UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 Jeffrey T. Maehr, Sui Juris ) Petitioner ) v. ) Commissioner of Internal Revenue/ —) Ginger L. Wray, Revenue Officers) Wells Fargo Bank, NA; ) District Court Case No. 15-me-00127-JLK Respondents ) ) APPEAL OF ORDER TO MOTION TO QUASH & RESPONSE TO ORDER DENYING RELIEF Petitioner comes before this Court in a timely manner with this Appeal to the District Court's dismissal for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Petitioner points the Court to the original documents filed which clearly detail the issues which have been ignored by the District Court, and which are clearly mitigating circumstances outside the control of Petitioner, regarding timely filing, form of service, and jurisdiction. If any aspects of this Appeal brief are in error, please accept Petitioner's apologies and Petitioner requests that the Court consider the substance and not form, (See Motion to Quash Judicial Notice) or to provide whatever lawful aid it can in the presentation issues. ‘The facts of this appeal, as part of previous filings, are as follows: 1, Petitioner received an IRS Summons notice letter by regular mail from Wells Fargo Bank, NA (Herein WFB) on or about 4-20-15 which was dated 4-11-15. (See Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-me-00127-JLK Page 1 of 7Exhibit A). In this letter, WFB mentioned “necessary documents” being needed to stop the document request. 2. Petitioner contacted WFB right away by phone because there was no copy of the Summons included in the original correspondence. Petitioner left a message asking what WFB needed from him to dispute the summons. He later received a message back, left by one “Angelica” from WFB, indicating that if he wanted to file a letter or “objection” to the Summons, to fax it to her, which Petitioner prepared and faxed on or about 4-27-15, with a hard copy mailed on 4-28-15, certified mail # 7014-2120- 0004-6670-5388. (See recording on CD, named “Wells Fargo IRS summons-fax-objection-message'4-19-15,” and Exhibit W - Full copy of complete document faxed and mailed available if necessary). Petitioner thought this correspondence was sufficient argument and “objection” since WFB had not replied to his documents. 3. 28 days later, Petitioner received an overnight delivery (See Exhibit D), document from WFB, on June 2, 2015, dated June 1, 2015, stating that WEB contacted the Respondent IRS, and that they “stated that there was no basis for your Objections and has challenged us to produce records” and “allow you to file a Motion to Quash with the Court until Friday June 5, 2015,” and he “must deliver a Court-stamped copy of the Motion to Quash via facsimile to...”, essentially leaving Petitioner ONLY three days to complete this process and fax them a Court-stamped copy, a clear impossibility. (See Exhibit B). Petitioner was following WFB’s instructions to fax them his objections, which he did, and yet WFB took 28 days to respond to his good faith efforts to respond. Petitioner lives 5 hours from the Denver District Court, making it impossible for him (being disabled) to make that trip financially and otherwise in a matter of 2 days. Thus, a mailed copy of the Motion to Quash was the only means to file. This is prima facie evidence that WFB had no intention of proving their lawful authority to release Petitioner's personal records to the IRS, and misled Petitioner in what was required in his response to them, seemingly to eat up time and force an untimely response, which they apparently understood. WEB is depending solely on IRS presumption and hearsay, which is no form of evidence, and failing to prove lawful authority to release private records to Respondent IRS. (See Exhibit H, original Motion to Quash). 4. Petitioner objected to WEB for the extreme time delay, via documents faxed (available if necessary) which began the series of errors related to this appeal. With the WFB's unconscionable delay in proper response to Petitioner, along with Court error, (See #5), Petitioner was NOT provided justice. Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-me-00127-JLK. Page 2 of 75. In the meantime, Petitioner contacted the District Court for instructions on the filing process, and was told by a Deputy Clerk, “Mark,” that Petitioner sending in the original document, with three copies for court-stamping, would be fine and that the court would return the three copies to him for proper service. (See recording on CD, named “District-Court-Mark-Motionfiling-will-send-stampedcopies-6-5-15-evidence”). 6. Petitioner mailed the Motion to Quash on June 8", 2015, and inadvertently left out the $47 filing fee. He contacted the Court about this and notified them that the fee was on its way in a separate mailing. (See recording on CD, named “DistrictCourt-Status-nopayment-status'copiestocomeQ-6-16-15-evidence”) ‘The Motion which was received by the Court, was filed on June 10th, 2015. 7. After a week or so of sending the original and copies in, and not having received any stamped documents, Petitioner contacted the Court once again to see what the status of the Court-stamped documents was, and was told that the documents were “destroyed” and that they had “no way to track” extra copies sent for stamping and return. (See recording on CD, named “District Court-3-copies-where-evidence”), contrary to prior Court instructions. 8. Petitioner was now struggling as to how to obtain copies of the original court stamped documents for service to Respondents. He called the Court, and was told the Court could make copies and send them for $32.50 per copy, which Petitioner couldn't afford. Petitioner complained that his extra copies should have been stamped, and that the information he received on this process was an error by the Court, causing further time delay. (See recording on CD, named “District Court-3-copies-where-evidence”) 9. Petitioner filed a motion for accessing the online service and website to provide service, but was denied in a “Minute Order” (See Exhibit C). Judge Hegarty ruled that “unless Respondents request otherwise, the Court finds this delivery sufficient” and that Respondents were “likely able to access all of the documents electronically...” This clearly relieved Petitioner of further steps to try to “serve” the documents to Respondents, relying on Judge Hegarty’s legal knowledge and instruction. As stated, Respondents provided NO rebuttal or response to the evidence presented. 10. On 7-24-15, Petitioner received a denial from the Court due to “Jurisdiction” issues for not filing in a “timely” fashion, and for improper service, contrary to Judge Hegarty’s Minute Order. This denial also included the issue of “Government immunity” being argued by the Judges 11. Petitioner was improperly delayed in responding by both WEB and the Court, Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-me-00127-JLK Page 3 of 7denied due process and being heard on this case due to “technicalities, where the Court ignored case precedent provided on this very subject. During all this time, Petitioner was faxing Respondents all documents being filed. 12. Petitioner filed a “Reply to Order” and “Motion for Recusal” & “Motion to Reconsider” & “Notice of Default” due to the facts of the delay and the clear mitigating causes, and this, too, was denied on 8-6-15, by Judge Kane, citing the same issues and that Petitioner had not addressed “government Immunity”. Petitioner never addressed such claim at that time due to 7 previous cases where precedent was established that the government did NOT have immunity, via prima facie evidence, since no such claim was ever made by either the Courts OR the Respondent in any of these 7 similar separate State cases. (") Petitioner addressed this in a subsequent filing, which was denied. 13. Judge Hegarty and Judge Kane both ignored FRCP Rule 55) on the clear Default by Respondents, which is a mandatory requirement by the Court for lack of response, and failed to comment on this and any of the above relevant and mitigating issues, and focused solely on form above substance. While Respondent IRS filed a “Declaration” (See #15 below), it failed to address the issues raised. 14. Judges Hegarty and Judge Kane provided defense for Respondents, especially “government immunity” claims, where no such claims exist in Petitioner's previous record or cases by Respondent IRS. Such “defense” should be raised by Respondent IRS and NOT the Court. In addition, WFB never answered for its misinformation to Petitioner, or the delay in responding to his original documents. 15. In review of the docket and filings on the District Court’s Website (PACER) on approximately 8-28-15, Petitioner became aware of a filing by Respondent Ginger * 1, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado—Case #08-cv-02274-LTB-KLM 2. US. District Court, District of Nebraska—Case #8:08-CV-190 3. USS. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division—Case #4-09-CA-O97-LY 4. US. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division—Case #3:08- MC-00067-W 5. US. District Court, Norther District of California, San Jose Division—Case #CV-08- 80218 JW 6. US. District Court, Eastorn District of Virginia—Case #3:08-MC-00003-HEH 7. US. District Court, District of New Mexico—Case #1:08-MC-00018-BB ? FRCP - Rule 55, Default; Default Judgment - (a) ENTERING A DEFAULT. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative roliof is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default. Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-mc-00127-JLK. Page 4 of 7Wray, on 8-17-15, which he did NOT receive a copy of from Ms. Wray. It is clear that the District Court denied several of Petitioner's filings, and yet, on 8-17-15, the Court allowed the document, “DECLARATION OF GINGER L. WRAY” onto the docket, suggesting that the case which is allegedly closed and Judge Kane denied by filing such “With Prejudice”, is not really closed, or Judge Kane is showing partiality to Respondent Wray, and prejudice to Petitioner, and the case was NOT closed on 7- 24-15. 16. Petitioner filed objection, with Recusal motion on Judge Kane, but this was also refused filing. Judge Kane ORDERED the Clerk “to refuse to file any further pleadings, requests, petitions, or other correspondence in this case,” yet allowed the filing of Respondent's document into the record as testimony, yet did not allow Petitioner opportunity to respond to Declaration. Petitioner felt compelled to respond to Declaration, (to not be in default due to silence) and sent it to the Court on 8-31-15, for the record. To date, no response has been received. CONCLUSION How many errors must one case receive before justice can be served? Lack of jurisdiction is being feigned, along with error by both WFB and the District Court being ignored, under color of law, due to the nature of this case and its ramifications against Respondents, and damaging evidence was being suppressed by Judge Hegarty and Judge Kane, both defending Respondents. Defending Respondents from the bench is an error of the Court, as both Judges should clearly understand, and Petitioner shouldn't have to provide evidence of what is already in the Judge's Code of Conduct and Ethical requirements to even serve on the bench. This presents a bias against Petitioner. Petitioner has clearly shown multiple errors throughout this issue. Beginning from the misinformation in responding, and unconscionable delay by WFB in responding to Petitioner's good faith effort to provide what it asked for, in addition to the Court providing misinformation to the Petitioner who is dependent on lawful and genuine information from the Court, Petitioner has, repeatedly received misdirection and distractions causing the time issue Any reasonable and just person reading this discourse would clearly see that there were multiple errors by WFB and the District Court, and a lack of lawful response by Respondent's. Petitioner has no evidence of Ex Parte communication between Respondents and the Court, but wonders how such convergence of errors and Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-mce-00127-JLK Page 5S of 7“silence” @) could lend credence to good faith or lawful standing by Respondents, and proper adjudication by the Court. Petitioner's due process rights under law, justice and equity, have been thwarted, and he moves this honorable Court to strongly consider ALL evidence submitted to date, and this shameful dodging of truth and facts by those hired to serve justice, and to be “just judges”, to be remedied post haste. Petitioner moves this Court to remand this case back to the District Court for proper adjudication, with proper response from Respondents to all elements presented as evidence, or to file a Default against Respondents under Rule 55, or whatever course this Court deems right and just. Petitioner also moves this court to sanction/reprimand Judges Hegarty and Kane for failure to uphold justice and to consider all evidence in this case. Submitted on this 4th’ day of September, 2015. ofp Vache Jeffrey T. Maehr, Sui Juris 924 E, Stollsteimer Rd Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 970-731-9724 > "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... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 560 F.2d 297, 299, citing . See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. "Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit includes the deliberate concealment of material Information in a setting of fiduciary obligation... if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.” McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371 372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307. Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-me-00127-JLK Page 6 of 7Certificate of service: I, Jeffrey T. Maehr, do hereby certify that I sent on 9-4-15, via U.S. postal mail, a true and complete copy of this 7 page document, and attachments A, B, C, D, E, W, CD with audio files, and the application to proceed without fees or costs, to the Appeals Court, Cert: mail # 7014-2120-0004-6670-5500, and the same documents, attachments and CD to the following parties: 1. E, Carmen Ramirez, Electronic mailing of Appeal as PDF document - E.Carmen.Ramirez@usgoj.gov: (No mailing address provided) 2. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Ginger L. Wray, IRS Revenue Agent, 12600 W. Colfax Ave., C-300, Lakewood, Colorado, 80215. 3. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, P.O. box 29728, Phoenix, Arizona, 85038. wife acd Appeal to Order - District Court Case # 15-me-00127-JLK Page 7 of 7hp it A ae seg renga ee Tecra pat FARGO ie oraose April nn, 2015, JEFFREY T MAEHR ‘924 F STOLLSTEIMER RD PAGOSA SPRINGS CO 811477305 Re; IRS Summons, issued on 3/30/2015 (Case Number: NONE Bank Reference No: 11853064 Dear JEFFREY T MAEHR: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (‘Wells Rargo”) is in receipt of the above-referenced legal order that requests production of your bank records/information regarding your account(s) by 5/6/2015. Ifyou wish to obtain information regarding why your bank records/information is being sought, please contact the requesting party directly at: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE GINGER L WRAY. 12600 WEST COLFAX AVENUE C-300 LAKEWOOD CO 80215-3733 (720) 956-4618 ‘This notice is provided so you might undertake whatever actions you believe appropriate. Should ‘you require assistance, Wells Fargo recommends that you immediately consult 2 professional of your choiee, such as an attorney, for guidance. Wells Fargo cannot advise you on this matter. If the necessary documents to prevent produiction by the bank are not provided, Wells Fargo will be compelled to comply with the requested document production. Ifyou wish to obtain a copy of the legal order, please call and leave a voice mail atthe following nuriber (480)724-2084, Sincerely, ‘Subpoena DepartmentWells Fargo Bank, NA. Subpoena Processing Deparment apo ey 101 Independence Mall Eee 11" Flor ay eU 1610) Philadelphia, PA 19106. Lo x4cbiT June 1, 2015 Jeffrey T. Maehr 924 E Stollsteimer Road Pagosa Springs, CO 81147-7305 Re: IRS Summons, Intemal Case Reference # 11853064 Dear Mr. Maehr: Please be advised that we are in receipt of your response regarding the IRS summons received for your records. The Interal Revenue Service has stated that there is no basis for your Objection and has challenged us to produce records. Based upon the foregoing, Wells Fargo will not produce any records and allow you to file a Motion to Quash with the Court until Friday June 5, 2015. However, you must deliver a Court stamped copy of the Motion to Quash via facsimile to 1-877-399-7261. Further, you must contact us at 480-724-200 id nofify us that you have faxed in the Court stamped copy of your Motion to Quash. Upon completion of both of these items, we will notify the Internal Revenue Service that we will await further Order from the Court prior to producing any records. If you fail to comply with the above or do not prevail on your Motion to Quash. we will be forced to comply with the IRS Summons issued. Respectfully, Subpoena and Summons Department Legal Order Processing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. TD/abmExh: at <_ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-me-00127-JLK-MEH JEFFREY T. MAEHR, Petitioner, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, GINGER L. WRAY, and, WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Respondents MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 29, 2015. Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Court Filed Document Access [filed June 22. 2015; docket #7}. Petitioner asserts in the motion that he has provided Respondents faxed copies ‘of the Motion to Quash (minus the exhibits) and all Court documents received by him to date. To ‘the extent this is true and unless Respondents request otherwise, the Court finds this delivery sufficient as Respondents are likely able to access all of the documents electronically through the Court's case management system. Accordingly, the motion is denied.SO Shipment -- Label Ex by BF DP Page 1 of2 From, 490)7242000 org cHOH ve. [Sg ams tnoAUaNG i Fedibx. |sctyeasis WeLsenRcor0s me | Cao torr eomscrsn Hotsence ao ae Sueno GrOROLER Zee ‘SAP TO (im DIOP JEFFREY T MAEHR 924 E STOLLSTEIMER RD PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO 81147 XXXHHA Pow soeze.an0 De® 480 TUE - 02 JUN 4:30P IT Teas 7807 4947 2014 PRIORITY OVERNIGH’ (or 81147 | VM |https://fabst-win.wellsfargo.com/eso/track_label.aspx. 1/2015CMIECF - U.S. District Court:cod Page 1 of 2 Other Orders/Judgments Ext BAe E 1:15-mc-00127-JLK-MEH Maehr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue et al CASE CLOSED on 07/24/2015 ALLMTN, TERMED US. District Court District of Colorado Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8/17/2015 at 1:47 PM MDT and filed on 8/17/2015 Case Name: Maehr y. Commissioner of Internal Revenue et al Case Number: 1:15-me-00127-JLK-MEH Filer: ‘WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 07/24/2015 Document Number: 16 Docket Text: ORDER This case was terminated July 24, 2015. This court is without jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to refuse to file any further pleadings, requests, petitions, or other correspondence in this case. The civil action is dismissed with prejudice and held for naught. Entered by Judge John L. Kane on 8/17/2015. (evana, ) 1:15-me-00127-JLK-MEH Notice has been electronically mailed to: E. Carmen Ramirez _E.Carmen.Ramirez@usdoj.gov, Western. Taxcivil@usdoj.gov 1:15-me-00127-JLK-MEH Notice has been mailed by the filer to: Jeffrey T. Maehr 924 East Stollsteimer Road https://ecf.cod.cire10.den/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?114443580692551 8/17/2015CMI/ECF - U.S, District Court:cod Page 2 of 2 Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1071006659 [Date=8/17/2015] [FileNumber=5138577-0 ] [143025959ce43c34f5442 1£389¢34c546639680fe9b73d62977355cfb{0e79al 3a0 b40ad4459ec3 1 1032823a0b6a6a2¢7 fed6abb2838a2efef9766785d09800b]] https://ecf.cod.circ 1 0.den/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?114443580692551 8/17/2015USPS.com® - USPS Tracking™ ‘ove2rz0000466705008 Monday, May 42015 Postal Prot Festures: Fret Gee Ma? orto tst™ |ttps:/tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qte_tL-abels1=701421 canon more sya, rsa rot) pia yauae ‘Your om wavered at 1-5 amon May 4, 2015 n PHOENK, AZ 008 May 3,205, 1:50. ay 32015, 1147 a May 32015, 826 Moy 1,205 82am ‘pnts, 2015, 517 am ‘ot 90,2015, 1207 am ‘psi 20,2016, 4:03 feet 22018, 428 pe ‘rating (or receipt number Lotz rata fo Pea ese ate Departed USPS Fay ‘amd USPS Onin rosy Denard USPS Fatty ‘red USPS OF roc PEN AZ e508 PHOENX. Az 85008 PHENO AZ 8003 PHENO, Az 85043 DENVER, Co 20288 Pagosa Sprines, cose eg ave qustons? Ware hare fe lp ‘Sign wp for My USPS.com. “ae or peau te bod Notsazgramen momsany ‘Search or Enter a Tacing Number 51572015 1:30 PM