Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. Supreme Court-IRS Case-IRS in Default-All-documents Thru-motion for ORDER

U.S. Supreme Court-IRS Case-IRS in Default-All-documents Thru-motion for ORDER

Ratings: (0)|Views: 292|Likes:
Published by Jeff Maehr
My U.S. Supreme Court IRS case now in the 10th and final court. Certiorari against the IRS which waived its rights to respond to my allegations and facts of law. Filed Motion for ORDER which should really shake things up...pass this on as far and wide as possible, and try to get the media involved. Every American needs to know about this case and the law included in it. It could change our economy overnight.
My U.S. Supreme Court IRS case now in the 10th and final court. Certiorari against the IRS which waived its rights to respond to my allegations and facts of law. Filed Motion for ORDER which should really shake things up...pass this on as far and wide as possible, and try to get the media involved. Every American needs to know about this case and the law included in it. It could change our economy overnight.

More info:

Published by: Jeff Maehr on Nov 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-6169IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES_____________________________________Jeffrey T. Maehr - PETITIONER, Pro sevs.Commissioner of Internal Revenue - RESPONDENTON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TOU.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 10
TH
CIRCUITPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIJeffrey T. Maehr
 
S.Ct. - QUESTIONS PRESENTED-Case # 12-6169
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Is Respondent’s “income” tax scheme a “Direct,” or “Indirect,” tax, or is there some otherlawful taxation form as yet undeclared by the courts, that counters standing case law? (P. 8)2. Does the Respondent have the lawful and constitutional authority to presume to define“income” as to include “all that comes in,” and to include wages, salary or compensation forservices, contrary to this honorable court’s previous rulings? (P. 10)3. Can the Respondent violate the Paperwork Reduction Act in claiming that Petitioner, or anyAmerican, is lawfully “required” to file a 1040 form that is labeled a “bootleg” form by Congressif it fails the PRA? (P. 16).4. Can Respondent be acting under the name “Internal Revenue Service,” and be lawfullysending said deficiencies and other documents, using U.S. mail, to Petitioner or any othercitizen, when the entity known as the “Internal Revenue Service” was lawfully “cancelled” bythe Treasury Department in 2005? (P. 17).5. Can Respondent/IRS be acting against Petitioner, or any state citizen, when it not a U.S.government agency which Respondent testifies to? (P. 18).
 
S.Ct. - QUESTIONS PRESENTED-Case # 12-6169
ii6. Can Respondent lawfully assess Petitioner for named years without a lawfully requiredassessment under 26 CFR § 301.6203-1.3. Internal Revenue Manual 3(17)(63)(14).1: Account6110 Tax Assessments, and form 23C? (P. 18)7. Are the Supreme Court cases cited in this ongoing and longstanding case, along with otherstanding court cases and congressional testimony, “frivolous” and to be ignored and dismissedby Respondent and the lower courts without any evidence to support what and how they arefrivolous, i.e. evidence in fact? (P. 19).8. Should Respondent be responsible in knowing the laws it allegedly is following in assessingand declaring deficiencies, and taxing outside constitutional parameters... i.e. did Respondentknow, or should have known, its own violations were being implemented via fraud? (P. 20)9. Can Respondent and the Courts ignore standing and jurisdictional challenges whenpresented? (P. 21)10. Can the Tax Court lawfully ignore a Motion for Clarification as to several relevant questionsregarding jurisdiction, and Rule 34(b), so Petitioner had an opportunity to properly amendoriginal petition, and respond to the motion to dismiss? (P. 22)11. Can Respondent stand on hearsay and presumption alone, providing no IR Code law asevidence to prove Petitioner, or anyone, is personally required to file a 1040 form? (P. 23)

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Sil Shakir added this note
well done thanks

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->