UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF

APPEALS
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT
Washington, D.C.

CASE #: 11-5083

1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT
Washington, D.C.
David Lee; Buess
Private Attorney General
l22014 Delaware Township Road 184
Arlington, Ohio [45814]

Rodney Dale; Class CASE #: 11-5083

Private Attorney General
P.O. BOX 435
High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]

Petitioners

Vs.

UNITED STATES dba Corporation

JOHN SCHMANN
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044

Franchise Corporation
STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation
LAW FIRM RICHARD CORDRAY
AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286)
30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

Employee of Corporation
REGINALD J. ROUTSON
300 South Main Street
Findlay, Ohio 4584

Franchise Corporation
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA dba Corporation
LAW FIRM ROY COOPER

2
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Employee of Corporation
GASTON COUNTY dba
Corporation TAX DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 1578 Gastonia, NC 28053-1578

Defendants

PETITIONER'S BRIEF
ON DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS

LEFT BLANK

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES

1. HEADER OF THE COURTS AND PARTIES TO THE CASE 1-3

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

3. QUOTES ON CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED STATUTES,

CODES, AND PUBLIC LAWS 5 -15

4. NATURE OF THE CASE 16

5. GROUNDS FOR THE PETITIONERS TO FILE FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 17 -20

6. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS 20 - 24

7. Conclusion 24 -28

8. CURE 28 -31

9. Proof of Service 32 -33

LEFT BLANK

4
QUOTES ON CONGRESSIONALY ENACTED STATUTES, CODES,
AND PUBLIC LAWS

Any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall

be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Sec. 2, Section

1343 of title 28 UNITED STATES CODES is amended

1. First issue: to begin with is clarification of Congressional language 28

USC Judiciary & Judicial Procedure manual, (especially) section 1652

28 U.S.C. § 1652 : US Code - Section 1652: State laws as rules of

decision

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

treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise
require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil
actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

2. Second issue: Congressional Enactment of Title 28 USC, Chapter 176

Federal Debt Collection Procedure as to how such are to be collected:

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER B >

§ 3102

§ 3102. Attachment

(d) Levy of Attachment.—

(1) The United States marshal receiving the writ shall proceed without
delay to levy upon the property specified for attachment if found
within the district. The marshal may not sell property unless ordered
by the court.

5
(2) In performing the levy, the United States marshal may enter any
property owned, occupied, or controlled by the debtor, except that the
marshal may not enter a residence or other building unless the writ
expressly authorizes the marshal to do so or upon specific order of the
court.
(3) Levy on real property is made by entering the property and posting
the writ and notice of levy in a conspicuous place upon the property.
(4) Levy on personal property is made by taking possession of it.
Levy on personal property not easily taken into possession or which
cannot be taken into possession without great inconvenience or
expense may be made by affixing a copy of the writ and notice of levy
on it or in a conspicuous place in the vicinity of it describing in the
notice of levy the property by quantity and with sufficient detail to
identify the property levied on.
(5) The United States marshal shall file a copy of the notice of levy in
the same manner as provided for judgments in section 3201 (a)(1).
The United States marshal shall serve a copy of the writ and notice of
levy on—
(A) the debtor against whom the writ is issued; and
(B) the person who has possession of the property subject to the writ;
in the same manner that a summons is served in a civil action and
make the return thereof.
(e) Return of Writ; Duties of Marshal; Further Return.—
(1) A United States marshal executing a writ of attachment shall
return the writ with the marshal’s action endorsed thereon or attached
thereto and signed by the marshal, to the court from which it was
issued, within 5 days after the date of the levy.

6
 (2) The return shall describe the property attached with sufficient
certainty to identify it and shall state the location where it was
attached, the date and time it was attached, and the disposition made
of the property. If no property was attached, the return shall so state.
(3) If the property levied on is claimed, replevied under subsection (j)
(2), or sold under section 3007 after the return, the United States
marshal shall immediately make a further return to the clerk of the
court showing the disposition of the property.
(4) If personal property is replevied, the United States marshal shall
deliver the replevin bond to the clerk of the court to be filed in the
action.

CHAPTER 176—FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER B > §
3104

§ 3104. Garnishment
(a) In General.— If the requirements of section 3101 are satisfied, a
court may issue a writ of garnishment against property (excluding
earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest and
which is in the possession, custody, or control of a person other than
the debtor in order to satisfy a claim for a debt. Co-owned property
shall be subject to garnishment to the same extent as co-owned
property is subject to garnishment under the law of the State in which
such property is located. A court may issue simultaneous separate
writs of garnishment to several garnishees. A writ of garnishment
issued under this subsection shall be continuing and shall terminate
only as provided in section 3205 (c)(10).

7
3. Third issue: Congressional Enactment is in the United States Code Title
26 section 7343

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > § 7343

§ 7343. Definition of term “person”

The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or

employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform
the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

4. The Fourth issue: Congressional Enactment applies to on whom the IRS

can place a levy on and who has to give authorization

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 64 > Subchapter D > PART II >

§ 6331

§ 6331. Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same
within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the
Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be
sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property
and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under
section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien
provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be
made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or
elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any

8
 agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of
Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in
section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the
Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in
jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may
be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax,
collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day
period provided in this section.

5. The Fifth issue: Congressional enactment of the Tax Court

TITLE 26 App. > TITLE II. > Rule 10. Name, Office, and Sessions

(a) Name: The name of the Court is the United States Tax Court.

(Note: The District of Columbia Tax Court was consolidated into a

single court known as the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.)

Congress established the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as

the trial court of general jurisdiction for the District of Columbia in
1970. Definition (General jurisdiction" as used in reference to subject
matter jurisdiction.) Public Law 96-170 Dec 29 1979. “AN ACT” To
permit civil suit under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42
USC 1983) against any person acting under color of any law or
custom of the District of Columbia who subject any person within the
jurisdiction of the District of Columbia to the deprivation rights,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and Laws
including 24 Am Jur 2d, District of Columbia ß 21 ß 21 Superior
Court of the District of Columbia and divisions thereof The District of
Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile Court of the

9
 District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court were
consolidated in a single court known as the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. (Title 28,). (2) by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence; “for the purposes of this section, Any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Sec.2, Section
1343 of Title 28 UNITED STATES CODES is amended.”

6. Public Law 10 ch. 48, 48 Stat. 112 (HJR 192) 1933 of March 9. It is
an established fact that the United States Federal Government confiscated
all the gold and silver thereby denying the ability to pay any debts which
includes taxes.

7. Public Law 1, 48 Stat C 1 (HR 1491) United States Federal Government

has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act.

Public Law 73-1. To provide relief in the existing national emergency in

banking, and for other purposes by the 73rd Congress of the United

States

SECTION 1.

The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations

heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the
President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since
March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b)

1
 of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby
approved and confirmed.

8. Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411

SEC. 2.

Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L.

411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

“(b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency
declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that
he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit,
under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers
of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by
the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or
silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United
States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the
President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred
to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information
relative thereto, including the production of any books of account,
contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the
custody or control of such person, either before or after such
transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the
provisions of this subdivision or of any license, order, rule or
regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more
than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more
than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any

1
 corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be
punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both. As used in this
subdivision the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership,
association, or corporation.”

9. Public Law, 404, 60 stat 237, S.7. An Act to improve the administration
of justice by prescribing fair administrative procedure.

The Act of June 11, 1946, c. 324 (designated as Public Law 404) (60 Stat.
237-244), the Administrative Procedure Act, establishes the procedure for
obtaining public information and the exceptions to obtaining that
information. The Act sets forth procedures for agency rulemaking,
adjudications following the opportunity for agency hearings, agency
hearings, and agency decisions. The Act sets forth limits on sanctions and
powers and provides for judicial review. The Act provides for examiners
for agency hearings and decisions

10. United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 12. To raise and
support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a
longer Term than two Years;

Note:

(The APA applies to both the federal executive departments and the
independent agencies. U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA "a bill of
rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are
controlled or regulated" by federal government agencies)

11. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 15 > § 333

1
 § 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any
other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress,
in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or
conspiracy, if it—

(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States
within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right,
privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by
law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to
protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or

impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have
denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

12. FLAG Martial Law; "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3;

Executive Order 10834,

August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the
regular flag of the united States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE
border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this
deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief.

13. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 95b

§ 95b. Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the Treasury

under section 95a
The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore
or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the
United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant
to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title, are approved and
confirmed.

1
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 95a

§ 95a. Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver;

property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties
(1)During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he
may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by
means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—

(A)investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange,

transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking
institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of
gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and

(B)investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit,

any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal,
transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any
right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any
property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,

by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or
national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the
President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time
by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may
prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered,
liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit
of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any
and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes;
and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any
person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of
reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction
referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion
thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any
property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had
any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of
this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the

1
President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production,
or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books
of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the
custody or control of such person.

(2)Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property

or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as
otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation,
instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full
acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person
making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in
respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the
administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any
rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

(3)As used in this subdivision the term “United States” means the United
States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; Provided, however,
That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of
the President, which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time,
definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or
all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision the term
“person” means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.

(4)The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the
authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from
any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or
otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any
information or informational materials, including but not limited to,
publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms,
microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do
not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section
2404 of title 50, Appendix, or under section 2405 of title 50, Appendix to
the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism
policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by
chapter 37 of title 18.

1
 NATURE OF THE CASE

NOW, COMES, The Petitioners, David-Lee; Buess and Rodney

-Dale; Class, with this Judicial Review as the real parties in interest in this

case against the Defendants in their administrative standing to the petitioners

with this PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS.

The issue that was placed before the proper Tax Court (Superior Court

of the District Of Columbia) conformed to Congressional Enactment. The

issue before the Court was Not if taxes were legal or illegal, But the means

by which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Defendants were

allowed the collection of these taxes. The means by which these taxes were

collected was FRAUDULENT and Not whether or not TAXES were illegal

or illegal. The Petitioner's issue was never addressed, it was avoided and

side stepped by the Defendants making claim that they can not be held

accountable. 12 b 1, 12 b 2, 12 b 6, etc., etc., etc., etc., and etc...

The Petitioners placed this issue before an Administrative Tax Court

in compliance with 60 stat 237, S.7, The Administrative Procedure Act of

1946 and in compliance with IRS 26 USC, App. Rule 10, in order to address

1
the administrative and procedural violations by the Defendants.

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITIONERS TO FILE FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

1. David-Lee; Buess, after being a victim of the IRS, set a claim in his local

court against the Internal Revenue Service in front of Judge REGINALD J.

ROUTSON for fraud and their failure to follow procedure and rulings of the

United States Supreme Court; and procedures for garnishment and levy on a

bank account and his Social Security check.

2. David-Lee; Buess addressed the Bankruptcy laws.

3. David-Lee; Buess addressed the IRS Title 26 Codes.

4. David-Lee; Buess addressed Supreme Court decisions; Lower Court

Decisions as well Constitutional grounds, and filed a Notice of Felony and

Affidavits which went unanswered.

5. David-Lee; Buess followed the law and addressed these issues before

Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON who acted as an Administrative Law

Judge.

6. David-Lee; Buess filed Defaults on the IRS for their failure to appear.

7. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON ruled in favor of the IRS even when

they failed to appear or file in any documents into the case.

8. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON covered up the fraud of the IRS

1
knowing the Public Laws on the Bankruptcy, The State of Emergency and

the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1933; he also Ignored Some 60 Rulings

of the UNITED STATES Supreme Court and made Motions from the Bench.

9. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON had full knowledge that the Federal

Reserve Notes are not backed by gold or silver but by the credit of the

People.

10. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON had full knowledge and understanding

of the IRS Codes under section 6331 & 7343 as well Title 28, section 1652

and the Federal debt collection procedure chapter 176, and section 3102 and

3104 as to how the IRS was to be properly collected. (IF THERE WAS

REAL MONEY.)

11. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON had full knowledge and understanding

of the United States Codes and the Public Laws created by Congress in

Congressional enactments. Judge REGINALD J. ROUTSON action did not

come in compliance with the United States Codes or Regulation or with

Public Law 1 48 stat 1, Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411, Public Law 10

ch.48,48 stat 112, Title 12 95 b, Statute at Large Vol. 48 pages 1-112 and

fling a Military Flag signifying administrative proclamations.

12. David-Lee; Buess contacted the Attorney General's office in Ohio and

reported the misconduct and abuse, and that his bank account was being

1
accessed and levied illegally. He reported this crime to the Highest Ranking

Law enforcement in the State and they failed to protect and serve Mr. Buess

and breached their fiduciary trustee duty to the public. This was outlined in

an Affidavit: “Destroyed By OAG Office.”

13. Rodney-Dale; Class was also a victim of the Gaston County Tax

Department of illegal and fraudulent tax collection, and their failure to

follow procedures for garnishment and levy on a bank account.

14.Rodney-Dale; Class had previously given notice in what the federal

statute and state statues explains on garnishment and levy only to have the

Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department disregard the Statutes.

15.The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, being a lawyer and having

been schooled in the law of Taxes, was aware of the Procedures to collect.

16. The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, being aware of the Federal

debt collection procedure, violated Title 28 USC of that section.

17. The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, being aware of Title 26

USC section 6331 and 7343, had full knowledge that Rodney-Dale; Class

did Not come under those definitions.

18.The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, having knowledge, as a

lawyer, of the 1933 Public Laws dealing with the Bankruptcy, State of

Emergency and the Trading with the Enemy Act, knew he was required to

1
discharge the debt through the Comptroller of the Currency.

19. The Attorney for the Gaston Tax Department, knowing his actions

required a Court order, failed to get a lawful court order before he removed

the funds from Rodney-Dale; Class' wife's bank accounts and charged an

additional 100 dollars for attorney's fees. He did this Not once, but but three

times.

20. The Lawyer for the Gaston Tax department had full knowledge and

understanding of the United States Codes and the Public Laws created by

Congress in Congressional enactments. The Lawyer for the Gaston Tax

department action did not come in compliance with the United States Codes

or Regulation or with Public Law 1 48 stat 1, Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411,

Public Law 10 ch.48,48 stat 112, Title 12 95 b, Statute at Large Vol. 48

pages 1-112 and fling a Military Flag signifying administrative

proclamations.

PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS

1. The Petitioners filed their Civil Suit into the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia at Moultrie Courthouse, 500 Indiana Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20001 on a Tax Fraud violation. (Note: the District of Columbia Tax

2
Court was consolidated into a single court known as the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia as mentioned in a previous note.)

2. The IRS Attorney, Christopher Wright Sanders, removed, without

authority, the original case from the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA under the pretense of jurisdiction TITLE 28 >

PART IV > CHAPTER 89 > § 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or

prosecuted.

3. The IRS Attorney, Christopher Wright Sanders, then filed for dismissal on

the grounds that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the

case after he had clearly attempted to invoke its jurisdiction and have the

case heard in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. This makes no sense, as I'm sure the court will

agree.

4. The Petitioners, in order to save time and duplication for the court, will

not outline all the various Co-Defendants actions in following Christopher

Wright Sanders' incorrect and unlawful moving of the original case to the

procedurally wrong court, and blindly following Mr. Sanders' lead. The Co-

Defendants acquiesced to the removal of the case from the, clearly,

2
authorized, Tax Court and all gave jurisdiction to the UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and then, again,

acquiesced to Mr. Sanders' motion asking for dismissal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. I bring your attention to the fact that this is misuse of

public funds, and violates 31 USC, section 3729, False claims, which

constitutes these actions as being Fraud.

5. The Petitioners formally objected to this case removal action on the

grounds that the Defendants removed the original complaint from a proper

Administrative Tax Court in compliance with Title 26 USC, App. Rule 10,

and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 60 stat 237, S7, to have this

case heard before a proper Tax Court as defined by Congressional

Enactment.

6. The Defendants have failed to prove that the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia was Not a proper Tax Court before removing the Petitioners

complaint from that Congressionally mandated Tax Court.

Public Law 96-170 Dec 29, 1979. “AN ACT” To permit civil suit
under section 1979 of the Revise Statutes(42 USC 1983) against any
person acting under color of any law or custom of the District of
Columbia who subject any person within the jurisdiction of the
District of Columbia to the deprivation rights, privilege, or immunity

2
secured by the Constitution and Laws including 24 Am Jur 2d, District of
Columbia ß 21 ß 21 Superior Court of the District of Columbia and divisions
thereof The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile
Court of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court
were consolidated in a single court known as the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.

7. The issues in this CASE #: 1:09-cv-02151-HHK are procedural

violations; one by Judge KENNEDY for failure to remand it back to the Tax

Court from which the Defendants removed it, and two, because the

Defendants removed it from a Tax Court without any proof that the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia was not a Tax Court as Congress has

mandated.

8. Did the Defendants not violate Congressional mandates and procedures

and the Petitioners' Due Process by removing the Petitioners complaint from

a Congressionally Enacted Tax Court as defined in Public Law 96-170, Dec

29, 1979, in compliance with IRS Rule 10 of a hearing before a Tax Court?

9. Did the Defendants not violate the Canon Rule of Ethics and the Rule of

Ethics when the Defendants removed and did give jurisdiction to the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA to hear this case pursuant to 28 USC 1442, and then asked

2
them to have the case dismissed on their behalf for lack of subject matter

pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. Rule 12 b 1, 12 b 2 after removing the case from a

Tax Court and giving the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA jurisdiction to hear the case?

CONCLUSION

Congressional mandates have created Procedures for Administration,

Departments, Agencies and Independent entities to follow within Public

Laws, Title 28 Judiciary and judicial procedure, especially section 1652, an

Act of Congress, which covers "ALL" Enactments of Congress which

includes, but is not limited to; The Federal debt collection procedures in

Title 28 USC, the IRS CODE statutes found in Title 26 USC, and 26 and 27

of the CFR's.

Again, the Petitioners have "NOT CLAIMED TAXES ARE

ILLEGAL" but that the means by which they are collected are illegal. This

was and is the complaint into the Tax Court.

1. Did Congress create a Tax Court to address these issues or not?

2. Did Congress not create the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 60 stat

237, S7 and Title 5 to address these complaints before an Administrative

body?

2
3. Were not the Petitioners denied their administrative remedy in law when

the Defendants removed this action out of a Tax Court?

4. Did the Defendants place into the record that the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia was not the proper Tax Court

or

Did the Defendants just claim 12 b 1, 12 b 2 without addressing the issue at

hand?

5. Where, in any of their filings, did the Defendants address the main “issue”

of the complaint?

6. Where, in the filings, did the Defendants address that the UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA was

the proper jurisdiction to hear any tax issue?

7. The Defendants violated the Rules of Ethics and Procedures by removing

a case from a proper venue and jurisdictional Court, by filing a Motion to

give another Court Subject matter jurisdiction by filing such a Motion, and

then turn around and file another Motion into that same Court and Move the

Court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the

2
case after the Defendants had clearly, and non-procedurally, attempted to

give subject matter to that Court to start with?

The Petitioners in their, latest filing into their case in the UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA have

addressed the United States Bankruptcy issue, and listed Congressional

Report Records from 1916 up to 1993 on the Hearing that the Federal

Reserves Note has no gold value. What does this mean? It means that even

Public Officials, and the People, are unable to pay any Taxes because the

FRN has no value it is based on credit. How do you pay taxes on credit

when the FRN has ZERO VALUE WORTH? This Government is in

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. This Country is, and has been, under a State of

Emergency since 1933, and up until to this date in 2011, without any means

of paying its debts. This violates United States Constitution, Article 1,

section 8, clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of

Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

These are Enactments of Congress by Public Law, not mere

“Resolutions.” For example, PUBLIC LAW 10 CH 48 , 48 STAT 112,

PUBLIC LAW 1 48 STAT 1 and PUBLIC LAW 73-10, 40 STAT 411. The

IRS and the Defendants knew this and were required to discharge the debt

under the Bankruptcy Clause that Congress provided in these Public Laws.

2
 Taxes are not Illegal, just the means in which they have collected

them. These actions violate Congressional mandates and Procedures.

8. The Defendants and their Attorneys and ALL COURTS had full

knowledge and understanding of the United States Codes and the Public

Laws created by Congress in Congressional enactments. The Defendants and

their Attorneys and ALL COURTS action NOW has to come in compliance

with the United States Codes and Regulation or with Public Law 1 48 stat 1,

Public Law 73-10 40 stat 411, Public Law 10 ch.48,48 stat 112, Title 12 95

b, Statute at Large Vol. 48 pages 1-112 when fling a Military Flag signifying

administrative proclamations of the Bankruptcy clause.

The Defendants and their Attorneys and the Courts have always

played on the ignorant of the people like the Petitioners, knowing that a

deception, fraud, sham can easily be use to con the public/ people. The

Petitioners have acted in good faith and have disclosed the facts in

Congressional Enactment not only of the United States Codes and the Code

of Federal Regulation but also of the Congressional Enactment of the 1933

Bankruptcy Act and the Public Law that shows their is no income but just

credit /debt. The Defendants and their Attorneys having full Superior

knowledge of these issue are in violation of their fiduciary duties as Trustee.

2
 CURE

The Administrative Procedure Act (1946), Title 5 USC, section 551

(10) “sanction” includes the whole or a part of an agency, and the Attorney

General Manual under Rule Making Decisions gives remedy in law.

III SECTION 4--RULE MAKING

In general, the purpose of section 4 is to guarantee to the public an op-

portunity to participate in the rule making process. With stated excep-
tions, each agency will be required under this section to give public
notice of substantive rules which it proposes to adopt, and to grant in-
terested persons an opportunity to present their views to it. Where
rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity
for an agency hearing, the provisions of sections 7 and 8 as to hearing
and decision will apply in place of the less formal procedures contem
plated by section 4 (b). With certain exceptions, no substantive rule
may be made effective until at least thirty days after its publication in
the Federal Register. Section 4 also grants to interested persons the
right to petition an agency for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a
rule.

The Petitioners are NOW required, under the Ruling Making

Procedure, to place their input into this policy problem of these agencies as

this has become a case of National interest. The Petitioner's IRS case is not a

private issue, but has been made a Public issue because of “how” the

2
collection is being conducted in relation to the People of the nation. Taxes

are legal when the Congressional Public Laws and Congressional

Enactments are followed.

As the policy of the Defendants are in conflict with Congressional

Enactments and Public Law they now must come into compliance with the

Acts of Congress. (See Title 28 USC section 1652)

It is a fact that no sitting Judge has ever received any wages based on

gold or silver, as required by the Constitution, for their time and duties of

that position. Likewise the People have not been paid in compliance with the

Constitution's mandated definition of money, as the Federal Reserve Bank's

Federal Reserve Notes are a “compelled” currency. The Federal Reserve

issues a private currency with their name on the NOTE, and it is not a

UNITED STATES TREASURY NOTE. It is a Congressional Fact that the

Congress and the UNITED STATES are the Trustee of the public debt and

those who hold public office hold Trusteeship to that debt and is their job to

discharge it. Whether or not the Petitioners made the issue or did not make

the issue, that is not the issue. The Defendants can not play on the ignorant

of the public/ people, fraud is fraud breach of the Trust created by the

Bankruptcy is still a breach of trust whether the people understood it or not.

2
You have the duty as the Trustee to be honorable and operate in good faith.

The Petitioners have been damaged financially and mentally, in their

time in dealing with these issues that should have been discharged by the
Defendants in their fiduciary duty per 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and
Employees, §247
63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are
held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the
government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the
officer. Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public
officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government,
and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,
and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed
by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain
from a discharge of their trusts. That is, a public officer occupies a
fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she
serves, and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has been said that
the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than
those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any
enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken
public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual
rights is against public policy.”

McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

“Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit -- and this is

one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute, see

3
United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) -- includes the
deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary
obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in
the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he
deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud.
When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not
telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing
material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations.”

The Petitioners' have suffered financial damage, mental stress, time in

research, filing of paperwork in court, court costs, filing fees, expenses of
paper, ink, computers, electric, gas, wear and tear on personal property, as
well as spousal and household issues over this case. The damages,
minimally sought, total to $600 Million.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF

COURT

___________________________

David Lee; Buess

Private Attorney General
22014 Delaware Township Road
184Arlington, Ohio [45814]
419 694 5796

__________________________
Rodney Dale; Class
Private Attorney General
P. O. Box 435
High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]
704 742 3123

3
 PROOF OF SERVICE

I, David Lee; Buess, and I, Rodney Dale; Class, come with this
PETITIONERS' BRIEF ON THE DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS, this filing being placed before the Clerk of
Court of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT on this day of _____________ and
month of_____________ in the year of our Lord 2011 AD. Service will be
delivered by U.S.P.S. certified mail.

___________________________

David Lee; Buess

Private Attorney General
22014 Delaware Township Road
184Arlington, Ohio [45814]
419 694 5796

_____________________________

Rodney Dale; Class

Private Attorney General
P. O. Box 435
High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]
704 742 3123

CC
JOHN SCHMANN
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044

Franchise Corporation
STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation

3
AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286)
30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

Employee of Corporation
ECCLESTON AND WOLG, P.P.
BALITMORE-WASHINTON LAW CENTER
1629 K STREET,N.W., SUITE 260
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

GRADY L. BALENTINE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPT OF JUSTICE
9001 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699

GEORGE ARTHUR MC ANDREWS

ALEXANDRIA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
301 KING STREET, SUITE 1300
ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314