body) exceeds any amount
conceivable, but the amount in controversy in this case exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, and by filing this action as a Qui Tam Action, that is a public interest suit,
Plaintiffs believe that it is the rightful duty of a Grand Jury to investigate and the actual
sum in controversy, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees that may be incurred
may be established based upon Grand Jury findings. Damages are being sought from the
IRS and not from the individual IRS agents or their supervisors by Plaintiffs’ filing this
suit because Plaintiffs’ religious belief systems result in a definition of the underlying
problem as that of a Root Sin in which ultimately even the victimizers are themselves
unknowing victims wherein-by Plaintiffs are ever mindful views and teaching of the good
Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) which appears inconsistently (some but not all original
texts) in relation to such matters (e.g., Luke 23:34), but as a Qui Tam Action it is
expected that other Americans will in fact sign on to the suit, in which case the initial
Plaintiffs bringing this Qui Tam Action are not speaking for said others, such that, the
U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department and/or those who may be expected to sign
onto this Action, who by common consent, may direct the U.S. Attorneys or Private
Attorney General(s) to submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or also seek
damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be
their individual and personal capacity, acting under “color of law”, as may be appropriate, for when the
level of retaliation against the Plaintiffs, as set forth throughout this complaint, is placed in the context of 5
U.S.C. § 3331 it is much more that truly reprehensible, because “No state legislator or executive or judicial
officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron
358 U.S. 1 (1958).
15
sued in their individual and personal capacity, acting under “color of law”, as may be
appropriate.
11. Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, hold that in accordance with the
particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and
Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”, demand
the right to a jury trial as set forth in the United States Declaration of Independence and
guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment United States Constitution, as well as the United
12. According to the law, this Qui Tam Action is to be filed under seal for 60 days to
allow the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department that will be reviewing the case to
investigate charges against the Government Contractor (IRS) and decide whether or not
to intervene in the case.14 In fact, with Presidential candidates now making the
14
Plaintiffs are concerned about possible extensions. The reason Plaintiffs have a concern is that along
with IRS Form 668-A(ICS), the IRS agent notified Plaintiffs’ employer in January that once they are in
receipt of the levy they can not issue an advance, and the only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees.
Yet the actual contract calls for Plaintiffs’ employer to advance the expense moneys to pay for fuel and
tolls (which at current prices runs about 45-50 cents on every dollar they make) to complete the contracted
job. Without these contracted funds from their employer, Plaintiffs are unable to work. In addition, on
February 1, 2008 Plaintiffs employer notified them that he just received another form, Form 668-W(ICS),
which puts us out of work permanently unless and until this Honorable Court provides Injunctive Relief.
Because Plaintiffs live in the truck they work out of (maintaining their PO Box as their legal address),
without the ability to make truck payments Plaintiffs and their thirteen year old son will be homeless very
soon.
16
elimination of the IRS a formal aspect of their campaign, public awareness of the
illegality and misapplication of income tax statutes has been steadily growing. Add to
that, in the related § 6700 Suit (United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the
People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, (Case
that at least one U.S. Attorney was compelled by her sense of honesty and integrity to
admit to the Second Circuit that they have been caught on the wrong side,15 and for these
reasons and much more Plaintiffs believe it to be an opportune time for the U.S. Attorney
13. It would also be preferable to Plaintiffs if the U.S. Attorney and the Justice
Department intervened in this Qui Tam Action, but in the event they should not, Plaintiffs
point to the fact that the Supreme Court held that, “…This and other federal courts have
repeatedly held that individual litigants, acting as private attorneys-general, may have
316 U.S. 4, 14. See also Commission v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477;
Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694; Reade v. Ewing, 205 F.2d 630; Scenic
Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608; Office of Communication of United
Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994. Compare Oklahoma v.
Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 137 -139. And see, on actions qui tam, Marvin v.
Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 225 ; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 546 . The
15
e.g., Where evidence of the falsification of damages was provided to the Second Circuit through the
statement of the Government assigned Counsel reveled that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants
or the Government could know whether those individuals used the materials … the IRS obviously can't
investigate whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of
individuals…"
17
various lines of authority are by no means free of difficulty, and certain of the cases may
14. This suit is also written with the expectation that other People will sign on to it as
additional Plaintiffs, and by common consent, the Plaintiffs may be expected to choose a
“private attorney general” from among themselves or act individually as “private attorney
generals” such that, We, The People, have standing in this action if the DOJ attorneys do
not have the inclination or time to prosecute the Named Accused “Government
Contractor (the IRS)”, and, as such, Plaintiffs hereby claim the status of “representatives
15. Due to the on-going nature and extent of the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs caused by
Inalienable Rights, including the ongoing siege, harassment, and intimidating activities,
unlawfully served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, and Notice of Levies served on
Contract (which has effectively put them out of work) and Freedoms of Association and
Religion, Injunctive Relief to protect against the irreparable harm is being respectfully
18
a) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining all ultra vires (without bona fide authority)
administrative actions, and prohibiting the IRS from acting under color of the IRC in
b) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the
collection of any tax from any Plaintiff that is based on the Plaintiff’s labor, until the
Belief Systems now before this Court are finally determined; and
c) directing the IRS to immediately release and suspend all Notice of Liens, Notice of
Levys and audits put into effect against Plaintiffs, until the government either answers the
Constitution or until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs
Christian Religious Belief Systems by the Governments Contractor (the IRS) now before
d) directing the IRS to send a letter to State and County officials for prudent policies of
Unsupported Notices of Lien Filings of Records for the protection of business and
property holders of this State which have been filed under Fraud, (2) directing all State
and County officials to protect themselves from possible litigation resulting from the IRS
19
alphabetical “Notice of Federal Tax Lien Index” without recordation and therefore
without Securities value and worth, and (3) Only when IRS agents/officers submit the
supporting documents including affidavits, 23C Assessments, judicial orders, and process
documents with delegated authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, may said Federal
Tax Lien be recorded, thus becoming transformed and worthy to be placed correctly in a
e) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the IRS and any other real
agency of the United States that arguably may act in this matter under color of the IRC,
from advancing any and all administrative, civil and criminal proceedings against
Plaintiffs, including the sharing of information and/or cooperation with state taxing
authorities, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs
f) granting any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT
16. Plaintiffs, William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, who are Pro Se, contended that
in accordance with the United States Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and
Bill of Rights in the context of the first Thirteen Amendments the Constitution, Slavery
and Peonage are unconstitutional, and as a God given Inalienable Right, the subjects of
Liberty and Freedom, as rights of citizenship, are also inclusive within their right to
20
Religious Freedom (e.g., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23; I was bought at a price; to not
become a slave of men), such that, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of
our servant government has any right to diminish or abrogate or otherwise divorce the
People from their Rights, and when We, The People, perceive this most basic of Rights as
the People have a First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and
that means not just a Right to Petition, but if the Petition Clause itself is to not be
rendered in whole or in part without meaning, it means that the Plaintiffs have a First
Grievances, Plaintiffs assert legal rights to their property - namely, their money, the hard-
17. Plaintiffs have been facilitating citizen vigilance and activism in the form of
petitioning state government since the early 1990’s, which involved the exercise of their
First Amendment Right of Petitioning the State of New York with respect to Fraud in
employment practices and the Right to Life on behalf of the Medically Frail, and in terms
of more recent events, Plaintiffs have been active members of We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education (herein after referred to as the “WTP Foundation”) and We
The People Congress (herein after referred to as the “WTP Congress”) and collectively
Constitutional torts.
21
18. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have been exercising their First
Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors
accountable to the Constitution regarding (1) the IRS’s apparent violations involving the
tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and
the Government's apparent violations of (2) the War Powers Clauses (by the Iraq
Resolution), (3) the privacy and due process clauses (by the U.S.A. Patriot Act), (4) the
money and debt limiting clauses (by the Federal Reserve System) of the Constitution, (5)
the President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws (Illegal Immigration),
(6) regarding the North American Union, (7) Gun Control, (8) U.S Aid to Israel, (9) are
other truck drivers to contact WTP Organization for the purposes of developing a new
Petition involving constitutional torts regularly experienced in the trucking industry, and
(10) apart from petitions put forth by WTP Organization, are also signed on to another
Petition for Redress of Grievances authored by the five widows of 9-11 victims, a group
19. Both Plaintiffs were also signed onto WTP Foundation’s original historic Right-to-
Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury Department, the
Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United
States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)16 and because of many concerns over possible
16
WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S.
Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v.
United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintWTPvUS7-12-04.PDF).
22
retaliation the initial complaint did not list our names individually, however Plaintiff
William M. Greene is listed on WTP Foundation et al.’s First Amended Complaint For
Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive Relief17 and both Plaintiffs are listed
on the Second Amended Complaint,18 and following the District Court having dismissed
plaintiffs’ complaint (We The People v. United States, No. 04-cv-1211, slip op. at 6
(D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2005)) and thereby essentially voiding the First Amendment Petition
clause by ruling that the First Amendment does not provide plaintiffs with the right to
and also concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act bars plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief
with respect to the collection of taxes (Id. at 5 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7421)), both Plaintiffs
remained as Appellants in the Appeal and based upon the decision (485 F.3d 140 (D.C.
Cir. 2007), with rehearing en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007), Writs of Certiorari were filed
in a timely manner (Dockets Number 07-680 & 07-681) with Petitions for Writ of
Certiorari denied as well (January 7, 2008), WTP Foundation submitted the final appeal,
the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari which
SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, voted to not hear in spite of the
Constitutional duty to declare the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment
and provide relief for those of us who contend that recent IRS administrative actions
taken against them under the Color of Law are retaliatory with respect to our guaranteed
17
WTP Foundation et al.’s First Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and
Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintAmended-9-15-04.PDF);
18
WTP Foundation et al.’s Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and
Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04CV01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/SecondAmendedComplaintWTPvUS11-12-
04.PDF);
23
First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government
20. On April 13, 2000, for example, the major points expressed in WTP Organization’s
Petition for a Redress of Grievances concerning the alleged illegal operations of the
federal income tax system and the IRS was hand delivered to leaders of the three
states, and on April 2, 2001, Robert Schulz, Chairman and founder of WTP Organization,
requested that he be allowed to testify at the April 5, 2001, Senate Finance Committee
hearing, under the chairmanship of Senator Charles Grassley, which was a hearing
specifically to warn taxpayers about illegal tax schemes, scams, and cons. After which,
Robert Schulz was informed that he would not be allowed to testify but was informed
that if WTP Organization submitted a written statement the Committee would decide
whether it would be added to the official record of the hearing. Robert Schulz followed-
up on this advice by mailing the statement to the Senate Finance Committee,19 which
Larking Rose’s March 6, 2001 letter to Attorney General John Ashcroff. Before the
April 5, 2001 hearing began, WTP Organization also submitted the required number of
copies for the record of the hearing, which had twenty (20) exhibits attached to it, and
although Robert Schulz’s statement was attached to the official record of the Senate
19
See Statement Submitted to Senate Finance Committee, "Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and
Fraud." April 5, 2001, Submitted by Robert L. Schulz, Chairman, We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc. (http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/PressKit-04-05-01.pdf)
24
Finance Committee hearing20 as pp. 117-124, and because, none of the exhibits were
included in the record, Plaintiffs can not help but believe that the suppression of evidence
before departments, agencies, and committees), because among those attachment was
included a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated June 26, 1989 and a copy
21. Joseph Banister, Bill Benson, Larken Rose and Robert Schulz also attended that
April 5, 2001 Senate Finance Committee hearing, but were not allowed to testify because
the message offered by WTP Organization would "detract from the message the
invited any representative of the IRS and/or IRS Commissioner Rossotti, himself, to
answer the questions and allegations raised by tax researchers or even respond to the
20
See Taxpayer beware: schemes, scams, and cons: hearing before the Committee on Finance, United
States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session on IRS oversight, April 5, 2001. Y 4.F
49:S.HRG. 107-77, Item Number: 1038-A.
(http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov&v%3afile=viv_901%4029%3at3h2GQ&v%3astate=ro
ot%7croot&opener=full-
window&url=http%3a%2f%2ffinance.senate.gov%2f73551.pdf&rid=Ndoc4&v%3aframe=redirect&rsourc
e=firstgov-msn&v%3astate=%28root%29%7croot&rrank=4&)
25
22. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have been a part of the effort to present
our questions to elected representatives, and even though we are only two of the people
who have signed onto the Petitions for Redress of Grievances, we not only believe it is
our government’s constitutional duty to respond but further believe that a failure to
among other things, fraud, extortion, and civil rights violations, on the part of
23. Some of the questions presented include questions and reasons for questions
regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment and are included in said “Statement of
[538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax”21 under the “Sixth Belief”,
been answered except by Bill Benson in his two volume research report, “The Law That
Never Was” and at the two-day Citizens’ Truth in Taxation Hearing22 in Washington DC
Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister and Bill Benson, and it is Plaintiffs’
understanding that American jurisprudence have never successfully refuted said facts.
24. Other questions and reasons for questions regard “Section 861” which are found in
said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under
the “Ninth Belief”, paragraphs 1-16. Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have
21
See Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax,
(www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/STOP/StmtOfBeliefs3-09-03.PDF)
22
See Truth-In Taxation-Hearing, Initial Questions, January 22, 2002
(http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/News/Historical/WTPQuestions-020122.pdf)
26
said questions been answered except by Larken Rose in his research report, “Taxable
Contractor (the IRS) have refused to answer questions and reasons for questions
regarding “Liability” which are found in said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs
Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under the “Second Belief”, paragraphs 1-82, and
under the “Third Belief,” paragraphs 1-45, and under the “Fourth Belief,” paragraphs 1-
23, and under the “Seventh Belief,” paragraphs 1-42, and under the “Eighth Belief,”
paragraphs 1-23, and under the “Tenth Belief,” paragraphs 1-24, and Nowhere in
American history or jurisprudence have said questions been answered, except by various
26. As stated on pages #8 and 9 in connection with paragraph 27, WTP Foundation’s
Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Ms. Pam Olson, was respectfully Petitioned by over
five hundred people to answer the six questions regarding Section 861.
23
See pages #8 and 9 in connection with paragraph 27 regarding six questions about Section 861, in WTP
Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury
Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United
States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintWTPvUS7-12-04.PDF).
27
27. Moreover, these six questions were also presented as an attachment “2D” of Plaintiff
William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6), but the point
Plaintiffs would seek to make here is that Neither Ms. Olson, nor any other individual
from the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch nor the IRS responded to these simple
questions, and whatever effect the silence of the Executive and Legislative Branches of
government may have in terms of legal definitions of fraud, it is important to make the
distinction between silence as fraud and the criminal acts of those who with knowledge
and forethought “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the
People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and
Christians, and because the government's dual actions of evading the public discussion of
the issues while not interfering with the IRS’ actions to strengthen its steel-fisted, heavy-
handed enforcement campaign of fear and terror, thereby eroding the Constitution by
sanctioning the IRS’ retaliation, under color of law, against the People who have, in good
faith, claimed and exercised unalienable Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which
by-and-of-itself only serves to strengthen the resolve and determination of a People who
see themselves as free and sovereign and who see all of government limited by a written
constitution, can no longer be tolerated and therefore warrants the U.S. Attorney and the
Justice Department, or Private Attorney General, to intervene against the Named Accused
28. Plaintiffs, through the more formal efforts of the participating organization, of which
the Plaintiffs are a part, have gone to great lengths to express the fact that what is truly
reprehensible is not the subject matter presented in the Petitions for Redress of
28
Grievances, and not even the government’s unwillingness to answer legitimate questions
and be held accountable to the Constitution prior to the matter being resolved by some
form of court action, but rather the lengths that the IRS, as the Government’s contractor,
was and is apparently willing to go to silence anyone who questioned its power in the
context of the petitions, for, as shown by Paragraph #1650 of the WTP Foundation et al.’s
Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive
Relief (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) on September 16, 2003, at a press conference held
at the US Treasury Building, organized by the US Treasury Department and IRS, Mr.
Terry Lemons, a senior spokesman for the IRS stated, in response to a question put to
him by David Cay Johnston of The New York Times as to why the Government had not
responded to the petitions and questions regarding the legality of the income tax system
29. David Cay Johnston’s article reported in the September 17, 2003 publication of The
New York Times (Exhibit 4) also presented the IRS’, as the Government’s Contractor’s,
“Later, an I.R.S. senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, said that courts had
upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the agency did not want to waste
time and resources dealing with well-settled issues. Mr. Lemons added that the
recent spate of enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. against promoters of
abusive tax schemes, and the new agreement with the states, show other ways
that government is answering the petition.”
29
30. As also presented on page 26 of WTP Foundation’s September 30, 2004,
at the same press conference, IRS senior official, Dale Hart, said the IRS was “after
mailing lists.” All of this is obviously meant to have a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs’
exercise of their fundamental Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances. Dale Hart’s
statement about mailing lists can be seen and heard on the web cast of the 9/16/03 press
conference, which is archived on the Treasury Department’s Internet site, and Plaintiffs
in this case believe such actions to be unlawful; “Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would
abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) and “The court is to protect
against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” (Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S.
616 (1886).
31. As far as IRS claims “that courts had upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the
agency did not want to waste time and resources dealing with well-settled issues”, the
IRS Officials are making an excuse for not answering reasonable questions, even when
those reasonable questions are put forth in terms of our First Amendment Right to
Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and a declaration that "the courts have ruled against
these issues" is nothing less than another of those deceptive "Terror Tactics" to induce
“fear” as the IRS mounted its "crusade" against the Plaintiffs as members of We, The
24
See WTP Foundation’s September 30, 2004, Memorandum In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss Amended Complaint,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/MemoLawOpposition11-11-04.PDF).
30
"The most authoritative form of such explanation is a congressional report
defining the scope and meaning of proposed legislation. The most authoritative
report is a Conference Report acted upon by both Houses and therefore
unequivocally representing the will of both Houses as the joint legislative body.
Here we have the most persuasive kind of evidence that Congress did not mean
the language in controversy, however plain it may be to the ordinary user of
English, to have the ordinary meaning. These provisions were first enacted in
the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, c. 120, 57 Stat. 126, as additions to 294
(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The Conference Report, H. R. Conf.
Rep. No. 510, p. 56, and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 221, p. 42, both gave
the provision dealing with substantial underestimation of taxes the following
gloss:
"In the event of a failure to file any declaration where one is due, the amount
of the estimated tax for the purposes of this provision will be zero."
The revision of the section eight months later by the Revenue Act of 1943, c. 63,
58 Stat. 21, did not affect its substance, and this provision, therefore, continued
to carry the original gloss. While the Court adverts to this congressional
definition, it disregards its controlling significance. * [361 U.S. 87, 96]
(Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959)
32. Apart from the fact that Plaintiffs claim that a disregard of the controlling
significance of the word “income” can result in slavery and/or peonage, which is criminal
in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and which is a subject of this
case, given that, apart from some differences, depending upon reference, pointing to these
provisions as being first enacted in the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, c. 120, 57 Stat.
31
126, as additions to 294 (a) of the IRC of 1939, and the Conference Report, H. R. Conf.
Rep. No. 510, p. 56, and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 221, p. 42, as compared to House
Report No. 1337 (p. A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p. 168), U.S. Code
Congressional and Administrative News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and
4802, respectively (1954), which specifically declared that the word “income” as used in
section 6l of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than
its ordinary sense, and since the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter “C.F.R.”) does
not otherwise define what is meant by “income” (See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189,
206), why would anyone expect the Plaintiffs to believe that the word “income” should
mean anything other than what the Supreme Court had also otherwise consistently
defined the word “income” to mean, which is “profit gained through the sale or
conversion of capital assets” (See Stratton v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399,414 (1913); Doyle
v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179,185 (1918); So. Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918);
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 198 (1920) and Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v.
33. Additionally, given the various classes of citizenship and therefore the various legal
meanings of the terms “Citizen” and “citizen” (e.g., See People v. De Guerra, 40 Cal.
311, 337 (1870); U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588m 590 (1875); Hooven & Allison Co. v.
Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, page
941-942 (1975); Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738), and that the U.S.
Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally held that regulations cannot exceed the
underlying statutory authority, most workers do not even fit the definition of “employee”
32
under the internal revenue laws (See 26 C.F.R. § 3401(c), 3121(d), and 3306(i)), most
personal earnings are not taxable under the internal revenue laws (See 26 C.F.R. § 1.863-
1(c) and 26 C.F.R. 1.861-1 (1956)), and questions as to why the Regulations would be
revised so as to obscure proper references and why any court would disregard the
questions presented in the context of our First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress
of Grievances.
34. Regarding the "861 evidence" in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has never
addressed it, and the various lower court rulings, when they have done anything more
than declare the position "frivolous" or "without merit," have relied exclusively upon the
broadly-worded general definition of "gross income" found in Section 61 (USC, Title 26)
assertions and unexplained conclusions do not constitute a valid substitute for Plaintiffs’
reasonable questions, WTP Foundation sponsored and Plaintiffs signed onto the Petition
35. Keeping in mind the fact that Plaintiffs have a Constitutional right to Contract, in
which the fruits of their labor is their Property, and that any law which would imply that
they only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage can not be definable in terms
other than slavery and/or peonage, and therefore is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §
33
1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because even state ownership of their labor property is
unconstitutional (See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); Bailey v. State of
Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910)), if Plaintiffs are to ignore the fact that Congress
specifically declared that the word “income” as used in Section 61 of the 1954 Code was
to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, and need only
look to the general statutory definition of "gross income" (as found in Section 61 of the
tax code) in order to determine whether their income is indeed taxable, the following
36. Why are Plaintiffs to rely only on a section which says nothing at all about who is
receiving income or where it is coming from, while ignoring the part of the law which
specifically deals with such issues (Subchapter N, which begins with Section 861)?
37. If Plaintiffs need look no further than the general definition of "gross income," why
do the past regulations specifically make reference statements like some “income, which
are, under the Constitution, exempt from taxation by the federal Government” (e.g., 26
38. If Section 61 makes all income taxable, no matter where it comes from, why do the
regulations under 861, and more than eighty years of predecessor statutes and regulations,
plainly identified U.S.-source income as being taxable for foreigners, and for certain
Americans with possessions income, while never mentioning Americans who live and
34
39. If the broad language in Section 61 means that all income is taxable, no matter where
it comes from, again, keeping in mind that slavery and/or peonage is criminal in the
context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, why did a Supreme Court justice state
that, "'From whatever source derived,' as it is written in the Sixteenth Amendment [which
is where the wording in Section 61 came from], does not mean from whatever source
derived" (Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938), dissenting opinion)?
40. Court rulings concerning 861 have never addressed ANY of the issues or sections
cited therein. But, more importantly, given that slavery and/or peonage is criminal in the
context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because even state ownership of their
labor property is unconstitutional (See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988);
Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910)), and that “It is not the function of our
Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the [339 U.S.
382, 443] citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” (See Communications
Assn. v. Douds 339 U.S. 382 (1950)), and referring to reasonable questions as being
Grievances, the Plaintiffs as members of WTP Organization believe that the provision of
reasonable answers is but the first step in satisfying the plain language of the Petition
35
EXHAUSTION OF OTHER REMEDIES
41. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have focused on the fact the First
Amendment itself guarantees the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable
to the Constitution in terms of the proper Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving
constitutional torts, and given that the Government, and Government Contractor (IRS) in
this instance, would not even enter into discussion of the matters addressed through WTP
even recognized, let alone satisfied, and the aforementioned tact approval for the
and particularly pursuant to the provisions of Subchapter I of Chapter 21, and in bringing
this case to this Honorable Court as a Qui Tam Action, Plaintiffs also believe that it is the
duty of the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department or Private Attorney General(s) to
request a Grand Jury whereby monetary damages will be further set forth.
42. Being signed onto all of the Petitions and Class Action Complaint put forth by WTP
Organization, Plaintiff William M. Greene’s contact with the IRS was limited to
responding to their letters (e.g., to IRS letter dated 08/19/2002 on form letter 2797 (CG)
(Rev. )3-199) on 09/01/02 with short statements asserting knowledge of the IRS’ fraud
(Exhibit 5) and phone calls (e.g., from Ms. Graham, Employee #1601098, on 04/30/04),
and Plaintiffs did not immediately respond with WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication
36
entitled “Tell IRS To “Drop Dead”,25 whereby all members were encouraged to
appropriately use the suggested “Draft Letter”26 and its three attachments, which included
set of legal Facts and Beliefs,28 and a further statement of legal facts addressing the vital
issue of IRS’ Lack of Federal Legal Jurisdiction,29 to enforce the tax upon ordinary
Americans; and these three documents themselves contain most of the references of law
43. Nevertheless, beginning with Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS,
dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6), which was submitted as Plaintiffs’ statement in lieu of a
tax return for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and for all future years, … and further
legislation and IRS Code, and that in the context of that letter he had returned the
preparer’s assessments for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, as Attachments, stating “No
Answers No Taxes”, as well as to state that, if the IRS does not provide him with
25
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication entitled “Tell IRS To “Drop Dead”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/update09-27-03.htm);
26
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication whereby all members were encouraged to appropriately
use the suggested “Draft Letter”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/LetterToIRS.htm);
27
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Memorandum of Law regarding the Right to Petition,
“STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS REGARDING THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach1-petition.pdf);
28
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and
Beliefs, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO
STOP FILING AND PAYING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach2-537.pdf);
29
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and
Beliefs, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO
STOP FILING AND PAYING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach2-537.pdf);
37
reference to the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the
deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction
that requires him to properly respond, he would assume that the preparer did not in fact
have the authority and the IRS Office has therefore procedurally rescinded that notice of
deficiency in accordance with Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 63, Subchapter B, Sec. 6212-
44. In that July 22, 2004 letter, the Plaintiff also stated that if and when the IRS Office
responds with that reference to the law requiring him to file, or responds to the
"Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax" he would of
course comply with the law, but further stated that such compliance would be only as that
of a Slave shackled by that law, given that, as outlined in his letter, the IRS’ activities
constitute a violation of my right to religious freedom, and in paragraph #22 of his letter,
the Plaintiff also stated that "if I am presented with such a law I hereby reserve the right
to submit my own income tax assessment for the aforesaid years, which will of course
include whatever credits due me for the loss of my home, etc." (See Pages #19 & 20 -
45. As such, with the context of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS,
dated July 22, 2004 he indicated he contested the “routine practice” of filing the
substitute assessments, and reserved the right to submit his own income tax assessment
for the aforesaid years, which will of course include whatever credits due for the loss
Plaintiffs’ home, etc., and within the context of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s letter dated
38
September 28, 2007 (Exhibit 12), she explained the substitute assessments which “the IRS
has been sending illustrates how that process works, but these mailings raise other
questions about the lack of sufficient factual basis for information submitted on the
substitute returns, given that the IRS of all agencies should know that a truck driver’s
gross compensation for labor is offset by approximately 40% in fuel alone. Add to that
lease payments, bobtail and cargo insurance, maintenance and breakdown costs, tolls and
food and a truck drivers real compensation for labor is often less than $0.15 to $0.25
(cents) on the dollar. In fact in my husband’s case, because of the declining business
schools following 9/11, we could no longer even make our weekly lease-purchase
payments of almost $1,000.00 per week. We had to return all of our leased equipment,
thereby losing all of our investment and had to start all over again with contracts in my
name because of my husband’s resulting credit problems and we have been slowly
working ourselves out of the credit crunch ever since.” (See Page #71 - Exhibit 12, pg. 6
of 7).
46. Apart from Plaintiffs’ personal letters to the IRS, even though Congress enacted §
6330 – along with § 6320 – in order to provide certain procedural safeguards for
“taxpayers” facing IRS collection activity, and Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over
challenges to the IRS’s CDP determination of an income tax liability (26 U.S.C. §§
39
have reason to believe that the IRS may not have legislative and territorial jurisdiction30
((U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 17; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549
(1995), Adams v. U.S. 319 U.S. 312 (1943), and 40 U.S.C § 255 (now 40 U.S.C. § 3111
and 40 U.S.C. § 3112)), and therefore are “not taxpayers” as defined under the income
tax law.
47. “The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional
as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own
industry” (48 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Series, Section 2, page 80), and given that,
Plaintiffs were born and lived most of their lives in the State of New York, and although
they are currently employed as truck drivers involved in interstate commerce, fuel taxes
are paid both at the pump and through their employer,31 and it has only been a condition
of their employment that they furnish their own IFTA which required a EIN for the
purpose of the payment of the Heavy Highway Use Tax directly to the IRS,32 rather than
30
See “[ Footnote 23 ] There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862,
ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.” (See
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 292 (1979).
31
The collection of a percentage of the surcharge, is no more than a federal tax on interstate commerce,
which Plaintiffs are not trying to claim in this action to be an invalid exercise of either Congress' commerce
or taxing power. Cf. United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44 -45 (1950); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,
301 U.S. 548, 581 -583 (1937), unless Plaintiffs admittance of being a taxpayer within the context of the
fuel taxes collected at the pump and State Fees paid through their employer’s payroll services should be
inappropriately used to defined them as a taxpayer in the context of the income tax laws.
32
Should the Plaintiffs admittance of being a taxpayer within the context of the Heavy Highway Use Tax
be used to argue that the Plaintiffs must therefore be defined as a taxpayer in other contexts such as the
income tax laws, Plaintiffs reserve the right to argue this point as well, given that, although in 1796, the
United States Supreme Court in Hylton v. U. S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796) finding was that the tax was on the
“use” of the carriage rather than the carriage itself and therefore an “excise” tax which did not need to be
apportioned, an argument within the context of this suit will be based upon Hylton’s fraud upon the courts
and the American people given that Hylton only owned one carriage involving a $16.00 annual tax but lied
about the number of carriages, alleging that Hylton owned 200 carriages to increase the amount in
controversy equal to $3200.00, and thereby qualifying the case to be herd in the Federal Circuit Court (now
the District Court) because the case in controversy involved an amount greater than $3000.00. Originally
filed in the New York Court and then removed to the Circuit Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, Mr.
Hylton agreed to pay $16.00, the amount of the tax on the one carriage he actually owned. Hylton v. U. S.,
40
through their employer, but Plaintiffs do not and have never carried their own interstate
authority, are not a possessions corporation, do not have employees, and therefore are not
“subject” in terms of the gains and profits “derived from” the labor of others.33 That is,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.” (United States Constitution, 9th Amendment)
Such that, “Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every
person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.” Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.
48. In this context, it is Plaintiffs understanding that IRC §§ 6001, 6011, 6012(a) are the
regulations which address liability for the income tax relative to the subject of record
keeping, where for example, Plaintiffs have read 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1 through the end
and 31.6001-1 through the end and find that the payee and employee aren't required to
file returns except to secure refunds, and although Section 6001 states that “Every person
liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such
records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and
regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe…” and “The only records
which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with
3 U.S. 171 (1796) has subsequently been used as the basis for the misuse of the Excise Tax in the United
States. Had Hylton not fabricated an excess of damages to qualify the case to be adjudicated in the Circuit
Court, this case would have stayed in the State Courts, and the tax would have been declared invalid in
New York and the Supremes would not have accepted jurisdiction on the Writ of Error.
33
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in
themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in
this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance,
except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege
of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their
birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original
foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.” Butcher’s Union Co. v Crescent
City Co. 111 U.S. 746 (1884).
41
charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with Section 6053(c),
while Section 6011 states that, “(a) General Rule. When required by regulations
prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or
for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and
statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations . . .
(g) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift
taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C”, and then
actually look to those subparts B and C referred to at IRC Section 6011(g) contain IRC
Sections 6012 through 6017a, and in this respect knowledge of how to determine whether
or not the individual is “liable for” a tax is displayed at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states
that: “(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed
thereon by section 5001(a)(1)” and further, Congress displayed its knowledge of how to
make someone liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that “(a)(1) The
manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be
liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701”, such that “persons made liable” at
IRC Sections 5005 and 5703 for the taxes imposed at IRC Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701,
respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make
returns and keep records. Finally, given that Section 1461 of Title 27 is the only place in
Subtitle A of the IRC where Congress used the words “liable for”, that means that the
person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a withholding agent for nonresident
aliens, and although Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the
42
withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, “liable for” any income tax imposed in
Subtitle A, such that the canon of statutory construction, “expressio unius est exclusio
alterius”, which means the “express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of
another” has been the underlying construct motivating Plaintiffs to sign onto the first
Petition for Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned
tax on labor) as well as their personal letters to the IRS requesting any reference to the
law requiring them to [keep records and/or] file. (See Pages #14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 23 -
Exhibit 6, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 of 12; Pages #26, 27 & 29 - Exhibit 7, pgs. 1, 2 & 4 of 4;
Pages #30 & 31 - Exhibit 8, pgs. 2 & 3 of 3; Pages #34, 35 & 38 - Exhibit 9, pgs 2, 3 & 6
49. Plaintiffs’ beliefs are also supported by the fact that Plaintiffs in this case are signed
onto the Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-
apportioned tax on labor), which questions whether or not they are legally defined as tax
payers, and are also signed onto the Class Action Lawsuit the WTP Foundation's historic
Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury
Department, the IRS, and the U.S. Department of Justice, We the People v. United States
(USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) which SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25,
2008, voted to not hear in spite of it’s Constitutional duty, as well as the fact that the IRS
has consistently failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for any reference to the law
requiring them to file, and as such have historically contested the IRS’s filing of
substitute assessments.
43
50. As long as declaratory relief remains unavailable34, Plaintiffs have also maintained
their right to personally complain to the IRS Commissioner(s) by letters about the
extensive irreparable harm they are suffering as a result of the on-going IRS
administrative actions taken against them, in terms of those administrative actions being a
coordinated, broad based, enforcement program of malicious intent that is impeding the
Rights to freedom from a government that would infringe or erode their rights of
association, petition, speech, privacy, information, property, due process and religious
freedom.
51. Plaintiffs are asserting their Constitutional Rights in this matter and from their
review of 28 U.S.C. § 451, and the Reference Notes (See 80th Congress Senate Report
No. 1559) which indicate that all of the provisions of this Section 451 which related to
the Tax Court were eliminated by Senate amendment, believe that the Tax Court is not
authorized to consider issues dealing with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights, especially
when the IRS has consistently failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for any reference to
the law requiring them to file, but even if the Tax Court may indeed be authorized to hear
meaningless, in the face of WTP Organization’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances, and
particularly the Petition relating to the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor and the fact
remains the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has admitted in public form, not once but
34
Cf. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430 (1963) ("[U]nder the conditions of modern government,
litigation may well be the sole practicable avenue open to a minority to petition for redress of grievances.").
44
twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint) that IRS
administrative actions with respect to these Petitions are retaliatory acts, and as evidenced
by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of the
Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) against the Plaintiffs’
Rights, including recent Summons and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer
and Notice of Levies served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, all done without judicial
review and formal orders issued by an Article III Federal Court would constitute a direct
violation of the Privacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. For
these reasons alone, apart from any other evidence of complaint Plaintiffs bring before
this Honorable Court, issues of legal obligation and authority with respect to those
administering the body of Regulations used by IRS employees are clearly biased on the
part of the Government Contractor (the IRS), such that Plaintiffs believe that an
because the IRS has not only articulated a very clear position on the issue but even gone
so far as to falsify damages in this very District Court to qualify for a complaint under
Article III of the Constitution, wherein-by the IRS has not only demonstrated it would be
liability but the bias in denial of the individuals’ Constitutional Rights appears to be
45
meritless (See Russell S. Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98
“As a threshold matter, we observe that petitioner's efforts to shift the burden of
proof to respondent on constitutional grounds are meritless. The burden of proof
rests on the taxpayer, except in certain situations not relevant here. See Rule
142(a). Furthermore, this burden of proof has been uniformly applied, regardless
of whether the taxpayer's arguments addressed the amount or the
constitutionality of the tax. See, e.g., Larsen v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d 939,
941 (9th Cir. 1985); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 405 (1984); Kish v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-16; Minguske v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-573; Frami v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-509; Fisher v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-277.”
accountable to the Constitution is one thing, but the lengths that the IRS, as the
questioned its power in the context of the petitions, supports Plaintiffs’ belief that
actions and collection activity would have been clearly useless, and that the ultimate
denial of relief was/is an unconstitutional certainty, and Plaintiffs’ beliefs in this matter
are not only supported by the fact that Plaintiffs are listed on the Petitions for a Redress
of Grievances involving constitutional torts, but that given the fact that "The loss of First
irreparable injury." (See Ellrod v. Burns 427 U.S. 347 (1976)), Plaintiffs have been
signed on to the Class Action Lawsuit the WTP Foundation's historic Right-to-Petition
Lawsuit, believing that the only appropriate action was/is for Plaintiffs to await the
46
States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), however SCOTUS, without comment, on
February 25, 2008, voted to not hear the appeal in spite of it’s Constitutional duty.
53. As Plaintiffs understand it, the DC Circuit Court decisions have held, in effect, that
even if the Plaintiffs have a Right to Petition to hold the Government accountable to the
Response from the Government to the Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts), and,
citing the Anti-Injunction Act, the Plaintiffs could not expect the judicial department to
assist the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs were: a) attacked by the Executive Branch35 for
withdrawing their financial support until their Grievances were Redressed; and b), if, in
reaction to the retaliation, the Plaintiffs were to approach the Judicial Branch for an order
blocking any further retaliatory actions by the Executive Branch until Plaintiffs’
54. However, this action is not being brought against the Executive Branch, but against
the IRS as the Government’s Contractor, and as an empirical matter, the DC Circuit
Court decision conflicts with a long line of Supreme Court decisions that stand for the
proposition that no Act of Congress (including the IRC) can trump the Constitution, but
in citing the Anti-Injunction Act as the reason for being barred from protecting the
Plaintiffs from such retaliation because of the Act’s provision that “no suit for the
35
The question of whether the people’s fear of government should ever be allowed/justified is one which
has been considered as the very basis of American government. See John Adams, Thoughts on Government
(Boston, 1776), rpt. In Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, eds., AMERICAN POLITICAL WRITING OF
THE FOUNDING ERA 401, 402 (Liberty Fund 1983) (“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it
is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable,
that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it”); available
online at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/adams/filmmore/ps_thoughts.html.
47
purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any
court by any person”, the decision itself implies that Acts of Congress, which may or
may not be founded upon the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, can
trump the Constitution and whether that decision is viewed in terms "Inalienable Rights"
were thought to be the Natural Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or property)", which
at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence were clearly understood as
Rights" as it was so changed to by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration,
the Plaintiffs in this action assert that the axiom of Inalienable rights was written into the
Bill of Rights as the Ninth Amendment Rights “retained by the people” and in doing so
believe that the DC Circuit Court decision conflicts the Fundamental, Individual Rights
that the Courts are expressly authorized to protect. That is, “Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
55. In any event, Plaintiffs in this case do not have a traceable lineage to those who were
Amendment and thereafter afforded other rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and
therefore are not “persons under the law” and are “not subject” to the kind of redefinition
of citizenship set forth in Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, and being signed
on to all of the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances put forth by WTP Organization,
have a Constitutional Right to Contract and their labor as their Property, such that any
law which would imply that they only have such Rights so as long as they pay a
48
percentage can not be definable in terms other than slavery and/or peonage, and
therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because,
even state ownership of their labor property is unconstitutional (See United States v.
Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910)).
56. In fact as this case proceeds, Plaintiffs will base their legal arguments upon the
Of The IRS And The Income Tax”36 which was submitted to Representative Roscoe
Bartlett (MD), Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil and Mr.
Lawrence Lindsey, Asst. to the President, on March 16, 2002, in support of Plaintiffs’
belief that a choice to keep expense records, apart from whether or not they actually keep
such expense records, is personal and private and that the IRS nor anyone else has a right
to know how they are supporting themselves and keeping a roof over their head, even if it
is on wheels, who their friends and associates are/were, whether or not they have/had any
health issues and who their doctors are/were, whether and why they paid money to clinics
and hospitals, who their telephone and IT service providers are, how much they paid to
lease their truck and for fuel and maintenance, whether or not they insured their truck and
car, and/or where they shopped for food and how much they spent, etc., and as such
believe that they have already provided the IRS with much more information than they
36
See WTP Organization’s publication entitled “The Legal Authority Of The IRS And The Income Tax”
which was submitted to Representative Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury
Secretary Paul O’Neil and Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, Asst. to the President, on March 16, 2002,
(www.givemeliberty.org/post-hearing/HearingQsToBartlett4-4-02.PDF);
49
PLAINTIFFS’ REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT THE IRS PROVIDE ANY
REFERENCE OF LAW REQUIRING THEM TO FILE
57. Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6)
was followed by Plaintiff’s second letter dated January 31, 2005 (Exhibit 7), third letter
dated July 27, 2005 (Exhibit 8), forth letter dated April 13, 2007 (Exhibit 9), fifth letter
dated May 5, 2007 (Exhibit 10), sixth letter dated September 6, 2007 which was Response
letter to the IRS mailing of the 6700 suit (Exhibit 11), and a seventh letter dated
58. Knowing that silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral
duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading and
overcome the Plaintiffs’ “free will", Plaintiff William M. Greene had personally and
repeatedly requested in all of his letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides Plaintiffs with
the law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in these matters he would do so
(See Pages #14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 23 - Exhibit 6, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 of 12, Pages #26,
27 & 29 - Exhibit 7, pgs. 1, 2 & 4 of 4, Pages #30 & 31 - Exhibit 8, pgs. 2 & 3 of 3,
Pages #34, 35 & 38 - Exhibit 9, pgs 2, 3 & 6 of 8, Page #41 - Exhibit 10, pg. 1 of 9),
and following the Plaintiffs’ claim of a “notorious default” with respect to IRS’ failure to
respond with an appropriate reference of law requiring them to file and/or assume a
liability in these matters (See Pages #57, 58 & 61 - Exhibit 11, pgs. 7, 8 & 11 of 15),
which itself was a response letter to the IRS having mailed the copy of the case against
50
Plaintiffs’ participating organization in which damages were clearly falsified, Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene also personally notified the IRS “If the court provides a ruling with
respect to our guaranteed First Amendment Right of Petitioning in the matters and deems
it appropriate, after I have requested and the court has reviewed a Bill of Particulars
related to subjects already outlined in the petition for redress involving tax provisions of
the Constitution and defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for me
to pay income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return and the court finds I am actually required
(liable) under the law to comply, I will ...” (See Page #71 - Exhibit 12, pg. 6 of 7), but the
IRS has not respond accordingly in a lawful manner, and in the face of such fraud, IRS’
Grievances.
59. In short, the IRS has been sending very ominous and threatening “enforcement”
letters to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Banks and Employer, including their own personal copy of
the 6700 suit against Robert Schulz and WTP Foundation, which falsely characterizes the
shelter,” characterizing Plaintiffs as well as the thousands of people who have signed the
Petitions for Redress as “investors” in the “abusive tax shelter,” and requesting full
information about the people who had signed the Petitions for Redress, full information
51
about the source of funds used to finance Plaintiffs to Petition the Government for
Redress of grievances, and so forth, and yet, to date, the Plaintiffs have not received any
responses from the IRS Office either showing them the authority delegated to the
preparer by the Secretary to prepare the deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s
geographical and personam jurisdiction that requires them to respond and/or file, nor has
the IRS responded to the "Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual
Income Tax”, and absent a sufficient response, Plaintiffs continue to hold the
Government and its’ Contractors accountable to the Constitution and to the Bill of Rights
in terms of the proper Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts.
"Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the
meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 350, 372] in the statute, see 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."
McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304,
307.
60. And, following the Give Me Liberty (GML) 2007 conference event and Right-to-
Petition “V” Protest in Washington on March 29-31, 2007, on April 2, 2007 Plaintiff
William M. Greene responded to a phone call from the person who identified herself as
Holly Nolan, but did not provide her Federal Employee Identification Number, who
informed the Plaintiff that she was about to initiate administrative actions, after which the
Plaintiff informed her that both he and his wife are signed onto all of the Petitions and
Lawsuit (USDC Case # 04-cv-01211) put forth by WTP Organization, that Plaintiffs have
52
been exercising their Constitutional Rights with respect to these matters, and that it was
his understanding that all administrative actions taken without judicial review and formal
order issued by an Article III Federal Court would constitute a direct violation of the
Privacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution, and Plaintiff followed
up with his forth letter to the IRS, dated April 13, 2007 (Exhibit 9), addressed to
Commissioner Everson and Ms. Nolan that referenced the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case
61. In response to the Plaintiff’s April 13, 2007 letter to Commissioner Everson and Ms.
Nolan that referenced the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv)37, IRS Officer
Holly L. Nolan finally provided her Federal Employee Identification Number, and as a
matter of the response she did begin to initiate administrative actions against Plaintiff
William M. Greene which the Plaintiff contends are occurring under the Color of Law.
62. In any event, following notice by IRS Officer Holly L. Nolan of her intent to retaliate
against the Plaintiffs via administrative agency actions, Plaintiff responded with his fifth
37
Other courts have also ruled that the provisions of the "Internal Revenue Code" are only
"directory in nature" and not mandatory [See Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1962);
Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980); and United States v. Goldstein, 342 F. Supp. 661
(E.D.N.Y. 1972)], and further have held that the provisions of the "Internal Revenue Manual" are not
mandatory and lack the force of law. [See Boulez v. C.I.R., 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987); United States
v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967,(6th Cir. 1982)]. These decisions further support the fact that the provisions of
the IRC may not be relied upon as the legal authority for any part of a collection action as well.
53
letter dated May 5, 2007 (Exhibit 10), and respectfully, said that he has not and will not
give into the unconstitutional actions of the IRS, and the Court's reaffirmation of Case
No. 04-0196-cv is clear: “any legislative scheme that forces a taxpayer to make a
bearing the pains of IRS's wrath if [s]he refuses to comply -- without access to judicial
review, violates the Constitution”, and following Plaintiffs’ refusal to accept liability
pending a Redress of Grievances, or even a valid reference to the law requiring him to
file and/or assume a liability in these matters, IRS Officer Nolan, did in fact fulfill her
Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 (Exhibits 13 & 14), was sent to Plaintiff’s mailing address
(See Page #75 - Exhibit 14, pg. 1 of 3), and it is assumed that IRS mailed a copy of the
same to one of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s past employers, and thereafter, Plaintiff’s
present employer, with which the Plaintiff did not and never did have a contract, notified
him that they had received a copy of the same. Form 668-A(ICS), of course, is but one
example wherein-by the Plaintiff contends the IRS actions are occurring under the Color
of Law, in part because these documents sent to the Plaintiff do not have a valid signature
(See Page #73 - Exhibit 13, pg. 1 of 2; Page #76 - Exhibit 14, pg. 2 of 3) and the only
authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of property such as wages, salaries,
etc., is presented in Section 6331(a) and the fact that the statement of that limitation of
that authority appears nonexistent or absent (See Page #74 - Exhibit 13, pg. 2 of 2; Page
#75 - Exhibit 14, pg. 3 of 3), wrongfully and even criminally, indicates that, by mere
54
63. Plaintiff William M. Greene’s sixth letter to the IRS was dated September 6, 2007
(Exhibit 11) and was written in response to an August 15, 2007 mailing to both Plaintiffs,
from the person who in the past has identified herself as Holly Nolan, Revenue Officer,
TJM-RFT38, Document 30, Filed 08/09/2007, the 25 page Decision and Order, signed by
Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior United States District Judge, and within that response letter
the Plaintiff explained that “apart from the fact that this “Notice of Levy” was also
mailed to a past employer and one employer with which the Plaintiff does not and never
did have a contract with, it is merely a “Notice of Levy” which does not comply with Due
Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all unless there is an actual levy from a
64. Within the context of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s sixth letter, he also commented
on the fact that he was never formally noticed of a Tax Lien, which the Plaintiff became
aware of the first change to his public records, such that on 07/12/2007 Tax Lien
information had been added to or changed on his credit file to indicate that on the Date of
38
A suit which Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, believe was/is to justify the Government’s
Contractor’s impermissible retaliation, and divert attention away from the IRS’ unwillingness to be held
accountable by the Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts put forth by WTP Organization, in which the
Government Contractor (the IRS) labeled the People’s campaign in support of the enforcement of the
Petition Clause of the First Amendment a “promotion of an abusive tax shelter,” and one in which all
members of WTP Organization know that the Government officially adorned its attack by “mixing apples
with oranges” by taking what they called damages in the contents of the "Blue Folder” from the Right to
Petition program in which We, The People, have asserted our legal rights to our property - namely, our
money - pending the Redress of Grievances, and listed them as if they were damages associated with the
contents of the "Blue Folder." But, the suit was not about the Right to Petition program. The suit was about
the damages associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder." And, without damages being clearly
associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder", as required by Article III of the Constitution, we, as
members of WTP Organization, are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find that there is no case now
that Robert Schulz et al., has also outlined this fact for the appeal.
55
Date of “N/A”, with the Amount being “$171,000”, and Creditor Class of “Federal” (See
65. As well as the fact that the Plaintiff, William M. Greene, without being formally
noticed of a Tax Lien by the IRS, also became aware that there had been another change
to his public records, such that on 07/29/2007 Tax Lien information had been added to or
changed on his credit file to indicate that on the Date of “05/01/2007”, with a Court/Case
Number of “Albany County Court House/9946543”, a Release Date of “N/A”, with the
Amount being “$171,000”, and Creditor Class of “Federal” (See Page #57 – Exhibit #11,
7 of 15).
66. As a matter of process, Plaintiff William M. Greene has also requested a Document
Search for the Document Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same
including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated April 18,
2007, with the Amount being “$171,479.86” (Exhibit 15). The Notice of Federal Tax
Lien shown on (Page #79 - Exhibit #15, 2 of 2) does not even have a valid signature
because the person “R. A. Mitchell” signed for the Revenue Officer Holly Nolan.
67. Looking into the matter further, Plaintiff went online to the New York State
Secretary of State's Website, to UCC information on Filing Data Reports, and the State
Secretary of State's UCC document services reports “No Debtors found” (Exhibit 16)
which is not surprising given that this issue has yet to be considered by the federal court,
but further validation of the IRS’ fraud is established by documentation offered by the
56
Clerk’s record indicating that there is not a judgment signed by a Federal Judge involving
a Federal Tax Lien (Exhibit 17) against Plaintiff William M. Greene nor Plaintiff Karen
Greene. In addition, in a letter dated February 11, 2008, Plaintiff has also submitted an
IRS FOIA Request (Exhibit 18) to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, and the details derived from the decoded file will be presented to
this Honorable Court and Plaintiffs will motion to amend this complaint so as to add
68. Moreover, in at lease two of his letters to the IRS, Plaintiff William M. Greene
informed the IRS that they are already in a “notorious default” with respect to these
matters, and in one of those letters the Plaintiff informed Commissioner Everson and
Revenue Officer Nolan that the “IRS’ notorious default” in these matters has a much
broader application, for while the IRS has been claiming that the many are in default,
which appears itself to be an actionable denial of due process on the part of the IRS, the
Government and the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has been in “notorious default”
for quite some time now, by not answering to the WTP Organization's petitions hand
delivered to them, at every step, all pushing the IRS toward this simple work-book
Common Law default. Explaining further that, given that this Common Law default has
been accomplished openly in numerous public records and in the context of the petitions
we are signed on to (see Pages #57 & 58 - Exhibit #11, pgs. 7 & 8 of 15), which involve
our First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the
of the war powers, privacy, money and tax provisions of the Constitution, as well as the
57
President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws, in fact, our actions with
respect to these matters meet all the requirements for the IRS to be held in default, and
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to
speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. .
. We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is
based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to
expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection
activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d
1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.
69. Similarly, a seventh letter dated September 28, 2007, which was the first and only
E. Stiff and Revenue Officer Nolan, including a copy of WTP Organization’s Black
Folder39 (Exhibit 19) in response to the letters, Substitute Assessments, Notice of Tax
Lien (Exhibits 20 & 21), Notice of Tax Levy (Exhibits 22 & 23), and Summons’ sent to
Plaintiffs’ employer (Exhibits 24 & 25), as well as the copy of the § 6700 suit against WTP
Organization which Plaintiffs are members, indicated that, especially in light of Ms.
Nolan’s having sent Plaintiffs the copy of the § 6700 suit against WTP Foundation of
which Plaintiffs are a part, clearly, even that could have served no other purpose than to
harass and intimidate us as petitioners of the government with regard to the constitutional
torts.
39
Exhibit #19 annexed hereto is a copy of the only brochure ever published by the WTP Organization. It
describes the commitment of the WTP Foundation to civic education, the commitment of the WTP
Congress to civic action, and the emphasis the WTP organization has been placing on enforcement of the
People’s Rights and the Government’s obligations under the Constitution, especially the Petition Clause of
the First Amendment.
58
70. Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS was also sent by
facsimile to (1) Mr. Robert L. Schulz, 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804,
(2) Mr. Mark Lane, Attorney for We The People Foundation For, & We The People
Congress, Inc., 2523 Brunswick Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22903, (3) Hon. George W.
Bush, President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20500, (4) Mr. Michael Peroutka, Peroutka 2004, Suite #303, 8028
Ritchie Highway, Pasadena, MD 21122, (5) Rep. Ron Paul, Ron Paul 2008, 850 N.
Randolph St., Suite 122, Arlington, VA, 22203, (6) Mr. Burr V. Deitz, 444 Whitehall
Road, Albany, New York 12208, (7) Hon. Henry M. Paulson Jr., United States Treasury
Secretary, Main Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, (8)
Hon. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of
Justice-Main, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530, (9) Ms. Nadine
Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY
10004, (10) Ms. Donna Lieberman, Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union,
125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004, and (11) Ms. Melanie Trimble,
Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union Capital Region Chapter, 90 State
Street, Room 518, Albany, NY 12207, in her effort to urge the IRS to obey the
Constitution and answer the questions presented in WTP Organization’s Petitions, but
being aware of the fact that, “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary
but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences” (Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742) and the IRS’ past
history of abusing the constitutional rights of the people, Plaintiff wrote that the IRS
should comply with the ruling from the decision of Schulz v. IRS (Case No. 04-0196-
59
cv), to ensure Plaintiffs due process rights in these matters: stating that if the court
provides a ruling with respect to our guaranteed First Amendment Right of Petitioning in
the matters and deems it appropriate, after Plaintiffs have requested and the court has
reviewed a Bill of Particulars related to subjects already outlined in the Petition for
Redress involving tax provisions of the Constitution and defining the specific offense
statute that created the liability for Plaintiffs to pay income tax and file a 1040 Tax
Return and the court finds Plaintiffs are actually required (liable) under the law to
comply, we, the Plaintiffs in this case, will of course thereupon [hire a competent
professional to compile and] produce our records of gross compensation for our labor and
matters, in a letter dated January 11, 2008, Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance
Services, informed the Plaintiff that a penalty of $5,000.00 (See Page #117 – Exhibit #26,
pg., 4 of 5) in addition to all other penalties was imposed (Exhibit 26) as a response
Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS, which Field Director
incorrectly states as having been dated October 1, 2007. As such that, Plaintiffs maintain
that IRS administrative actions continue to be carried out, without any response from the
Government to the subject Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, and although the
Field Director did site numerous sections from Title 26, none of sections quoted contain
any reference to the law which actually pertains to the Plaintiffs in terms of the authority
delegated to the IRS and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam
jurisdiction that requires them to respond and/or file. Moreover, although Field Director
Slaughter asserted some very general rights of investigation and enforcement by the IRS,
60
his response constitutes yet another failure of the IRS to respond with an appropriate
reference of law requiring the Plaintiffs to file and/or assume a liability in these matters
and given that the IRS has once again refused to respond accordingly in a lawful manner,
in the face of such fraud, Plaintiffs continue to maintain that IRS’ “enforcement actions”
72. In fact, Plaintiffs have also been unable to find any reference to indicate that Title 26
has actually been enacted into positive law, and the Title itself appears to be written to
primarily address the responsibilities of the IRS employees with respect to those who are
"liable" to file, and as previously stated, Plaintiffs pay the Heavy Highway Use tax and
pay road taxes due at the pump and through deductions whereby road taxes are paid
through payroll deductions, but a matter of law revenues received by the Plaintiffs in this
action are not taxed or taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax laws and
regulations thereunder promulgated, nor are any revenues received by the Plaintiffs for
their labor within the powers of the federal government to tax and that the revenues
received by the Plaintiffs for their labor are exempt from taxation by excise under the
Constitution of the United States, and therefore, an essential element of the IRS’ claim of
a "tax due and owing" is absent, and it is respectfully submitted that if Field Director,
Henry Slaughter, or anyone else for that matter, had provided any reference to the law
requiring Plaintiffs to file and/or assume a liability with respect to the income tax, that
would have been the only appropriate response, for as it stands, Plaintiffs are still left to
believe the statement presented in the context of Senator Inouye’s letter (Exhibit 3) which
61
reads in part “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service,
income taxes" and that they are “not a taxpayer in the context of the income tax statutes”,
and therefore, Plaintiffs believe they are not liable to file and not “subject” to the many
enactments under Title 26. That is not to say that Plaintiffs have been unable to find any
statutes of liability, for the four categories for Federal Income Tax liability which the
Plaintiffs are aware of are (1) Non-resident aliens with domestic source income, (2)
Foreign corporations with domestic source income, (3) Withholding agents for either of
the above, and (4) U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign earned income. Moreover,
although Section 3401(a) does define the term “wages” as meaning all remuneration for
given in Section 3401(c) for the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or
elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the
(government) corporation, such that, the Field Director’s specific response, does not
appear to Plaintiffs to have been offered in the context of Field Director, Henry
Slaughter’s actual authority, and Plaintiffs are therefore left to conclude that the Field
Director’s actions, as well as all of the other IRS administrative actions that have been
taken before and after the Field Director’s response, are in direct violation of the privacy
and due process clauses, without having first sought judicial review and formal order
62
73. That is, without judicial review and formal order issued by an Article III Federal
Court, Notice of Tax Lien Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated August
14, 2007, was sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address (Page #97 - Exhibit #20, pg., 2 of 5),
and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and
was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk, following which the
Plaintiff requested the Albany County Clerk to provide copy of the Document Search for
the Document Details including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c), dated August 14, 2007, with
the Amount being “$96,305.16”, and (as shown on Page #99 - Exhibit #20, pg., 4 of 5;
Page #102 - Exhibit #21, pg., 2 of 2) the Notice of Federal Tax Lien does not even have a
valid signature because the person “R. A. Mitchell” signed for the Revenue Officer Holly
Nolan. Thereafter, Plaintiff also went online to the New York State Secretary of State's
Website, to UCC information on Filing Data Reports, and the State Secretary of State's
UCC document services reports “No Debtors found” (Exhibit 27) and further validation of
the IRS’ fraud is established by documentation offered through the Clerk’s record and by
the letter signed by the Case Processing Clerk, United States District Court, Northern
District of New York, documenting that there is no record for proceedings filed let alone
a judgment signed by a Federal Judge involving a Federal Tax Lien against the Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene. In addition, in a letter dated February 11, 2008, Plaintiff has also
submitted an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, (Exhibit28) and the details derived from the decoded file will be
presented to this Honorable Court and Plaintiffs will motion to amend this complaint so
63
THE IRS SUMMONSES TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER IS IN DEFIANCE OF
RECENT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CASE
74. The Court’s attention is invited to the decision by the United States Court of Appeal
for the Second Circuit in Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005), in which
the Second Circuit held that if the IRS felt it was entitled to Summons the individual’s
records the IRS would have to initiate a lawsuit in federal district where, in the interest of
due process, the individual would be able to assert his or her constitutional defenses, and
there would be a full adversarial proceeding and hearing, and a court order would be
required before the individual would have to turn over his private and personal
information to the IRS. Yet, instead of honoring the spirit and intent of the Second
Circuit rulings that spoke clearly and unrestrained regarding the citizen’s Right to Due
Process protections against IRS administrative actions, IRS Official Holly Nolan
formally summoned Plaintiff’s Employer for information. The Summonses are dated
September 5, 2007.
75. Now, Plaintiffs have only recently become aware that the Second Circuit has
amended the wording of its earlier findings with reference to the fact that Congress has
given the IRS broad directions under 26 U.S.C. 7601 to investigate " all persons therein
who may be liable to pay any internal revenue tax, and all persons owning or having the
care and management of any objects with respect to which any tax is imposed” as well as
Treasury officers or employees in the performance of their duties”, and in this context,
64
the Plaintiffs can understand that the simple issuance of an IRS summons itself does not
in-and-of itself create an Article III controversy for those who may in fact be liable under
the income tax laws, but consideration must also be given to the fact that the IRS has
historically refused to provide Plaintiffs with any reference of law requiring them to file
and/or assume a liability in these matters and in checking both, the Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules and the Cornell University Law School resources it is shown that
U.S.C. § 7801, 26 U.S.C. § 7802, 26 U.S.C § 7803 nor 26 U.S.C. § 7804, as well as the
fact that the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition
government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United
States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and IRS Officials have
admitted to in public form (i.e., as outlined in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this
complaint), that “enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. … and the new agreement with
the states, show other ways that government is answering the petition”, and that, decisions
1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972);
United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald,
553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), such that Plaintiffs have good reason to
believe that the federal courts would have had jurisdiction over motions to quash IRS
summonses even in the absence of some effort by the IRS to seek court enforcement of
the summons.
65
76. Yet, Plaintiffs were denied their Right of due process, because the Summonses in
question were never sent to Plaintiffs PO Box to allow Plaintiffs the ability to respond
by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner,40 and that Plaintiffs were only
who thereupon provided Plaintiffs with their only copies of the same on September 24,
2007. At that time, Plaintiffs informed their employer that the Summonses were yet
another act of defiance employed by the IRS to quash the Plaintiff’s exercising of their
Constitutional Torts.
77. Plaintiffs thereupon provided their Employer with the quote from the Second Circuit
party” summons, in the interest of Due Process the individual is entitled to a full
adversarial proceeding and judicial hearing before being put in jeopardy of penalty by
having his private and personal property turned over to the Government without his
consent, as would be the case if the Employer complied with the Summonses. And, this
was followed by Plaintiffs further informing their Employer that just because they have
chosen to exercise their Constitutional Rights in these matters, they also believed that it
was a personal choice and their decision to exercise their First Amendment Right to
Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional Torts which should not be
40
The following is language from 26 U.S.C. 7609 (b)(2):
(2) Proceeding to quash.
(A) In general. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a
summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later
than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2). In any
such proceeding, the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with the summons. (emphasis added).
66
in anyway whatsoever a burden to others, such that Plaintiffs informed their employer
that Plaintiffs did not have the ability to respond to the Summonses by petitioning the
District Court in a timely manner, and that if they (Plaintiffs’ Employer) did not comply
the IRS would in all probability simply retaliate against them as well and that any cost of
said compliance should be billed to Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs would be filing a suit at a
later date in the event of other real damages. At that time, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene
wrote her September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS, and provided the employer with a copy of
the same.
78. To repeat, the Summonses in question were never sent to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs
were only notified of its existence by their Employer, who thereupon provided Plaintiffs
with their only copy. Plaintiffs responded to the IRS Summonses provided to them by
their Employer by informing their Employer that they had a Right to Petition the
Government for Redress of Grievances and that the summonses were a deliberate
infringement of that Right – i.e., impermissible retaliation – and further informed their
Employer of the United States Court of Appeals Case in which the Second Circuit ruled
that before an individual could be put in jeopardy of penalty by having his [or her] private
and personal property turned over to the Government without his [or her]consent, [S]he
was entitled, by Due Process, to assert his [or her] defenses in an adversarial judicial
41
Quoting Schulz:
“United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 719, 63 L. Ed. 2d 141, 100 S. Ct. 874 (1980) (‘The summoned party
is entitled to challenge the issuance of the summons in an adversary proceeding in federal court prior to
enforcement, and may assert appropriate defenses.’ (emphasis added))” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d
297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005).
67
IRS NOTICE OF LEVYS WERE ISSUED TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER AND
PLAINTIFFS BANKS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER
79. Instead of bringing Plaintiffs into a Federal District Court or even providing the
Plaintiffs with copy in a timely manner where they could assert their defenses and where
they would have a public, adversarial hearing and receive the full protection of the Court,
the IRS served summonses on the Plaintiffs Employer, and shortly thereafter, on
November 5, 2007, Plaintiffs were informed that both their Joint Account and Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene’s Personal Account were inactive because IRS Notice of Levies had
been served on both of the Plaintiffs’ Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in
Ogden, UT. Plaintiffs were in California at the time, and did not arrive in Albany NY
80. On November 10, 2007, Plaintiffs got the mail from their PO Box, which included
copies of IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 29, 2007, that had been
“Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 525, 27 L. Ed. 2d 580, 91 S. Ct. 534 (1971) (‘Thus the [IRS]
summons is administratively issued but its enforcement is only by federal court authority in an adversary
proceeding affording the opportunity for challenge and complete protection to the witness.’ (internal
quotations marks omitted, emphasis added))” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit,
2005).
“Reisman advances this view. 375 U.S. at 450 (‘We remit the parties to the comprehensive procedure of
the Code, which provides full opportunity for judicial review before any coercive sanctions may be
imposed."); see also Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 151 ("Congress has provided protection from arbitrary or
capricious action by placing the federal courts between the Government and the person summoned [by the
IRS].’). Schulz I provided our first opportunity to conform the law of this Circuit to that view.” Schulz II
(Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005).
“The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus:
any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders
except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties ‘so heavy
as to prohibit resort to that remedy,’ Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333, 64 L. Ed. 596,
40 S. Ct. 338 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
This is so even if ‘in the proceedings for contempt the validity of the original order may be assailed.’ Id. at
335; see also Reisman, 375 U.S. at 446; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 147-48, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct.
441 (1908).” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 303 (2d Circuit, 2005).
68
served on both of the Plaintiffs’ Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in
Ogden, UT from that bank (Exhibits 29 & 30), as well as copies mailed from the IRS (See
Page #128 - Exhibit 31, pg. 1 of 3; Page #131 - Exhibit 32, pg. 1 of 3) to both of the
Plaintiffs’ mailing address (Exhibits 31 & 32). These documents do not have a valid
signature (See Page #123 - Exhibit 29, pg. 2 of 3; Page #126 - Exhibit 30, pg. 2 of 3;
Page #129 - Exhibit 31, pg. 2 of 3; Page #132 - Exhibit 32, pg. 2 of 3), Section 6331(a) as
the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent (See
Page #124 - Exhibit 29, pg. 3 of 3; Page #127 - Exhibit 30, pg. 3 of 3; Page #130 -
Exhibit 31, pg. 3 of 3; Page #133 - Exhibit 32, pg. 3 of 3), and of course, because 26
U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a
court order, Plaintiffs maintain that the IRS, through the authority given to Operations
Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately
issued the Notice of Levys exposing the Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT to
possible law suits. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C.
6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court
order:
81. In addition, two other IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levys, Dated October 29,
2007, mailed from the IRS (See Page #134 - Exhibit 33, pg. 1 of 3) to both of the
Plaintiffs’ mailing address. The Notice of Levys, Dated October 29, 2007, indicated
service would also be made upon Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Citizens Bank account
69
(Exhibit 33), as well as an IRS Notice of Levy being served in the name of Plaintiff
82. The Citizens Bank that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene does business with is located at
1440 Central Ave., Albany NY 12205, yet IRS Notice of Levies were addressed to
important to note that the branch of the Citizens Bank in question that the Plaintiff does
business with is also located in the Second Circuit, indicating the degree of defiance IRS
has exposed in its pursuit of quashing the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment
83. In a letter, dated January 18, 2008, Citizens Bank notified Plaintiff Karen M. Greene
that the IRS served a Tax Levy against her account at RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. with
funds being withheld in the amount of $1,077.37, and a pay out date of 2-8-2008 (See
Page #139 - Exhibit 35, pg. 1 of 3). The letter from Citizens Bank also included a copy
of Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 (Exhibit 35), Again,
these documents do not have a valid signature (See Page #135 - Exhibit 33, pg. 2 of 3;
Page #137 - Exhibit 34, pg. 1 of 2; Page #140 - Exhibit 35, pg. 2 of 3), Section 6331(a) as
the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent (See
Page #136 - Exhibit 33, pg. 3 of 3; Page #138 - Exhibit 34, pg. 2 of 2; Page #141 -
Exhibit 35, pg. 3 of 3), and of course, because 26 U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that
Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court order, Plaintiffs maintain that the
42
The Plaintiff William M. Greene does not have a Bank account at Citizens Bank but Plaintiffs’ son
William M. Greene, Jr. does have a savings account at the same branch of Citizens Bank that Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene does business, which is located at 1440 Central Ave., Albany NY 12205.
70
IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have
knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued the Notice of Levy to RBS
84. Moreover, copies of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) -- Notice of Levy, dated January 3, 2008,
were also issued, with one being mailed (See Page #142 - Exhibit 36, pg. 1 of 3) to the
36
Plaintiff Karen M. Greene (Exhibit ) and the other being served upon the Plaintiffs’
Employer, and along with the copy of Notice of Levy to Plaintiffs’ Employer (Exhibit 37),
Revenue Officer, Holly L. Nolan, attached a letter notifying the employer that “This will
attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can not
issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees”.
85. Apart from the fact that most of these documents issued as IRS Form 668-A(ICS) -
Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, do not have a valid signature (See Page #143 -
Exhibit 36, pg. 2 of 3; Page #148 - Exhibit 37, pg. 4 of 7; Page #150 - Exhibit 37, pg. 6 of
7) and Section 6331(a) as the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is
nonexistent or absent all of these documents (See Page #144 - Exhibit 36, pg. 3 of 3;
Page #147 - Exhibit 37, pg. 3 of 7; Page #149 - Exhibit 37, pg. 5 of 7), Plaintiffs believe
that this document itself is founded in fraud wherein-by the IRS filed a Notice of Liens
with the County Clerks Office without a Federal Court Order (Exhibits 15 & 21), and given
that Revenue Officer, Holly L. Nolan attached her letter notifying the employer that they
can not issue Karen Greene an advance (Page #145 - Exhibit 37, pg. 1 of 7), this also
71
constitutes an interference with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Contract, given that
as truck drivers Plaintiffs’ contract calls for the employer to advance us the expense
moneys to pay for fuel and tolls to complete the contracted job, and without these
contracted funds from our employer, Plaintiffs can not complete contracted job
assignments and the only reason that Plaintiffs’ were able to continue working was that
their Employer sought legal consultation before levying Plaintiffs’ payroll account
38
(Exhibit ) in the amount of $1,475.00 (See Page #152 - Exhibit 38, pg. 1 of 1)
86. Following interference with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Contract, Plaintiffs
feared that they might be out of work altogether very soon, unless their employer was
willing to put up with all of this, as Plaintiffs awaited a final decision in the first
impression case of We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) , but
as it happened Plaintiffs employer notified them by email that they just received another
form, IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008 (Exhibit 39) and Plaintiffs
responded (Exhibit 40) to the employers’ email by stating that Form 668-W is a "Notice of
Levy" that do not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all
unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court stamp,
and that a lawful Levy can only be effected by Form 668-B (Exhibit 41) and even then, a
Levy is ONLY lawful if it is effected by Form 668-B, which subjects the individual to
Section 6331(a) (See Page #160 - Exhibit 41, pg. 2 of 2) and even that only pertains to
those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers,
employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their
"employer", as well as to explain that if either of the Plaintiffs were uneducated enough
72
(not a put down because most lawyers don’t even understand) to in fact sign away our
Due Process Rights by filling out Form 668-W and signing parts #4 and #5, then and only
then would this form carry any weight as a lawful document as they could then file a
signed copy with the District Court, even though we are not officers or employees of a
the federal government, and the employer has since provided the Plaintiffs with pages of
IRS Form 668-W(ICS) he had originally omitted (Exhibit 42), but the overall effect of all
of this is not simply that the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and
Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued Notice
of Levies forms, which are materially false and fraudulent documents for such purposes,
and in this instance seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account
in the dollar amount of $352.30 (See Page #169 - Exhibit 42, pg. 9 of 9), but in the
process Plaintiffs are out of work unless or until this Honorable Court grants Injunctive
Relief.
87. The effect of the Plaintiffs Banks and Employer complying with the IRS Notice of
Levies without a court order is the same as if the IRS used force against Plaintiffs
directly, for by engaging in acts of malicious intent seeking to obstruct justice the IRS has
effectively denied Plaintiffs their Due Process Rights protected under our Constitution,
i.e., the Right to face an accuser and assert defenses in a full adversarial judicial
proceeding and hearing before suffering injury, and thereby without their consent or even
a judicial hearing Plaintiffs have been penalized by having their private and personal
finances seized by the Government Contractor (the IRS), with the intent (and effect) of
73
infringing on their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, when
in reality, Plaintiffs maintain that the IRC of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large,
and codified as title 26 of the United States Code clearly indicates that the IRC itself was
88. Finally, because “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the
land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law” (Marbury v.
Madison, 5 US 137), Plaintiffs maintain that the mandate for Due Process protections
with respect to IRS administrative acts, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with
proper jurisdiction, explicitly require an Article III judicial hearing before Plaintiffs can
seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life,
43
See [SEC. 7804. EFFECT OF REORGANIZATION PLANS -- [(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES at
(http://www.irstaxattorney.com/legislation/RRA_1998_House_ways_report_p6.html)
74
liberty or property, which, was the original intent of IRC which served in preserving the
89. In order for the Government Contractor to justify its failure to respond to Plaintiffs
for Petitioning the Government for Redress of Constitutionally directed Grievances, the
IRS, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint)
announced in public form that “…enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. … show other
ways that government is answering the petition” and then in the related § 6700 Suit (Case
No. 1:07-cv-0352) the IRS had the audacity to lie to the US Department of Justice and
fabricate the estimated cost to the U.S. Treasury, by listing damages attributable to filing
substitutes for the 2991 unfiled returns equaling $4,806,537 for which they clearly would
have had to have some idea of the names to which the Blue Folder had been distributed.
Yet, during the Oral Arguments at U.S. Court of Appeals presented in Manhattan the
Government’s Counsel admitted that the IRS fabricated damages (as indicated in
paragraph #4 of this complaint) and this statement alone by the Government’s Counsel is
evidence of the extent to which the IRS, as a Government Contractor, has gone to impose
of Government’s Counsel in this instance, a serious federal offense has been correctly
75
identified and admitted to in terms of the major fraud upon the American People which
Plaintiffs believe is cognizable in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and the United States in terms
of 18 U.S.C. § 1031.
90. In short, the IRS served third party summonses without a court order on the employer
through which both Plaintiffs work and through which Plaintiff Karen M. Greene is
contracted. Plaintiffs Banks and Plaintiffs Employer have receive from the IRS Forms
668-A(ICS), the "Notice of Levy" that were sent to Plaintiffs Banks and Employer, which
are third parties, for the purpose of collecting taxes that are allegedly owed, but the fact
remains the Government’s Contractor has historically admitted in public form, not once
but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), that IRS
administrative actions are retaliatory and imposed against Plaintiffs and other members of
WTP Organization as a response to petitions for the sole purpose of quashing their First
Amendment Right, which is, itself, illegal and unconstitutional and should not be
enforceable, but Plaintiffs also contend that the IRS’s enforcement actions are executed
“… afoul of the due process requirements …" (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv).
91. In addition, along with the last IRS Form 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January
3, 2008, served upon the Plaintiffs’ Employer, the IRS attached a letter notifying the
employer that “This will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of
this levy you can not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be
deducted are State fees.” And finally, Plaintiffs employer notified them that they (the
employer) received another form, IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008, which
76
has served to put the Plaintiffs out of work all together, unless or until this Honorable
92. In part, Plaintiffs belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief is
supported by the fact that Title 26 itself is the body of Regulations that contains reference
to the legal authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to administer provisions pertaining
to the collection of income taxes. In this context, until Plaintiffs reviewed the
information collected and presented for public review by WTP Foundation our
appreciation of American history and events like that of President Taft’s June 16, 1909
letter to Congress to propose an income tax amendment for the purpose of overturning
93. In other words, it seems rather apparent that the 16th Amendment was enacted to tax
particular types of “income” as an excise tax on privileged activities, not everyone "Since
the Right to receive income or earnings is a Right belonging to every person, this right
cannot be taxed as a privilege." Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, 455-456
(Tenn.1960).
77
94. However, Plaintiffs contend that they are being retaliated against for even asking
questions about all of this in terms of their First Amendment Right to Petition for a
Redress of Grievances and their belief that this Honorable Court should provide
Injunctive Relief is supported by other facts that are explained in the on-line article by
Pappas & Associates, P.A. entitled “Tax Law – Basics of Tax”44 which also explains that
the legal authority for the use of IRS Form 668-W, "Notice of Levy", is extremely limited
and depends upon the statutory provisions for "levying" upon the wages, accrued salary,
or other property of an individual, such that Plaintiffs contend that IRS administrative
actions taken in their effort to impose their retaliatory or retribution tax against
Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment Right are occurring where the IRS has not
95. For example, the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. explains that when the
IRS Form 668-W, the "Notice of Levy" was designed, the cite of authority that would
reveal its limited application was conveniently omitted - a cite that must, by law,
accompany the notice. The individual who actually receives the "Notice of Levy" is, of
course, a third party who then acts upon the Notice of Levy to send moneys to the IRS
merely on the "presumption" that if it was sent from the IRS then the authority must be
valid. Yet, the authority to levy is restricted to and contained within Section 6331(a) of
the IRC:
44
See On-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. entitled “Tax Law – Basics of Tax”
(http://www.pappastax.com/taxbasics.php?cat=3). Also same information is available at
(http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/IRSLiensAndLevies.htm), (http://www.usa-the-
republic.com/revenue/levy.html),
(http://www.save-a-patriot.org/articles/levy.html),
(http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/emailarticle.html?ID=26559), and many more;
78
IRC 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 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.
[Emphasis Added]
96. The on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. further explains that Section 6331 is
the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc.,
specifically referred to as the “employment tax” on income under Subtitle C, and the
"limitation" of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain
officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their
employer, the government, but it is important to emphasize that this section is also
implemented by regulations pertaining to “excise taxes” under Subtitle E of the IRC, and
making enforceable, levies on the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms under 27
CFR Part 70. Therefore, assuming that all other legal requirements are met (e.g., notice
and demand, court order, lien, etc.), a levy may be made only on property of those
persons who are described in IRC Subtitle E, and on the property of the government
employees described in 26 U.S.C. 6331(a). If any similar provisions exist for anyone or
anything else to provide connection with the income tax in Subtitle A, Plaintiffs are
79
simply unaware of it, and given that Plaintiff William M. Greene has personally and
repeatedly requested in all of his letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides the Plaintiff
with the law requiring him to file and/or assume a liability in these matters he would do
so, and to date the IRS has failed to respond accordingly, Plaintiff’s belief that no similar
provisions exist for anyone or anything else appears justifiably and rationally correct.
97. Our Servant Government, and Government Contractors which include IRS Officials
and Agents, have a legal obligation to not exercise excesses of their authority, and
retaliation against Petitioners is an excess of their authority, and specifically with respect
to those IRS Agents who are errantly exercising a "presumed" authority, Plaintiffs
believe that these same IRS Agents are supposed to be acting in accordance with the
98. Specifically, the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. also explains that these
provisions deal with what are called "delegation orders" because no agent may administer
a provision of the IRC without a proper order delegating such authority, and the authority
restricted by national and local "delegation orders" designed to ensure compliance with
the limited application of the IRC, indicating that it is the Secretary who is responsible
for administering the provisions for the levy or delegating the authority if and when
appropriate.
80
99. However, given that Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that the IRS provide
reference to the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the
deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction
that requires him to properly respond, and the IRS has failed to comply with Plaintiffs
requests, Plaintiffs must conclude such "delegation orders" are either absent or invalid,
and that the IRS at all times must use the enforcement authority in good-faith pursuit of
the authorized purposes of Code (U.S. v. La Salle N.B., 437 U.S. 298 (1978)), and IRS
Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices of Levy(s)" that are sent to third
parties such as banks, employers, and other financial institutions to confiscate property
for the purpose of collecting taxes allegedly owed, however the "nonjudicial" collection
authority is wholly dependent upon a statute (Section 6321) which provides for a lien to
automatically arise, and on the back of the 668-W Notice of Levy form, the reference to
Section 6331(a) which is the actual authority for a levy is omitted, such that the authority
listed includes Section 6331(b) through Section 6331(e) and those are the Sections which
the third parties erroneously rely on and refer to, but then again, because the authority for
the levy pertains only to government agencies within the territories (which is what it
actually says), then it should certainly come as no surprise that "delegation orders"
pertaining to service centers and district offices within the 50 states cannot authorize such
a levy, but again, the actual authority for a levy is, in part:
81
[Emphasis Added]
100. As such, Plaintiffs belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief
is supported by the fact that the Internal Revenue Manual is written to protect people
from these misapplications of code to justify the IRS’ retaliation, and Section 6331
appears to be the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of property
such as wages, salaries, etc., and given that the limitation of that authority shown at
relationship which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a) is also absent, given that it
only pertains to those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and
certain officers, employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the
101. In short, the IRS has been exercising its administrative procedures (enforcement)
Plaintiffs’ due process rights included in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh
Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America and corresponding
provisions in constitutions of the several States. After utterly refusing to respond to the
Petitions, let alone provide Redress, IRS officials publically announced their intention
and method of retaliating under the color of federal and state assessment and collection
proceedings, and when Plaintiffs look into the subject of legal authority being used
against them, Plaintiffs find that it can not be interpreted in any other way than to say that
the IRS have to knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed acts in
82
violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and thereby
perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US Department of
Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation. Such actions by the government
contractor (the IRS) are reprehensible and unconstitutional and should be enjoined.
102. IRS administrative procedures including Dummy Returns and other “enforcement”
actions, including Summonses, order-less Levies and Liens, and by sending the Plaintiffs
their own personal copy of the § 6700 suit against the WTP Foundation, of which
Plaintiffs are a part, the IRS is retaliating against Plaintiffs by attempting to disqualify
them from taking a public position on matters in which they are financially interested,
depriving Plaintiffs of their Right to Petition, and Freely Associate with other group
members and to speak freely in the very instance in which those Rights are of the most
importance to Plaintiffs. See Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).
103. The IRS certainly had no moral or legal authority to falsify damages for the
purposes of enlisting the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney(s) to deploy the vast
resources of the United States against WTP Organization which Plaintiffs are members,
and the IRS’ actions, clearly, could have served no other purpose than to harass and
intimidate us as Petitioners who are clearly exercising and seeking the protections
guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it is not just a
matter of the duty of the Court to interfere with Revenue collection proceedings under 26
U.S.C. § 7421 if such proceedings are exercised in excess of statutory authority granted
to the IRS and/or in violation of constitutional rights (See Yannicelli v Nash (1972, DC
83
NJ) 354 F Supp 143, 72-2 USTC P 9763, 31 AFTR 2d 315), but research needs to
address the question of how it is that, given the IRS itself, being the successor of the
Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal
Constitution of the United States, how can any court believe and/or hold that the IRS has
any authority whatsoever to legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United
States in States of the Union (See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572,
1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100
through the 1997 edition; see also, United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879);
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886)) against People who
are duly signed onto and therefore exercising their First Amendment Right to Petition for
a Redress of Grievance?
104. The ability of the IRS as a Government Contractor to insult people, and lie about
damages in the effort to enlist Government Counsel to redefine their acts of retaliation so
as to bring actions into the Federal Courts to fine and otherwise control people or even
imprison them, is no substitute for the ability to actually help people "understand" their
tax responsibilities, as the IRS' own Mission Statement dictates. In a country based upon
the rule of law, "enforcement actions" are an unacceptable response to the asking of
questions by honest people who peaceably Petition the Government for Redress of
84
PLAINTIFFS WILL ALSO DRAW UPON OTHER EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
105. In this case, Plaintiffs also draw upon the research by a group of people within the
State of Oregon who have created the Evidence Book45 as a summary of their actions to
put their county officials on notice and is distributed on-line for others to use within their
respective counties and states, to similarly put their federal, state and county officials on
notice of the fraud and Due Process violations which normally occur in the context of
documents and abuse of seal, because of the requirement of Counties to record Notices of
Federal Liens into a system of records reserved for liens, as though they were liens, such
that, State and County employees and officials are perpetrating a multitude of felony
crimes in the context of 18 §§ 3, 4, 513, 872, 873, 1017, 1020, 2381, 2384, and 42 U.S.C
§ 408(a)(8) for the benefit of the IRS, which fails to even follow the statutory provisions
in connection with their actions, and this wealth of information, including the “Report
concerning Liability of US Citizens in regard to Federal Income Taxes”46 are also offered
in the context of this case to further explain that, simply changing the index from Lien, to
Notice of Lien is insufficient to file them as Notice of Liens, because a Notice of Lien
index is still a fraud when a signature cannot be verified, and given that a verified
45
See the “Evidence Book” with face of the book reading, “ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen
and Property Owners to correct the improper recording of : INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE –mere-
“NOTICES” OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN AS ACTUAL “LIENS” -- This “Counterfeits a SECURITY”
AND ESTABLISHES FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY A POTENTIAL CLASS-ACTION LIABILITY FOR
“DAMAGES” FROM THE “VICTIMS” OF THIS I.R.S. SCAM IN DOUGLAS COUNTY AS WELL AS
ALL OTHER OREGON COUNTIES -- Attention: OREGON STATE AUDITOR – Loma-Marie: Family
of Wharton, ad hoc Steering Committee Chairman [and] Rae Copitka: Family of Copitka, Minister and ad
hoc Steering Committee Co-Chair. (http://theliberators11.org/gpage.html);
46
See “Report Concerning Liability of U.S. Citizens in Regard to Federal Income Taxes,
(http://theliberators11.org/downloads/03%20revised%2027%20page%20report%20on%20liability.doc);
85
signature is required on ALL instruments evidencing a debt, the instruments constitute
106. Along with the Evidence Book, the ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and
Property Owners have recently developed a proposed “Ordinance [that] can be applied to
Stop the Securities Fraud in the Recorder of Conveyance against property for any county
in the Federation” to correct the improper recording of liens in the County of Douglas,
Oregon, and the Ordinance is complete with Constitutional Provisions and a demand for
findings of facts and conclusions of law,47 should the court choose to also investigate the
IRS in terms of securities fraud. As such, Plaintiffs in this case are offering the weight of
evidence presented in the “Evidence Book” which is being distributed on-line for other
concerned people to use within their respective counties and states, and based upon the
information in the Evidence Book, county and state officials are now becoming aware
that by accepting these Notices without verified signatures the recorder converts a non-
and therefore has, without full disclosure, counterfeited a currency for the United States.
47
See copy of ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and Property Owners proposed “Ordinance
[that] can be applied to any State in the Union, presented to county commissioners/supervisors for adoption
to Stop the Securities Fraud in the Recorder of Conveyance against property for any county in the
Federation” to correct the improper recording of liens in the County of Douglas, Oregon. The Ordinance is
complete with Constitutional Provisions and a demand for findings of facts and conclusions of law, should
the court choose to invalidate. (http://theliberators11.org/downloads/Ordinance%20EW-2-
%20%2001.03.08.wpd)
86
FURTHER EXPRESSION OF EVIDENCE BOOK AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE
MAY ULTIMATELY LEAD TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS LIKE THE IRS
BEING RESPONSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
107. Plaintiffs believe that a further expression of the Evidence Book and proposed
Ordinance, which are being distributed on-line for other concerned people to use within
their respective counties and states, is not an abuse of any of their First Amendment
Rights, but would point out to the Court that by communicating information, expressing
facts and opinions, reciting grievances, protesting abuses and praying for answers to
specific questions, Plaintiffs have been part of WTP Organization to give expression
essential to the end that our Servant Government, as well as Government Contractors
such as the IRS, may ultimately be responsive and accountable to the Constitution and to
the sovereignty of the People and these facts satisfy the Founders intent for the provision
of our First Amendment Right to Petition, and in this context much of the information
presented in the Evidence Book has also been asked in terms of the first Petition
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
from the IRS's apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned
tax on labor):
"The original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be
exercised only in extraordinary exigencies, and down to August 15, 1894, this
expectation has been realized" (See, the United States Supreme Court. 1895,
Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and
Trust Co., 157, U.S. 429, 574 (1895), declaring income tax unconstitutional.
Harold M. Groves, University of Wisconsin, Financing Government - Revised
Edition, New York: Henry Holt and Co. Inc., 1939, 1945, p. 156).
87
108. Apart from their First Amendment Right to Petition, Plaintiffs contend that it is also
our Right in terms of our First Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances to expect
terms by which Plaintiffs are entitled to and have therefore come before this Honorable
Court seeking to be assured and affirmed of the full force of their Rights, that is, by
lawful and peaceful means (See McDonald v Smith (1985) 472 US 479; New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 at 266, 269.), and while the Petitions for Redress of
Grievances make no claim that the United States Government lacks authority to tax,
merely asking the government and its contractor (the IRS) for answers to specific
questions regarding the tax, war, money and debt and “privacy” clauses of the
Constitution, Plaintiffs argue that under the circumstances of this case, the enforcement
actions being taken against them by the Government’s Contractor amount to a very
ominous and frightful retaliation in which the harm being done is both immediate and
irreparable, which is impermissible and prohibited by the original meaning and spirit of
the Petition and Assembly, Speech, Press and due process Clauses of the Constitution.
109. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that Right
against abridgment even by Congress, and the Right to Petition is among the most
precious of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and as an essential element of
liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions, and in this
case, Plaintiffs have been signed on to all the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances
beginning with (a) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un-apportioned
88
tax on labor, which was later followed by other petitions including (b) The war powers
clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution, (c) The money clauses of the
Constitution and the Federal Reserve, and (d) The “privacy” clauses of the Constitution
and the USA Patriot Act, and specifically with regard to written communications to the
government, the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition
government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United
States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), such that, decisions to
1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972);
United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald,
553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), and “The very idea of a government,
republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for
consultation in respect to public affairs and to Petition for a Redress of Grievances." See
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876). As such, in bringing this action,
Plaintiffs believe such further expression is not an abuse of any of their First Amendment
Rights, but an extension of their First Amendment Rights and any further intervention by
the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) against such exercise of these First Amendment
Rights represents a curtailment of Plaintiffs’ Rights and is forbidden, such that Plaintiffs
do not believe it to be improper for this Honorable Court to exercise its authority to
provide Injunctive Relief, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations
of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court are finally
determined:
89
“Although the [enforcement] power provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
are to be liberally construed, a court must be careful to insure that its
construction will not result in a use of the power beyond that permitted by law.”
United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953 at 958 (5th Cir.
1974).
110. In short, while much hung in the balance as Plaintiffs, as members of WTP
Organization, have had to endure the injustice of the DC Court’s having dismissed
plaintiffs’ complaint (We The People v. United States, Case No. 04-cv-01211 (D.D.C.
Aug. 31, 2005)), the Appeal and decision (485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007), with rehearing
en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007) and Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied as well (January
7, 2008), and now with SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, also having
voted to not hear the final appeal in the Class Action suit, the Petition for Rehearing of
Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, given the facts and circumstances of this
case, it would not be unreasonable to provide the Plaintiffs with some measure of
openly demonstrate its intent to impede Justice and quash the fundamental Rights of
those of us who have signed onto all the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances to hold the
the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very difficult for government to proclaim
the traditional American view that the people are endowed with rights by their Creator,
"If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country
afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty
certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the
90
laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to
afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful
form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases
in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that
where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or
action at law whenever that right is invaded.'
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, 'I am next to consider
such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall
for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not
fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or
maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the
common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the
laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and
every injury its proper redress.'
111. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers
have infringed upon Plaintiffs’ Rights to Liberty and Religious Freedom48 to the extent
48
Given that the courts will always presume that a law is valid (US v. Harris (1883) 106 US 629 at 635;
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 10 US (6 Cranch) 87 at 128) and the burden of proving its unconstitutionality, or
the invalidity of its adoption, rests entirely on the litigant who is challenging the law (Brown v. Maryland
(1827) 25 US (12 Wheat.) 419 at 436; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Tompkins (1900)
176 US 167 at 173), Plaintiffs in this action are aware that by denying the validity of the laws developed
under the authority of the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Plaintiffs claim
constitutes an infringement upon their Right of Liberty in terms of tax slavery, in doing so, that means that
they must take on the entire burden of proving that the law is invalid, and have, therefore, gone to a great
length to set forth the historical significance herein of the use of the term Liberty as opposed to all forms of
slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery so as to explain the used of the term Slavery
in accordance with its original intent which included political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery,
91
that Plaintiffs can not help but recognize the fact that such actions actually constitute the
"But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of
constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of
the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just
and equal laws, … For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold
his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment
of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where
freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 (1886)
112. The Right to Liberty, itself is a subject that that may be divided in terms of Liberty
being natural, personal, civil and political, but the first two categories involving our
natural and personal Rights in relation to the subject of Liberty are at issue here as the
Inalienable Right of Liberty is first identified in the Declaration of Independence, and the
First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law
respect to our Inalienable Rights Liberty as it relates to the Right of Religious Freedom,
Plaintiffs also contend that peonage and slavery is a violation of our right to Religious
Freedom (e.g., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a
slave of men).
113. The subject of “slavery” is not only definable as “chattel slavery” which is
knowing that if Plaintiffs statement herein, as well as in the context of other paperwork which may be
submitted in this case, fails to make that proof then they must also take on all the penalties for disobeying
that law.
92
“slavery” which are not definable in terms of the Thirteenth Amendment, but rather in
terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax
slavery. Similarly, Plaintiffs believe that the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or
Bonded Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending through the labor
of our children and our children’s children is a subject that falls under the general subject
area of slavery.
114. Plaintiffs believe that because of the complexity of the subject matter itself,
volumes could be dedicated to the subject and still much would go unaddressed, and as
such, Plaintiffs seek to only set forth a minimal amount of detail related to their
understandings of the subjects of Liberty and Religious Freedom, as they are related to
115. The historical significance of the subjects of Liberty and Religious Freedom are
meaningfully the basis of the war between the American colonies and Great Britain
(1775–1783), leading to the formation of the independent United States, and the
establishment of our Inalienable Right of Liberty considered in terms being free from tax
slavery, and the Inalienable Right of Religious Freedom involving that of Protestants’
(and then a particular flavor of protestantism at that) being free from Roman Catholicism,
and as such the Establishment Clause was certainly never meant to separate Christians
from the due respect of such belief systems by their servant government.
93
116. Plaintiffs maintain that our Inalienable Right of Liberty is comparable to our
modern day Government's apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-
apportioned tax on labor), in that it is important to remember that Great Britain’s greatest
weapon was its funded national debt, in which British financiers, managing the joint
stock corporations of the Bank of England, the South Seas Company and the East India
Company, to loan the government money in wartime and thereby harness private savings
to military ends. Great Britain thus used postwar tax revenues to pay interest on what
became a perpetual debt, with the demand for revenues stimulating the growth of Great
Britain’s Treasury.49
117. In the early years before 1758 many of the colonists traded with the enemy as well
as refused to pay for British military operations rather than participate in this form of tax
slavery, and by 1765 outrage at British control became the overriding factor effecting
everything else as the British Parliament tried to extract money directly from the colonies
with the Stamp Act of 1765, and in response Americans began to insist that submission to
49
The Bibliography for paragraphs 134-145 of this complaint include: Alden, J. R., General Gage in
America: Being Principally a History of His Role in the American Revolution, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
State University, 1948. 313 p.; Bailyn, B., The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Harvard
University Press, 1967, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize in 1968; Billias, G.
A., George Washington's opponents: British generals and admirals in the American Revolution, New York,
Morrow, 1969; Brewer, J., The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688-1783, New
York: Knopf, 1989; Colley, L., Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837, Yale University Press, 1992;
Fleming, T.J., Liberty! The American Revolution, Viking Press, 1997; Jensen, M., The Founding of a
Nation: A History of the American Revolution 1763-1776, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2004
(original 1968); Maier, P., From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of
American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, W. W. Norton & Company, 1992; Shy, J.W., Toward
Lexington, Princeton University Press,1965; Thomas, P. D. G. British Politics and the Stamp Act Crisis:
The First Phase of the American Revolution, 1763–1767, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975; Thomas, P. D.
G., The Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution 1767-1773, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987; Thomas, P. D. G., Tea Party to Independence: the Third Phase of the
American Revolution 1773- 1776, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991; Declaration of the Causes and Necessity
of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775, an Official Document of the Second Continental Congress; Establishment
Clause, The First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20001.
94
taxation without consent would enslave the colonists to whatever faction controlled
sovereignty (the state's ultimate power to take property and life), which the Glorious
Revolution had vested in the king in Parliament, and British Parliament made its claims
explicit by asserting its sovereignty over the colonies in the Declaratory Act of 1766
which stated that Parliament's authority was the same in America as in Britain and
asserted Parliament's authority to make laws binding on the American colonies, therein-
119. Nevertheless, in the face of virtual anarchy, the British Parliament repealed the
Stamp Act in March 1766, and by 1770 colonial arguments, at the urging of a new prime
minister, Lord North, were addressed by Parliament having opted to repeal all but one of
the forms of taxation (Townshend Duties), retaining only a single tax, on tea, to maintain
120. Of course, most children exposed to anything about American history know, the
colonists saw the Tea Act of 1773 as an effort to force them to consume a taxed
commodity, such that in the context of the Boston Tea Party, three shiploads of tea were
destroyed on 16 December 1773 and no colonial port would allow the tea to be landed,
after which Lord North's ministry regarrisoned Boston and proposed a set of Coercive
95
Acts which were passed by the British Parliament in May and early June 1774; General
Thomas Gage was appointed governor in chief of Massachusetts, who closed the port of
121. At the same time, the British Parliament also responded to problems in the west by
passing the Quebec Act in 1774, protecting the practice of the Roman Catholicism and
establishing French civil law in the province of Quebec, extending Quebec's boundaries
to give them province control over the territory and fur trade between the Ohio and
Mississippi rivers, and Protestants in the American colonies protested the Quebec Act as
an act empowering what Calvinists, and even some royalist historian Catholics, viewed as
a cryptopapist regime, which more than any other single factor brought arguments about
sovereignty and therefore inflamed by religious passion thousands of men were brought
to rally to the standard of writing, debating and risking their lives, such that the Quebec
Act was lumped with the Coercive Acts together to produce Legal and Constitutional
122. The result was the most effective intercolonial resistance movement yet. On
50
The Continental Congress was the first governing body or national government of the United States
which was comprised two successive bodies of representatives, with the First Continental Congress
meeting from September 5, 1774 to October 26, 1774 and the Second Continental Congress meeting from
May 10, 1775 to March 1, 1781, after which the membership of the Continental Congress was
automatically carried over to form the first legislative government of the United States, the Congress of the
Confederation or the United States in Congress Assembled, which ran from March 1, 1781 until the
government under the Constitution became operative on March 4, 1789. As such, the Capstone Right which
was expressed in an official Act passed unanimously by the First Continental Congress in 1774 is also the
same Capstone Right of the Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence.
96
measure called the Continental Association. The association empowered local
committees of safety to enforce the agreement, creating a crude intercolonial union and
vesting police powers in radical hands. Agreeing to meet again on May 10, 1775 if the
British government had not yet repealed the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental
Congress adjourned on October 26, 1774. By then, Massachusetts patriots had created an
extralegal government called the Provincial Congress, taken control of the province's
123. In the ensuing crisis, General Thomas Gage was ordered to take military action to
forestall rebellion. Receiving these orders too late to capture the Provincial Congress,
General Gage tried to seize munitions stockpiled at Concord, triggering the Battles of
Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, and when the Provincial Congress reconvened
on May 10, 1775, as America’s Second Continental Congress, the real meaning of
Liberty is evidenced in terms of their opposition to the various forms of slavery they were
facing and was evidenced by the joint product of John Dickinson and Jefferson, the
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if
necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully
acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his
97
Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until
we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in
warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With
hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God
and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which
our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have
been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard,
with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our
liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live
slaves.” See Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July
6, 1775, an Official Document of the Second Continental Congress, written by
Thomas Jefferson and Colonel John Dickinson. [emphasis added]
124. Accordingly, America’s Second Continental Congress took control of the incipient
war on behalf of all thirteen colonies, adopting the New England forces as a Continental
Following the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775), General Gage was recalled to
England and blamed for allowing the American colonies to rebel. Although it would be a
year before the colonies declared independence from Britain, the Revolutionary War had
begun.
125. In summation, the war between the American colonies and Great Britain (1775–
1783), leading to the formation of the independent United States had it basis in the
Inalienable Right of Liberty, which included being free from tax slavery, and the right of
and as such, the Establishment Clause itself can historically be understood as a protection
against the same type of interference from a national government that the American
colonies had experienced in terms of Great Britain’s interference with the peoples’
98
126. The Barbary Powers conflict also began (lasting thirty-two years) during the
American Revolution when Muslim terrorists from four different Islamic nations (Tunis,
Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) began making indiscriminate attacks against the property
and interests of what they claimed to be “Christian” nations (America, England, France,
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, etc.), yet because the United States was protected by
the 1778 alliance with France which protected Americans at sea against all violence
during the Revolution, it was not until after the United States won its independence in the
treaty of 1783 that it had to protect its own commerce against dangers from the Barbary
Powers (pirates), which was accomplished in part through annual bribes of money settled
by numerous treaties,51 and because the enslavement of Christians by Muslims was such
a widespread problem in 1797 one of the formal treaties even went so far as to state that
the government of the United States of America is/was not founded as Christian nation:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred]
against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said
States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
51
See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and
Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor
(Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded
September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity"
concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded
Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797;
see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate
April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United
States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification
advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799;
ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts,
Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William
M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.
99
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries." See Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth
Congress of the United States of America, Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797,
pp. 43-44.
127. Objections to officially stating in treaties or otherwise that the United States of
America is/was anything other than a Christian nation are easily documented, as even
President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) dissented to any provision
which repudiated Christianity as exhibiting nothing less than an act of cowardice. In fact,
"The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the
standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage
to ours." See John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on
July 3, 1786.
128. Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than
a Christian nation, and when Congress renegotiated and ratified the "Treaty of Tripoli" in
1805 it was only after the unauthorized phrase "The United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion" was repudiated and deleted,52 and although tribute
payments by the United States’ treaties did not end until 1815, it was Adams who
declared:
52
See Federer, W.J. (Editor)(2000), America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations,
Amerisearch, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri; Beliles, M.A. & McDowell S.K. (1988), America's Providential
History, Providence Press, Charlottesville, VA.
100
liberty are as unalterable as human nature." See John Adams, Works, Vol. X,
pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
129. In 1776, only a small number of Catholics lived in America and not that many Jews,
and America essentially remained a Protestant nation throughout the 1800s, and the
ideals of the Republic contemplated and penned by the 56 Founding Fathers, as set forth
in the Declaration of Independence, define our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, which the history of the subject clearly shows that, when understood
in terms of the meaning of words used at the time, Christian faith is not irrelevant, not
based on secular 'ethics', and certainly did not seek to regulate, through taxation, the
churches and the people, and the Bill of Rights further serves to protect the individual
from interference from the federal government--providing rights given by our Creator
establishes that the rights expressed cannot be given or taken away from any American
by another individual or government action, as they are inherent rights given to each of us
by God. Ignoring history and law, and in all fairness probably out of ignorance of the
past, much of government, including the courts, have been working vigorously to turn
130. Plaintiffs in this action must admit that until they reviewed the vast amount of
information collected and presented for public review by WTP Organization, their
appreciation of the history and events like the November 27, 1773 Boston Tea Party,
and/or Isaac Backus’ 1775 Resolution to the Massachusetts Assembly was very limited at
best.
101
Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England
1774—75
"Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We
are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor
from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands
us to stand fast in it."53
Plaintiffs are aware that after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any government to
impose new legal duties on the People in the several states. The Creator and the common
law had imposed all legal duties on the People that were possible up to the time of
Independence. The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties
they had on July 4, 1776, under the common law. The Declaration of Independence
accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that
132. Be that as it may, as Christians, Plaintiffs are not suggesting anything like the
alliance between Church and State which existed in England and which resulted in a
variety of common law outcomes made by judges as accomplices in the frauds of the
clergy, but would rather point to the fundamental arguments of the frauds of the clergy
that caused Thomas Jefferson to write what is now known as the "Jefferson Bible," or
"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" as it is formally titled, which was published
by an act of the United States Congress in 1904, in terms of their beliefs that the United
53
Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75,
(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu:80/founders/documents/amendI_religions21.html).
102
133. Moreover, the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation
religion was a matter to be left solely to the individual States. “The Ten Commandments
and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama,” William P.
Gray, Jr. Alabama Law Review Volume 49 Winter 1998 Number 2, offers further insight
into the Founders belief systems of the same and the historical foundations First
103
134. Additionally, because Plaintiffs in this action assert that they are not subject to the
kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment which might
serve to diminish their enumerated and unremunerated Rights, particularly the accursed
Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment which constitutes an infringement upon the
Right of Liberty in terms of tax slavery, Plaintiffs in part reference herewith the article,
the Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center also expounds upon Everson v.
Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) to explain why the First
"For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions
for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment
had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment
applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil
War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state
shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that
the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process
clause. "54
135. Plaintiffs’ views on the subject of Liberty versus tax slavery have also been
expressed by Former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who is also the former United
States Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council, and has a Ph.D.
from Harvard and also served as Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organizations during the Reagan administration. Mr. Keyes has also equated the U.S. tax
54
Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20001;
(http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx)
104
"We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with
liberty. It is actually a form of slavery.... Under the income tax, the government
takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax,
therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all
the money we earn." (Alan Keyes, 2000 Presidential candidate)
136. In so stating, Plaintiffs are aware that the Courts have consistently declined to take a
rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause, refusing to construe the Religion
Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as
and instead has turned to history, practice, precedent, and the structure of the
influence on the Framers of the Constitution, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the context of the Inalienable Right of Liberty as set forth in the Declaration of
Independence, and First Amendment, an individual could easily miss the original intent
of the subject of Religious Freedom, and in doing so, simply follow in the footsteps of
137. For example, in United States v. Astrup, No. 05-5701-cv (2d Cir. 06/14/2006) the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in stating “Astrup’s
constitutional and jurisdictional arguments are wholly frivolous. These contentions have been
repeatedly rejected by the IRS and the federal courts. See, e.g. ,United States v. Ramsey,
992 F.2d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 1993) (determining that the taxpayer had “no First Amendment
right to avoid federal income taxes…”);” And, in relying on U.S. v. Ramsey, 992 F.2d
831,833 (8th Cir. 1993), quoting U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260, held that there is “no
105
First Amendment right to avoid federal income taxes on religious grounds.” And
although Ramsey and Lee were Free Exercise cases that did not involve a Petition for
Redress of a violation by the Government of any Article of the Constitution or the refusal
of the Government to justify and/or cease its unlawful behavior, Plaintiffs contend that
the many courts erred in deciding for the proposition that the imposition of taxes did
not substantively infringe the exercise of religion, simply because such laws represent
an attempt to regulate religious practices.55 But, just as importantly, when the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in United States v. Astrup, No.
05-5701-cv (2d Cir. 06/14/2006), as it stands one must consider the fact that under the
Constitution, any rational that would allow the Government to violate any Article of the
Constitution is itself an unconstitutional act, but one must also rely on history, the
framers’ other writings as well as prior judicial precedent when considering the meaning
of the term “establishment of religion” as the term was intended, to prohibit the
establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over
another, even when the many are not be aware of the nature of their actions. In the words
55
See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943) (noting that “[f]reedom of press, freedom of
speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position” to economic interests); see also id. at 121
(Reed, J., dissenting) (“None of the provisions of our Constitution is more venerated by the people or
respected by legislatures and the courts than those which proclaim for our country the freedom of religion
and expression.”).
106
attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any
religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the
clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S.
at page 164." (Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
[Emphasis added]
138. That is, in terms of our God given Inalienable Right to Liberty, even an
Amendment to the Constitution can not divorce the People from their right to not be
Slaves and especially in the context of a Christian’s Right to Religious Freedom from the
slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery) and laws which has
historically been associated with the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical
Beast:
…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons
under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the
system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu’s mission
involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth
in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh’s dream of the beasts of the field
which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15),
without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under
that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has
contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state
(Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system
whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity
view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and
monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be “only in the eyes of
those who would want the model of ‘powers-that-be’ perpetrated ad infinitum.”
139. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs belief systems with respect to their
107
including “2002 Freedom Drive: Houses of Worship”,56 “Why Have Our Churches Been
Silenced”,57 and “Does God Belong In Civil Government” 58 and, this type of belief
system or animosity towards peonage in terms of tax slavery is a very common one as is
140. However, as stated earlier, when most people think of the subjects of “peonage”
and/or “slavery” they are only able to relate to the subject in terms of what is definable as
“chattel slavery” whereas the subject of “slavery” in the context of the Declaration of
Inalienable Right of Liberty and the First Amendment, wherein-by the subject also
includes a number of other forms of “slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’
as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery. As it stands,
one must consider the fact that under the Constitution, any form of Slavery itself is
unconstitutional and as a God given right, even an Amendment to the Constitution can
not divorce the People from their right to be Free, and even more so if they recognize
56
See 2002 Freedom Drive: Houses of Worship
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDhow.htm);
57
WHY HAVE OUR CHURCHES BEEN SILENCED?
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDmisc/WHYSILENCED.PDF);
58
DOES GOD BELONG IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT?
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDmisc/DoesGodBelongInCivilGovernment.PDF);
108
141. In terms of the historical context,59 writers on the subject have tended to lose touch
with (1) the role of the Sanhedrin in the process of Redemption and (2) the fact the good
Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) was convicted and suffered the crucifixion (actually the
"stauros" is a Greek word which translates as "staff" or “stake” and primarily an "upright
stake"60 and for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes as tribute to Caesar.
That is, based upon the account presented in Matthew 22: 15-22, Mark 12: 13-17, and
Luke 20: 20-26), our culture almost always claims that Jesus unconditionally condoned
the paying of taxes. Yet, based upon the passages referencing Jesus’ answers to the spies
of the Pharisees and Herodians, they in fact handed over Jesus to the Roman Governor,
and the two criminal complaints against him were (1) that Jesus was encouraging his
followers not to pay tribute to Caesar, and (2) that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the
Christ and King of the Jews. In any account, the event is recorded as follows:
142. Although the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus to death, they had to present this
judgment to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Usually Pilate lived in Caesarea, but he
had come to Jerusalem to watch the Jews in the Holy City during Passover. He stayed in
his palace which Herod the Great had built for himself in the highest part of the city.
143. At sunrise, the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate' they remained outside the palace
door so they would not come into contact with a pagan polytheist and thus be defiled
59
The historical context presented in paragraphs 141 through 144 of this complaint can also be reviewed at
a number of on-line sources, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); Reference.com,
(http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); Medlibrary.org,
(http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); as well as being published in other more expansive
documents, e.g., “Perspectives on Transformational Leadership in the Sanhedrin of Ancient Judaism”,
Management Decision: Focus on Management History, Vol. 41(2), 2003, 199-207. (c)2003.
60
cf. Thayers New Greek English Lexicon p. 586.
109
(i.e., if they were defiled, they would not be allowed to celebrate Passover). Therefore,
the governor had to come outside in order to ask the Jews what he should do with the
prisoner? They said, "We have judged him and according to our Law he should be put to
death." "So he deserves death; but what crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. "If he
were not a criminal we would not have brought him to you. We have two complaints
against him. He is encouraging our people to rebel and not to pay tribute to Caesar. And,
144. In this same context, most people are also not aware that there is a considerable
amount of information in the Talmud61 about Jesus’ motivation in encouraging the people
to rebel and not to pay the taxes used to pay for construction,62 and of course, Acts 5:17-
18 refer to the high priest’s arresting Peter and the apostles, and Acts 5:27 refers to a trial
before a Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, and Luke 22:66 also refer to the
council or Sanhedrin as trying Jesus because of His outspokenness and the fact that Jesus
61
Most people are not aware that there is a considerable amount of information in the Talmud about the
ancient Sanhedrin, which was the legal-religious Jewish court that evolved away from the priesthood
following the overthrow in approximately 148-164 BCE (depending upon source) of the Greeks who had
occupied ancient Judah. It is recorded that in about 175 BCE, the Hellenists, admirers of Greek culture,
whose ranks included most of the aristocratic priests, neglected their priestly duties in the interest of
participating in Greek games and set to work transforming the Jewish Temple and the Jewish religion. The
high priest Jason, for example, erected a gymnasium near the Temple for sporting events and young men
participated naked, in the manner of the Greek Olympics, Hellenization resulted in the growth of
immorality and the decline of religious observance, and laws were even passed prohibiting the practice of
Judaism, especially circumcision and keeping the Sabbath and festivals. Eventually, the high priest,
Menelaus, who succeeded Jason, built an acropolis that overshadowed the Temple and a statue of Jupiter
was erected in the Temple and to add insult to injury pigs were brought as sacrifices. In order to pay for all
this construction, taxes were raised, and of course, Acts 5:17-18 refer to the high priest’s arresting Peter
and the apostles, and Acts 5:27 refers to a trial before a Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, and Luke
22:66 also refer to the council or Sanhedrin as trying the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) a criminal
because of His outspokenness and the fact that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate later convicted Him of
the same resulting in HIS suffering the crucifixion for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes
as tribute to Caesar. As such, by example Jesus’ suffering offers the believer the example to follow in terms
of their Right of Religious Freedom to not pay taxes when the basis of such taxation is not in compliance
with the Laws of God. (see, Zeitlin, S. (1943), Who Crucified Jesus?, Harper and Brothers, New York).
62
Johnson, P. (1987), A History of the Jews, Harper and Row Publishers, New York; Roth, C. (1948), A
Short History of the Jewish People, East and West Library, London.
110
was later convicted and suffered the crucifixion for encouraging the people to rebel and
145. And when we talk about what it means to be an American with Liberty and Truth,
Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, also believe that the subjects of “Peonage”
spending needs to be mentioned, as well as the fact that the subject of “Slavery” includes
more than just “chattel slavery” as it also involves a number of other forms of “Slavery”
which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called
real slavery) and tax slavery, and in terms of the issue of tax slavery, and while Plaintiffs
certainly do not intend to present within this petition to the court all the pertinent
have offered herewith that in addition to all of the points in law put forth in the We the
People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) with Petition for Rehearing of
Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari now before United States Supreme Court,
Plaintiffs contend that neither the US Government nor the Government’s Contractor (the
IRS) has a right to their souls, and in this context the IRS’ administrative actions do
constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Religious Freedom because the IRS does not
have a right to the Plaintiffs’ soul or any part of their soul, and in this context, Plaintiffs
believe that their use of the word “soul” is in the same context as set forth under
Yahwistic Theory, as well as, for all intents and purposes, in the same context used by
111
Jim Davidson, of the National Taxpayers Union, which is reported by the authors of Give
146. In order to understand this, one must first understand that prior to the Book of
Wisdom the only understanding of the human soul was the vital force of the body in
which all that is experienced physiologically was the measure of the soul.64
147. In this same context, where the soul is the vital force of the body, even the very first
founders of this country were very clear that even a man's possessions were equated with
the man's soul as shown in "England and the War" By Walter Raleigh (credited with
63
Quote of Jim Davidson, National Taxpayers Union, reported by GiveMeLiberty.50megs.com at
(http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/Death%20and%20Taxes.htm).
64
The definition of the soul as the vital force of the body can be found in various religious writings,
including the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (1963). A translation and adaptation of A. van dun
Born's Bijbels Woordenboek, Second Revised Ed, 1945-57, by Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., Executive
Secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
In this context, the authors the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible went to a great length to document and
extensively reference the term so as to provide the reader with an appropriate means of understanding the
words used in the bible apart from the corruption of ideas that would otherwise arise from Hellenistic
(Greco-Oriental) premises of the nature of and meanings of such words, and it is in this context, which was
the same context the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (aka Jesus) spoke, which was the ancient Semitic
language of Aramaic, that the authors the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible have documented the
meanings of the term “soul” prior to and following the influence of the Hellenists.
65
"England and the War" By Walter Raleigh (credited with establishing the first English colony in the
New World), which can also be viewed on line at (www.authorama.com/book/england-and-the-war.html):
112
148. The founders of this country were very clear in their use of the word “soul” in
connection with one’s productivity and creations, and this is shown in Paul J. Cella III’s
"In the hyper-modern age, it is sometimes a challenge to remember the human hands
behind every technological artifact, and to remember the distinctly human character of
production itself. As G. K. Chesterton elegantly put it in his 1935 book The Well and
the Shallows:
The man who makes an orchard where there has been a field, who owns the
orchard and decides to whom it shall descend, does also enjoy the taste of apples;
and let us hope, also, the taste of cider. But he is doing something very much
grander, and ultimately more gratifying, than merely eating an apple. He is
imposing his will upon the world in the manner of the charter given him by the
will of God; he is asserting that his soul is his own, and does not belong to the
Orchard Survey Department, or the chief Trust in the Apple Trade. But he is also
doing something which was implicit in all the most ancient religions of the earth;
in those great panoramas of pageantry and ritual that followed the order of the
seasons in China or Babylonia; he is worshipping the fruitfulness of the world.
SUMMARY
149. Plaintiffs believe that Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievances is the
only non-violent way that We, The People, have to hold our servant government
accountable to its primary role of protecting the People’s individual, Inalienable Rights to
66
Paul J. Cella III’s "Technology and the Spirit of Ownership," The New Atlantis, Number 9, Summer
2005, pp. 55-64, can also be viewed on line at (www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/cella.htm).
113
Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Right to Petition for a Redress
Constitution, the Bill of Rights and to the protection, preservation and enhancement of
150. As a First step, Plaintiffs believe that our servant government of the People is
obligated to listen and honestly respond to We, The People’s Petitions for Redress,
otherwise individual Rights are at risk of a take-over by the servant of the majority, and
the Right to a Redress67 of Grievances itself is not satisfied and the People are thereby
subjected to the very forms of slavery which the Official Acts passed by the Continental
Congress and Declaration of Independence, as well the Constitution and first Thirteen
Amendments, were established as official Laws of the Land, and the fact that the
Congress created by the Constitution of 1789 was qualitatively different than that created
powers and could enact ‘law’, which the Article Congress did not have, could not and
does not detract from the fact that it is the People’s Right to retain their money pending a
Redress of Grievances. 68
67
Redress: 1 a: relief from distress, b: a means of obtaining a remedy; 2: compensation (as damages) for
wrong or loss. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published
under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
68
“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until
their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or
disturbing the public tranquility.” Continental Congress To Inhabitants of Quebec, an Act passed
unanimously by the Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113. “The privilege
of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative
which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how
efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, and how improvident
would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775.
Papers 1:225.
114
151. As such, Plaintiffs maintain that the United States Government as well as the
Government Contractors such as the IRS is/are obligated to respond to Petitions for
Redress of Grievances, and the People have a Right of enforcement, especially when, as
outlined herein, the oppression is caused by unconstitutional government acts and the
152. Yet, while the first vice is the United States federal government’s misbehavior in
making policy without regard to the First Amendment’s right of the people to a Redress
of Grievances and the ethics to actually confess to it and carry it out, and thereby being
complicit in act(s) of fraud involving silence only said acts of fraud involving only
silence is/are not the subject of this complaint given that both House Report No. 1337 (p.
A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p. 168), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative
News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively (1954),
specifically declared that the word “income” as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was
to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, and it is
therefore clear to Plaintiffs that neither of these Branches of our government authorized
peonage or tax slavery, and for that reason this complaint is not against the United
States for act(s) of fraud involving only silence wherein-by duty and liability is to be
determined and defined in federal courts as a matter of general law, but rather this action
is being brought as a result of the greater acts by the Government Contractor (the IRS),
who, with knowledge and forethought, “actually not potentially” committed acts of
retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of
115
Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and in this context the IRS has admitted to in
public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this
the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs guaranteed First Amendment Right to
under Article III of the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’
complaint) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim of
multiple acts in violation of our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which
must necessarily include freedom from all forms of slavery, including but not limited to
the subject chattel slavery, political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, our natural
Rights of Association, Privacy, Property and our Right to Trial by Jury, even occurred
within this District Court, and Plaintiffs reassert their beliefs herein to say once again that
our Right to Trial by Jury must be recognized before we might be deprived of any of
153. Apart from everything put forth by WTP Organization thus far, when the Plaintiffs
presenting this action talk about what it means to be an American with Liberty and Truth,
we can not help but believe that if the District Courts continue to maintain that they are
divested of jurisdiction over cases involving the IRS, holding that they are barred by the
Tax Injunction Act, the question must also be asked of the District Court in terms of what
does that mean in terms of the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or Bonded
116
Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending, as well as the fact that
the subject of “Slavery” includes more than just “chattel slavery” as it also involves a
number of other forms of “Slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political
slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery, and in terms of the issue of
tax slavery, the statement must be made that for the District Court to leave the Plaintiffs
humanity’s steady march towards “ordered liberty,” suggesting that we transitioned from
endowed Rights to be the responsibility and duty of every American and Christian,
Plaintiffs have been facilitating Citizen vigilance and activism in the form of petitioning
state government since the early 1990’s, which involved the exercise of their First
Amendment Right of Petitioning the State of New York with respect to Fraud in
employment practices and the Right to Life on behalf of the Medically Frail, and in terms
of more recent events, Plaintiffs have been active members of WTP Organization signing
onto all of the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances, have been a part of a number of
government for a Redress of Grievances, and were also Plaintiffs signed onto the case
We The People et al. v. United States, et al., which is/was the first impression case in
which the Federal Courts had been asked to declare the contours of the meaning of the
117
155. No matter how the Federal Courts have ruled on the merits of We The People et al.
v. United States, et al., to date, the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari which is now before United States Supreme Court was filed in a timely
manner, and even though the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari was denied, it is certain that the Plaintiffs have been and continue to be
affected by such decisions as long as the Plaintiffs continue to live in the United States of
America and as long as the Constitution remains in full force and effect, but even though
the Petition for Rehearing was denied, that decision does not by any means suggest that
the Plaintiffs in this action are left with a “lack of standing” as Americans and Christians.
156. The issue being brought before the Court in this matter is not so much about the
subject matter of “taxes”, but rather an issue of popular sovereignty, the individual’s
official answers to the People’s Petitions, the Right of the People to enforce their Rights,
and the impermissibility of retaliation of the Government Contractor (IRS) against those
who Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, and the IRS knows from the
Plaintiffs’ letters, which are sworn affidavits being duly notarized, that Plaintiffs have
testified to the fact that they have Petitioned the Government for Redress of Grievances,
and even personally and repeatedly requested in all of their letters to the IRS that if the
IRS provides Plaintiffs with the law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in
these matters they would do so, and the IRS has not only failed to respond accordingly
118
but in the face of such silence/fraud, IRS’ “enforcement actions” which are, in effect,
prohibited retaliatory administrative actions, have occurred and the list of reasonable
Constitutional Torts seems almost endless, for based upon our God given enumerated
Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include freedom from all forms of
slavery, the Government Contractor (IRS) has retaliated against Plaintiffs to deprive us of
our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property, and our Right to Trial by Jury.
157. Given that, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional
right to Contract as long as they pay a percentage of their labor property is slavery or
peonage and therefore criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994,
for state ownership they only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is
definable in terms of slavery and therefore criminal – state ownership of their labor
property, which if constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%, and the First
Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition government officials
for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has
admitted in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30
of this complaint) that IRS administrative actions with respect to these Petitions are
retaliatory acts, and has even gone so far as to have falsified damages in the related §
6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, and
that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First
Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148,
1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United
119
States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), and that Plaintiffs have
offered herein the nature of authority for the levy, as the cornerstone of the process
leading up to the lien/levy procedure, and have shown that the IRS did not even bother to
seek, let alone obtain, the necessary "Court Order", and without it, the resulting liability
is that of a third party who is not knowledgeable enough to know that the IRS is not
obeying their own Regulations, let alone the law, it would seem reasonable that
Injunctive Relief should be granted, at least until the underlying questions of Fraud and
alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court
158. Even if the court should find that it is not the Government Contractor’s (the IRS)
responsibility to tell the third party that the Notice of Levy is invalid without the
necessary court order, the bottom line is, Plaintiffs Humbly Request that the court
demand that the IRS include the cite of authority that would reveal IRS Form 668’s
limited application - a cite that must, by law, accompany the notice – to make it
impossible for the IRS to seize property under the guise of collecting taxes.
159. If we have been correct by assuming that high ranking IRS officials know that their
falsification of damages in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating
organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) are in violation of the law,
then, in fact that their actions are willful, outrageous acts in violation of various statues,
120
intolerable in a civilized society who are conspiring and acting in concert to suppress,
chill and "neutralize" our constitutionally protected activities for government reform in
such a way as to restore constitutional order and abridge our civil rights, as Americans
and Christians, Plaintiffs believe that it is their Right to not pay taxes when the basis of
such taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God, and therefore, anything but an
all-out-affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make
it very difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people
are endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those
rights.
160. In violation of the spirit and intent of the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States of America wherein-by the Executive and Legislative
Branches of the Government failed to respond to the various Petitions for Redress of
these matters, and particularly with respect to the Petition for a Redress of Grievances
involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on labor which is definable in
terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §
1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994), and in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 involving the major
fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the
United States, as outlined in paragraph #20 of this complaint involving the suppression of
evidence, as evidenced by its omission from the official record of the April 5, 2001
121
Senate Finance Committee hearing, which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of
committees), the Government Contractor (the IRS), with knowledge and forethought,
“actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby
violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and in
this context the IRS has admitted to in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in
actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs
guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the
damages (which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (i.e.,
Article III in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization (as
giving rise to this claim even occurred within this District Court in the attempt to create a
false presumption involving fraud to escape answering honest questions put forth
(which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the
context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994) which were presented lawfully in the
context of the People’s Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, and in doing so the
Government Contractor (IRS) has retaliated against Plaintiffs to deprive us of our natural
122
CAUSE OF ACTION –18 U.S.C. § 1621 -- PERJURY
161. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1621, even IRS Oversight Board members who are not
and other IRS Employees have taken an Oath to Uphold the Laws and the Constitution of
the United States during their terms of Office or employment, and thereafter certain
members of the IRS have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed
acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and
thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US
Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS affairs to
cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during
162. Based upon the falsification of damages/evidence in the related § 6700 Suit (United
Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352)) against the
further, or seek, court enforcement of the action in question would seem to constitute
123
Subornation of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1622) because the efforts of furtherance would be in
enforcement action from the federal courts which should not continue to maintain
should be the Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for
organizing IRS affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of
163. In the context 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, on the basis of Plaintiff’s
Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events like the November 27,
1773 Boston Tea Party, and/or Isaac Backus’ 1775 Resolution to the Massachusetts
Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75
"Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We
are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor
from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands
us to stand fast in it."
164. Wherein-by after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any government to impose
new legal duties on the People in the several states, such that We, The People are limited
to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on July 4, 1776, under the
common law, and wherein-by the Declaration of Independence accepts the Creator as the
124
only power over the People and acknowledges that governments exist to secure our Self-
Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as Liberty, in accordance with its original
intent with respect to the subject of taxation, and this complaint as a whole offers the
our Rights and Liberties as American’s and this cause of action is “For imposing Taxes
on us without our Consent” and thereby subjecting us to tax slavery which is definable in
terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §
165. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis of Plaintiff’s
Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing about the
Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax, and making the form of
eloquently put it the government does not have the right to apply a “direct tax”, except in
“extraordinary exigencies”: i.e., And, that refers to a war in which there is Constitutional
Declaration of War. Wherein-by after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any
government to impose new legal duties on the People in the several states, such that We,
The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on
July 4, 1776, under the common law, and wherein-by the Declaration of Independence
accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that
governments exist to secure our Self-Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as
Liberty, in accordance with its original intent with respect to the subject of the right to
125
trial by jury, this complaint as a whole offers the “Indictment” or bill of particulars
documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as
American’s, and this cause of action is “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of
Trial by Jury”, and thereby subjecting us not only to tax slavery (which is definable in
terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §
166. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis
of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing
about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax, and making the
form of slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, wherein the loss of their Self-
Evident God given Right of Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of
freedom chattel slavery, which is the subject of the Thirteenth Amendment, and in terms
of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery),
this cause of action is for violating the Plaintiffs Right to Religious Freedom, where IRS
actions are in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First
as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men)
includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the
resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the ancient system of novation known as
126
…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas
persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence
relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your
aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient
system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21)
as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left
the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their
lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system
of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the
state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-
27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby
each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity
view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very
dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be
"only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be'
perpetrated ad infinitum."
167. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis
of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing
about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax and making the
the loss of their Self-Evident God given Right of Liberty in terms of freedom from all
forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), as evidenced by the
events surrounding the trial and crucifixion of Christ and very foundations of Liberty
expressed by this country’s founders (which is set forth in part within paragraphs #165
through #173 of this complaint, with supporting referenced footnotes), such that freedom
from tax slavery is an all but forgotten Right of Religious Freedom, and the IRS, through
the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have violated the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians,
127
our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I
was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from
Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is
manifested as the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast, and further, in
the context of the Right of every American and Christian to withhold their money from
government when that money would go towards activities which are not in compliance
with the Laws of God, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and
Revenue Officers, have violated the natural Right of Men over their servant governments
which is the cornerstone of our form of governance -- the fifth of the five Rights in the
Bill of Rights and is guaranteed by the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ...
abridging ... the Right of the People … to Petition the Government for a Redress of
Grievances", such that, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers,
Revenue Officers and other employees, have violated the Plaintiffs Right to act in
accordance with both their Right to Religious Freedom and in free exercise of the First
the Official Acts69 of the framers of our US Constitution and Bill of Rights, enabling us,
We, the People, to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, by including the
"Capstone Right."
69
“As a matter of litigation of WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, We the People v.
United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), the remedy for the act(s) of fraud involving only silence in
the face of the People who act to peaceably procure relief is set forth as having been defined long ago in
Act passed unanimously by the Continental Congress. (See Journals of the Continental Congress.
Journals 1:105-113.), and expounded upon by Thomas Jefferson as the People’s Right of “…intercession
for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights…” (See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North,
1775. Papers 1:225.).
128
CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
168. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have put forth the false presumption that
debts were owed by the Plaintiffs and other Americans, using an artifice of fraud to
escape the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax which must be
“apportioned” and have refused to respond to all inquiries into said Constitutional
deprivation and inquiries into actions of IRS agents who willfully and knowingly entered
false and fraudulent information into IRS computer systems concerning alleged liability
and alleged debts owed to the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless
property seizures, notices of liens, notices of levies, interference with normal business
transactions, including unlawful bank and payroll seizures, public humiliation, slander
and other serious unwarranted abuses, have refused to respond to questions presented in
have refused to follow Supreme Court decisions quoted repeatedly within the context of
deliberately committed acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their
official duties and thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others
from the US Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, and
committed acts of further harassment and intimidation by mailing the Plaintiffs their own
129
personal copy of the US District Court’s summary judgment to convey the IRS’s message
that being affiliated with WTP Organization for the purpose of Petitioning Government
for a Redress of Grievances and withholding what Plaintiffs believe to be their own
property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be
confused with the gains and profits derived from the labor of others), the hard-earned
fruits of their labor – would thereby expose themselves to criminal liability and other
serious unwarranted abuses, including but not limited to the substantial financial
169. While Plaintiffs were about the free exercise of rights under the First Amendment,
the IRS did issue the Summons dated September 5, 2007, in the name of Plaintiff
William M. Greene, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s Employer, therefore Plaintiff not
only contend that this act constitutes a selective unconstitutional act but also that the
Plaintiff was deprived of Due Process of Law, because the Summons in question was
never sent to Plaintiff’s PO Box to allow the Plaintiff the ability to respond by petitioning
the District Court in a timely manner, and the only reason the Plaintiff has knowledge of
the Summons in question is because the Plaintiff was notified of its existence by his
Employer, who thereupon provided the Plaintiff with his only copy, and because, under
these conditions, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to respond to the Summons by
petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, the IRS, through the authority given to
130
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
170. While Plaintiffs were about the free exercise of rights under the First Amendment,
the IRS did issue the Summons dated September 5, 2007, in the name of the Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s Employer, therefore the Plaintiff not
only contends that this act constitutes a selective unconstitutional act but also that the
Plaintiff was deprived of Due Process of Law, because the Summons in question was
never sent to Plaintiff’s PO Box to allow the Plaintiff the ability to respond by petitioning
the District Court in a timely manner, and the only reason the Plaintiff has knowledge of
the Summons in question is because the Plaintiff was notified of its existence by her
Employer, who thereupon provided the Plaintiff with her only copy, and because, under
these conditions, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to respond to the Summons by
petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
171. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1346, defining Mail Fraud in terms of a "scheme or
right of honest services”, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers
131
and Revenue Officers, did knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately mail the
Plaintiffs their own personal copy of the US District Court’s summary judgment against
WTP Organization for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of the intangible right of the
honest services that WTP Organization provided the Plaintiffs and other Americans, and,
Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS
affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of
172. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS)
– Notice of Levy dated May 22, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and
thereafter it is assumed that the IRS mailed a copy of the same to one of Plaintiff William
132
CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD
SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD
173. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS)
– Notice of Levy dated May 22, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and
thereafter Plaintiff William M. Greene’s present employer notified him that they had
received a copy of the same, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation,
unwarranted abuses.
174. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668(Y)(c) –
Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated August 14, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address,
133
and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and
was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk, thereby subjecting the
including unlawful bank and payroll seizures, public humiliation, slander and other
serious unwarranted abuses, including but not limited to the substantial financial
175. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS)
– Notice of Levy dated October 4, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and
thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer notified her that they had received a
copy of the same, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation,
interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.
134
CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD
SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD
176. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-
A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box,
177. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-
A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box,
135
Alliance Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation,
interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.
178. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-
A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box,
addressed in the name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene with notice to attach funds deposited
179. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,
containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-
136
A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box and
addressed in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene with notice to attach funds
deposited in Citizens Bank, a Bank in which the Plaintiff does not have an account but
his son William M. Greene, Jr. does, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to intimidation and
fear that the IRS was about to seize even the money in his son’s bank account, interfere
180. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,
which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, served on Plaintiff
William M. Greene’s Bank account which he held jointly with Plaintiff Karen M. Greene
at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, and seized property in the amount of
$673.01, without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that
181. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,
137
which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, served on Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene’s bank account which she held jointly with Plaintiff William M. Greene
and seized property in the amount of $673.01, as well as Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s
bank account which she held individually and seized property in the amount of $6.80,
both bank accounts being seized at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without
filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have
182. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,
which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized
property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s personal bank account at Citizens Bank,
1440 Central Ave., Albany NY, in the amount of $1,077.37 without filling out the form
668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.
183. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 4, 2007, which
138
is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from
the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $1,972.66
without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would
184. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, which
is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from
the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $1,475.00
without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would
185. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately issued IRS Form 668-W(ICS) dated January 28, 2008, which is a materially
false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from the Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $352.30 without filling out
139
the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the
IRS’s fraud.
186. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1344(2), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
and artifices to obtain money and funds under the custody and control of Transportation
408(n), and did so by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations in the
issuance of Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, served on
Ogden, UT, without attachment or execution under judicial process (a court order) as
187. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1344(2), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
and artifices to obtain money and funds under the custody and control of Transportation
140
Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, which is a financial institution as defined in 26 U.S.C.
408(n), and did so by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations in the
issuance of Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, served on two of
Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank accounts (being both single and joint business
188. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice
of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, in the
name of Plaintiff William M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses and representations, deprive the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff William M.
Greene and Plaintiff Karen M. Greene owned jointly in their business bank account at
Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without a court order in violation of due
189. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice
141
of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, in the
name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses and representations, deprive the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff Karen M.
Greene and Plaintiff William M. Greene owned and had in their joint Bank account at
Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, as well as depriving the Plaintiff of the
funds that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene owned and had in her personal business Bank
account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without a court order in violation
190. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully,
maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice
of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Citizens Bank, Lincoln, RI, in the name of Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and
representations, depriving the Plaintiff of funds in the amount of $1,077.37 that Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene had in her personal bank account at Citizens Bank, Albany NY, without
191. In the context of – 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
142
deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes
and artifices of fraud by passing false information to State and/or County Governments as
evidenced by the attached copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Document Search for
the Document Details whereby the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same
including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated April 18,
2007, with the Amount being $171,479.86 filed with Albany County.
192. In the context of – 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
and artifices of fraud by passing false information to State and/or County Governments as
evidenced by the attached copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Document Search for the
Document Details whereby the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same
including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated August 14,
2007, with the Amount being $96,305.16 filed with Albany County.
193. In the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to IRS
Officials, Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly,
willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, deprived Plaintiffs of the
143
protections of law, because IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) and 668-W(ICS) are the
"Notice of Levy" forms which are materially false and fraudulent documents for such
purposes and a lawful Levy can only be effected by Form 668-B. Nor can IRS Officials
claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) clearly shows that Levy may not
194. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue
Plaintiffs of their own property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their
labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits “derived from” the labor of others),
the hard-earned fruits of their labor, the IRS has caused undue hardship, including but not
limited to the substantial financial difficulties of having been put out of work, and
without moneys derived from the direct exchange for their labor, the IRS is responsible
for the Plaintiffs inability to pay creditors, resulting in many of the Plaintiffs debts being
unpaid and causing other abuses, credit problems and possible other legal actions and/or
repossessions.
195. In the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to IRS
Officials, Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly,
willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, deprived Plaintiffs of the
protections of law. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C.
144
6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court
order.
have been exercising their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of
Grievances, which in significant part, have challenged underlying tax liability. Plaintiffs
have also written numerous letters to the IRS challenging the underlying tax liability, and
the United States and because these definitions limit the scope of application of the W-4
Plaintiffs allege that it was this kind of fraud which was originally perpetrated upon the
Plaintiffs to unknowingly and wrongfully believe that they, as well as most Americans,
were responsible for a direct tax without “apportionment” on their money earned in direct
exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits derived from the
labor of others), and although Plaintiffs are currently self-employed, again with earnings
derived only through the hard-earned fruits of their labor, the only reason they originally
started filing and paying taxes was because of the fraud placed upon them long ago, and
then when they sought to find answers in the form of the questions presented in the
Petition for Redress of Grievance and personal letters the IRS refused to respond with
145
even a single law which made them “liable for” a tax and the IRS retaliated against the
Plaintiffs where the IRS Code was used to supersede the Plaintiffs’ natural Rights of
Privacy, Property and Right to Trial by Jury, even though Plaintiffs questions were
properly put forth in terms of the Plaintiffs First Amendment Right to Petition for a
Redress of Grievances, and in this context, the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights must be
recognized before we might be deprived of any of our Rights by any IRS administrative
process, and for this reason, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers
and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately and under
color of law, conspired against the Plaintiffs’ rights and have deprived them of the
protections of law.
197. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue
Officers, has knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately and under color of law
and regulations, deprived Plaintiff of Due Process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
concerning the collection of alleged debts and alleged liability for a direct tax without
146
CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW
198. After refusing to respond to Plaintiffs request for any reference of law requiring
them to file, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue
Officers, filled out or caused subordinates to fill out 1040 forms (subornation of perjury),
under the name of Plaintiffs and other Americans, which is not authorized by regulations,
calling it a “substitute return”. These bogus 1040 forms have then been used to falsely
199. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to
deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely
indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for and owed a debt to the United States. The
nature of said false information claimed that Plaintiffs were liable and owed an individual
income tax, which is an un-apportioned direct tax and which is prohibited by the U.S.
Constitution and definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in
the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to
147
CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
BY ENTERING FALSE INFORMATION INTO COMPUTER SYSTEMS
200. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue
information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that 26 USC
6331 authorized levy and lien on the Plaintiffs, thus depriving the Plaintiffs of due
process, and deliberately used forms which omitted any reference to 26 USC 6331,
paragraph “a”, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to endless harassment, threats of levies,
201. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely
indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for and owed a debt to the United States. The
nature of said false information claimed that the Plaintiffs were liable and owed an
individual income tax, which is an un-apportioned direct tax and which is prohibited by
the U.S. Constitution and definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore,
criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, thereby subjecting the
Plaintiff to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public
148
humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and
202. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely
indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for an alleged tax that had no implementing
regulation and statute in the laws of the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to
203. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to
deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely
indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for an alleged tax that had no Statute At Large or
implementing regulation for the collection of the alleged debts, thereby subjecting the
149
and other serious unwarranted abuses, while at the same time refusing to respond to
reasonable requests to provide any statute at large which authorizes collections on private
204. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely
indicating that 26 USC 6331 authorized levy and lien on the Plaintiffs, and deliberately
used forms which omitted any reference to 26 USC 6331(a), thereby subjecting the
205. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately acceded to and aided the entering of false information into the Internal
the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States, thereby subjecting
the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens,
150
public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander,
206. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue
themselves to intimidate, threaten, oppress, and harass the Plaintiffs by using devious and
statements sent from multiple Automated Collections Service Centers. Such malicious
methods included sending out unsigned letters in violation of Internal Revenue manual
regarding the simple question of what law made the Plaintiffs “liable for” the tax the IRS
claimed the Plaintiffs owed. Such malicious methods also included refusal of further
and even after being presented with the truth about the Plaintiffs lack of liability, the IRS,
through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, continued to
knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committ acts of extortion and willful
151
207. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately committed acts of extortion and willful oppression of the Plaintiffs’ rights
under “color of law”, wherein-by threatening letters were sent to Plaintiffs employer in
the form of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) and 668-W(ICS), as well as serving IRS Forms 668-
A(ICS) on Plaintiffs banks, which are fraudulent documents for the purpose of Levies
authority, which constitutes fraudulent statements to induce the employer and banks to
surrender property or rights of the Plaintiffs, whereby, under illegal implicit or explicit
threats stated within the context of the incomplete statement of “authority” for said
threats to Plaintiffs’ employer and banks that penalties would be laid on the employer or
bank if the employer or bank did not comply with the Levy requirements, and the IRS
was able to accomplish extortion from, and oppression of, the Plaintiffs, thereby
subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies and property seizures,
208. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
152
deliberately demanded sums not authorized by law and sums greater than those
209. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately levied and seized private persons, who are not government employees and/or
are not otherwise “liable for” the income tax under the 16th Amendment, thereby
subjecting the Plaintiffs and other Americans to slavery and/or peonage, which is
210. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately conspired among themselves to make and sign fraudulent statements, e.g.
fraudulent penalties, and other documents sent to the Plaintiffs without an actual lien or
levy having been perfected, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment,
threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation,
153
interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted
abuses.
211. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately conspired among themselves to make and sign fraudulent statements, e.g.
fraudulent notices of lien and levy, and other documents sent to the Plaintiffs without an
actual lien or levy having been perfected, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless
harassment, threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation,
intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious
unwarranted abuses.
212. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(8), the IRS, through the authority given to
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and
deliberately refused to properly address Plaintiffs reports of fraud and violations of the
Internal Revenue laws by subordinates or other employees or agents of the IRS, even
though the IRS Operations Managers were notified of these criminal actions in previous
communications, and as evidenced by the letter from Henry Slaughter, Field Director,
Compliance Services dated January 11, 2008, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene was even
154
assessed a fine of $5,000.00 for her effort in writing her September 28, 2007 letter to
213. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the War Powers
214. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
155
members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the privacy and
215. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
156
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the money and
debt limiting clauses (by the Federal Reserve System) of the Constitution.
216. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the President's
217. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
157
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to the
218. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
158
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to
Gun Control.
219. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as
involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and
resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving
the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),
and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,
exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to
159
PLAINTIFFS’ DECLARATION
220. I respectfully declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
__________________________ __________________________
William M. Greene, pro se Karen M. Greene, pro se
PO Box 279 PO Box 279
Voorheesville, NY 12186 Voorheesville, NY 12186
Phone: (518) 209-2495 Phone: (518) 209-2495
And/or And/or
Phone: (518) 209-3091 Phone: (518) 209-3091
County of Albany
persons whose names are subscribed to the written instrument and acknowledged that
______________________________
160
LISTING OF EXHIBITS
1
Exhibit 1: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue
Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, UNITED STATES’ ANSWER
a United States Attorney and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice
Trial Attorney, Tax Division, “Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the
2
Exhibit 2: Copy of Freedom Flyer to encourage other truck drivers to contact WTP
Organization for the purposes of developing a new Petition involving constitutional torts
3
Exhibit 3: Attached Exhibit is a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated
June 26, 1989, “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service,
income taxes."
4
Exhibit 4: David Cay Johnston’s September 17, 2003 The New York Times article,
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/business/17IRS.html?ei=5007&en=404eaa7dc6bbc
4b5&ex=1379131200&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1135436874-
ed/3ACwLrxx7BS7aAkFRIQ);
161
5
Exhibit 5: Plaintiff William M. Greene’s 09/01/02 short statements asserting knowledge
of the IRS’ fraud, in response to IRS letter dated 08/19/2002 wherein Plaintiffs’ short
6
Exhibit 6: William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004;
7
Exhibit 7: William M. Greene’s second letter dated January 31, 2005;
8
Exhibit 8: William M. Greene’s third letter dated July 27, 2005;
9
Exhibit 9: William M. Greene’s forth letter dated April 13, 2007;
10
Exhibit 10: William M. Greene’s fifth letter dated May 5, 2007;
11
Exhibit 11: William M. Greene’s sixth letter dated September 6, 2007 which was
12
Exhibit 12: The seventh letter dated September 28, 2007 by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene;
13
Exhibit 13: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 sent to the
Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter it is assumed that IRS mailed a copy of the
162
14
Exhibit 14: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 sent to the
employer notified him that they had received a copy of the same.
15
Exhibit 15: Copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document
Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of
Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated April 18, 2007, with the Amount
16
Exhibit 16: Copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s search from the New York State
Secretary of State's Website, UCC information on Filing Data Reports, reporting “No
Debtors found”.
17
Exhibit 17: Copy of letter signed by the Case Processing Clerk, United States District
Court, Northern District of New York, documenting that there is no record for
18
Exhibit 18: Copy of William M. Greene’s letter dated February 11, 2008, submitted as
an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,
Philadelphia, PA 19106;
19
Exhibit 19: Copy of WTP Organization’s Black Folder;
163
20
Exhibit 20: Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated August 14, 2007, sent
to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the
Albany County Clerk’s Office and was told that it had been filed with the Albany County
Clerk;
21
Exhibit 21: Copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document
Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of
Form 668(Y)(c), dated August 14, 2007, with the Amount being “$96,305.16” filed with
Albany County.
22
Exhibit 22: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 4, 2007 sent to the
Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer notified
23
Exhibit 23: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 4, 2007 sent to the
Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer, with copy of payroll statement showing the dollar
24
Exhibit 24: Copy of Summons in the Matter of William M. Greene sent to Plaintiff’s
Employer;
25
Exhibit 25: Copy of Summons in the Matter of Karen Greene sent to Plaintiff’s
Employer;
164
26
Exhibit 26: Copy of letter from Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance Services,
27
Exhibit 27: Copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s search from the New York State
Secretary of State's Website, UCC information on Filing Data Reports, reporting “No
Debtors found”.
28
Exhibit 28: Copy of Karen M. Greene’s letter dated February 11, 2008, submitted as
an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,
Philadelphia, PA 19106;
29
Exhibit 29: Bank Copy mailed to Plaintiff; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated
30
Exhibit 30: Bank Copy mailed to Plaintiff; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated
October 29, 2007, served on Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s both personal and joint Bank
31
Exhibit 31: Plaintiff copy from IRS; IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated
October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to Plaintiff William M.
165
32
Exhibit 32: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated
October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to both of the Plaintiff
33
Exhibit 33: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated
October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed in the name of Plaintiff
34
Exhibit 34: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated
October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box and addressed in the name of Plaintiff
35
Exhibit 35: Copy of letter, dated January 18, 2008, Citizens Bank notified Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene that the IRS served a Tax Levy against her account at RBS Citizens
Bank, N.A. with funds being withheld in the amount of $1,077.37, and a pay out date of
2-8-2008. The letter from Citizens Bank also included a copy of Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS
36
Exhibit 36: IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) -- Notice of Levy, dated January 3, 2008, mailed to
37
Exhibit 37: IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, served upon
the Plaintiffs’ Employer, along with attached a letter notifying the employer that “This
will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can
166
not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State
fees.”
38
Exhibit 38: Copy of statement/invoice dated 01/22/08 showing $1,475.00 paid out to
39
Exhibit 39: Email from Plaintiffs employer notified them that they (the employer)
received another form, and attached IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008.
40
Exhibit 40: Plaintiffs email response to the employers’ email, explaining that it is the
Plaintiffs understanding that “IRS Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices of
Levy(s)" that do not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at
all unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court
stamp.” Also stating that “Even then, a Levy is ONLY lawfully effected by Form 668-B,
which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a), and even that only pertains to those
persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers,
employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their
"employer."”
41
Exhibit 41: Copy of IRS Forms 668-B, Levy.
167
42
Exhibit 42: Copy of employers’ email (2/22/08), providing the Plaintiffs with pages of
IRS Form 668-W(ICS) the employer had originally omitted. And, copy of payroll
43
Exhibit 43: Robert Bernhoft, quoted By Jon Dougherty © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com,
(www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24192);
168