No.

_______

In The
Supreme Court of the United
States
----------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents
v.
DUANE L. KUYPER individually and as Trustee
of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING TRUST;
MARY L KUYPER individually and as
Trustee of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING
TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED,
Petitioners
----------
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA AND UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE 8
TH
CIRCUIT
----------
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
----------
Duane Kuyper Raymond Ehrman
Mary Kuyper P O Box 70
PO Box 246 Freeman, SD 57029
Stickney, SD 57375 rrehrman@goldenwest.net
mardua@midstatesd.net (605) 925-7107
(605) 770-5742

i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Questions are Constitutional:
1) With and by what constitutional authority or
law does the United States of America (or any
of its other names, agencies, or altern egoists)
claim right to violate the law legislated by
Congress and exceed the Territorial
Application of that written tax law, by using
United States District Court process in
claiming taxes that are unidentified and non-
imposed, claiming to be owed, assessed, and
collectible, in the 50 States and outside and
beyond the written law, Title 26, and when
all tax claims are limited to action in the
district court of the United States?
ANSWER: THERE IS NONE!!!
2) With and by what authority or law does the
United States of America (or any of its other
names and, agencies, or altern egoists) abort,
avoid and evade the meaning and Territorial
Application of ten+ (10+) different definitions
of the Terms “United States” and “State”,
legislated by the Congress of the United
States in Title 18, 26, and 28, as proposed to
and confirmed by this Court in No 13-344 by
this Court denying to issue Writ to the
Circuit Court for the District of Columbia,
and now prevent the right to contract and act
and speak for a non living contractual entity
in the courts? ANSWER: THERE IS NONE!!!


ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING BELOW
The parties are considered as follows:
1) United States of America [Including United
States (all 10 of them), C/o Department of
Justice, Room B-103, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001;
Including Department of the Treasury and
Internal Revenue Service (with all its Altern
Egoists), separately, 1500 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220;
Including United States District Court for
South Dakota, 400 S. Phillips Avenue, Federal
Courthouse, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104;
serving the Solicitor General and the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia, C/o
Department of Justice, Room B-103, 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20530-0001].

2) Named Defendants: the Petitioners: DUANE L.
KUYPER individually and as Trustee of KUYPER
FAMILY LIVING TRUST; MARY L KUYPER
individually and as Trustee of KUYPER FAMILY
LIVING TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED.




iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opinions below ........................................................ 3
Jurisdiction .............................................................. 4
Constitutional and statutory provisions involved . 4
Statement of the Case .................................…….......5
Reasons for granting the petition .....................…... 7
A) Alter Meaning of the Definitions for the
Terms “United States” and “States” As
Found in Titles 18, 26, and 28 .........,,,,,…..... 7
Direct and Concise Argument…………………….…14
Conclusion .......................................................….... 17
Certificate of Word Count……………………….……17
Appendix A — CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ,,,….…. 20
Appendix B – MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
JUDGMENT, and ORDER FOR SALE………….…32
Appendix C — COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT,
DENIAL OF REHEARING, MANDATE .............. 44
Appendix D – Notation from Duane and Mary..… 46
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND SERVICE












iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Constitution
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 …. 3, 4, 5, 6, 21
Clause 17… 3, 5, 6, 17, 21
Article III, Sections 1 and 2 ……….………. 22
Amendment I ………………………………...……… 21
Amendment X …………………………….…………. 21
Statutes, Title 18
§5 ……………………………….… 5, 15, 16, 23
§1603(a) ……………………………..……….. 23
§1961 ………………………………..….…….. 15
§3156 ……………………………….….…. 15, 23
§4001(a) …………………………….……...… 23
Title 26
SUBTILE A, Section 1……….... 3, 6, 7, 14, 24
Section 11……….……3, 6, 14, 24
§1-59B …………………………….…………….. 6
§61-65 ……………………………………….… 24
§83 ………………………………………….. 6, 25
§168(g)(6)(B) ………………………………. 5, 12
§217(h)(3) ………………………………….. 5, 12
§638………………………………… …………..12
§927………………………………… …….. 12, 13
§993(g)(1)(2) ………………………. …. 5, 9, 25
§3121 (e) ………………………… ... 5, 9, 11, 26
§3306(j)(1)(2) ……………………….. 5, 9, 11, 26
§4612(4) ……………………… ……5, 10, 11, 26
§4662(2) ……………………………..…. 4, 10, 27
§7201 ………………………………..…… .. 6, 16
§7202 ……………………………….………. 6, 16
§7701(9)(10) …… …. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 27
28 U.S.C. §1254………………… ………….….……….4
§1291 ………………………………… ………….……. 27
v

§1292 ………………………………… … …….…. 27, 28
§1295(a) ………………………………… …….…. 27, 28
§1331 ……………………………………… …………. 29
§1332 ……………………………………… …………. 29
§1340 …………………………………… … ……..….. 29
§1345 …………………………………… … ……….... 29
§1346 …………………………………… …… ………..29
§3002(15)……………………………………… …….…27
Title 40
§255 ……………………………………………… …... 29
§3111 …………………………………………… ……. 29
§3112 ……………………………………… …….. 29, 30
SDCL, Title 1, Chapter 1 ……………………..…….16
Cases:
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters
Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000) ……………………17
Fair Tax Act of 2011 ……………………………. 19, 31
Interpretation Maxim principles ………………….. 31
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. …………… 8, 31
“50 States” and “50 states” ……………….… 3, 14, 31
Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas ……………………16
Rule 1(b)(9) of Criminal Procedure ……………….. 30
Rule 7 of Civil Procedure …………… ………………. 6
Rule 12(h)(3) ………………………………………….. 30
Rule 81(d)(2) ………………………………………….. 30








In The
Supreme Court of the United
States
No. ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents
v.
DUANE L. KUYPER individually and as Trustee
of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING TRUST;
MARY L KUYPER individually and as
Trustee of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING
TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED,
Petitioners
----------
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA AND UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE 8
TH
CIRCUIT
----------

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Duane L. Kuyper, Mary Kuyper, and
Raymond Ehrman (all in office) hereby petition for
writ of certiorari to the United States District Court
for South Dakota and to the United States Court of
Appeals for the 8
th
Circuit, (meaning, for the
Supreme Court to call up the record
(1)
2

therefrom) to review the JUDGMENTS, ORDERS,
and MEMORANDUMS that made claims and
judgments in violation of law, as claimed in the
Petition, based on this Court’s own confirmation
and validation of existing and defined law: the
definition meanings of the terms “United States”
and “State” in Title 18, 26, and 28. The Judgments,
Orders, and Memorandums are appearing on the
record in contempt of law and appearing as violation
of basic human rights that was to have remedy in
law before this Court (see final plead to mercy from
unlawful prosecution and for justice from Kuypers).

The facts and the law (its meaning and
application) are stated as the record and the final
declared Judgment, unless upon full examination
this Supreme Court, by its clerks, finds
misstatements of facts or law and upon the United
States of America, by its Solicitor General,
providing a Brief in Opposition that fully identifies
any misstatements of facts and law found in the
Petition.

Any denial and refusal to issue that Writ
constitutes an acceptance and confirmation of all
the facts and the law (its meaning and
application) that are stated in the Petition, done
by negation and confirmation of law when petition
is denied.




3

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDERS BELOW

The United States District Court for South
Dakota recently enters MEMORANDUM and
ORDER, JUDGMENT, and ORDER OF SALE
(Appendix B), under fraud (failing to identify the
specific tax that is constitutionally authorized under
clause 1 or 17, lawfully calculated under rule, and
then lawfully assessed; instead, unequally treating
the Petitioners by failing to issue default like it was
simulating against all Petitioners, and then
simulating judicial process by authorizing criminal
elements to violate and assume to property, as a
racket). No tax was factually identified, determined,
fully verified, declared and applied to the 50 States,
i.e., Stickney and Freeman, South Dakota; no tax
was lawfully and correctly calculated pursuant to
law and applied to the 50 States; no tax was
lawfully assessed against Petitioners, that was
lawfully imposed, declared lawfully due, against any
of the Petitioners, those in the 50 States. The 8
th

Circuit Court continues to enter denial to hear
appeals (Appendix C) regarding the matters now
stated as facts and matter issues, those appealable
and so declared by this Court and by the lower
courts (all by denial principle), and now stated as a
fact complaint: Petitioners’ Rights and the Law are
being violated by Agents of United States, ignoring,
avoiding, and evading the Territorial Application of
tax law, altering law. Lower Courts are ignoring the
law that applies taxes legislated by Congress under
Clause 17, the SUBTITLE A, Income tax, in D.C.
4

The Petition determines and declares the
actions done in South Dakota, outside / beyond tax
law legislated by Congress, this a Complaint. This
is the claim stated in the Petition, to be confirmed
by denial, unless Writ issues to the contrary stating
any found misstatements of facts or law.

JURISDICTION
The District Court enters MEMORANDUM
before a trial on October 23, 2013, JUDGMENT and
ORDER OF SALE, same day as 8
th
Circuit Court of
Appeals final ORDER, November 4, 2013 and before
Mandate dated November 13, 2013. The jurisdict-
ion of this Court is 28 U.S.C. 1254(1) under the first
Amendment right to redress. No Act of Congress is
drawn into question. Acts of Enforcement and
Territorial Application of tax law, as done by the
Executive and Judicial Branches, as clearly stated
in the definitions of the terms “United States” and
“State” in Title 26, are drawn into question.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution for the
United States of America provides in relevant parts
as follows:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To
lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the
United States;
5
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in
all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession
of particular States, and the Acceptance of
Congress, become the Seat of the Government
of the United States, and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings;
There are at least 10 different definitions of
the Terms “United States” and “State” in Titles
18, 26, 28, that are correctly stated, defined,
Territorially Applied, confirmed by this Court in
Petition Case No. 13-344. They are mainly found
in §5 (in Title 18), §168(g)(6)(B), §217(h)(3),
§993(g), § 3121(e)(1)(2), §3306(j)(1)(2), §4612(4),
§4662(2), and § 7701(9)(10) (all in Title 26),
§3002(15) (in Title 28). Every tax must associate
with one of these definitions in Title 26, for
Territorial Application of that tax, in order to
determine whether a tax is legislated under
Clause 1 or under Clause 17. § 7701(9)(10) does
Territorially Apply the SUBTITLE A, Income
Taxes only to the District of Columbia by
definition of the terms listed above, CONFIRMED.
These and any other relevant statutory provisions
are represented and listed in the appendix A.


6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The United States of America (CIV Case No
11-4170 in the South Dakota United States
District Court for South Dakota) begins action
under Sections 7201 and 7202 “to reduce to
judgment” what it claims in taxes, to collect
“assessments”, and foreclose what is represented
as a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. No particular tax
is ever identified and disclosed, (but assumed to be
one of the “Taxes” in SUBTITLE A, Paragraph 1
and 11). There is no evidence on how the tax was
calculated and by whom, whether lawful process
was followed in the calculation identified in
Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability
(§§ 1—59B), especially noting Section 83). Judge
Richard G. Kopf, from outside the District of
South Dakota, had denied Motions to dismiss,
stricken the Answer and Counterclaim, and
refused to order a reply to the Counterclaim, as
required by Rule 7. All of the responses, motions,
and answer and counterclaim held the same
arguments and claims about the unlawful acts and
acts done outside the Territorial Application of the
Title 26 Section 1 and 11 taxes on taxable income
(legislated under clause 17), clearly stated and
affirmed in Section 7701(9)(10) definitions and
before this Court in Case No. 13-344.
The Decisions on appeal with this Petition,
ready for a Writ, if found with any matter that
this Court wishes to weigh in, come from the 8
th

Circuit Court (Appendix C) and from the United
7
States District Court for South Dakota (Appendix
B). In essence, The United States District Court
continues to simulate judicial process, outside of
the District of Columbia and beyond the stated law
and the 8
th
Circuit is refusing to accept appeal it
claims are “interlocutory” and unacceptable.
To understand the nature and character of
the Petition and Complaint, here are issues
previously raised in Case No. 13-344, facts and the
law of which are already confirmed in the
affirmative before this Court:
ISSUE ONE: Whether the definitions of the terms
“United States” and “State” are legislated by
Congress to Territorially Apply law, i.e., any tax
legislation, with which any definition is
associated? ANSWERED: YES!!!

ISSUE TWO: If Issue One is so true, what are the
meanings and Territorial Applications of each of
those definitions? ANSWERED: THE SPECIFIC
LISTED TERRITORY IN DEFINITION IS THE
MEANING AND TERRITORIAL APPLICATION!!

ISSUE THREE: Whether in fact the prosecutors
in South Dakota are executing and enforcing tax
law outside the lawful limitations of Title 18 and
26, SUBTITLE A? ANSWERED BY CONFIRM-
ATION THROUGH DENIAL OF PETITION:
YES!!!


8
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
A) Alter Meaning of the Definitions for the
Terms “United States” and “States” As
Found in Title 26 and B) Continued
Breach of Law and Acts Outside and
Beyond the Law Confirmed before Court
The United States District Court accepted the
filing of an action to reduce to judgment an
assessment of “income taxes” against Duane Kuyper
and to be attached on land and property owned by
Vision Unlimited, a Contractual Entity, beyond the
Territorial Application of the SUB-TITLE A Taxes
under the 7701(9)(10) definitions of the terms
“United States” and “State”, this a meaning
confirmed by this Court in No. 13-344. The United
States District Court refused to acknowledge the
interpretation and meaning of the definitions, and
refused to provide it’s own rebuttal interpretations
and meanings, that may be in conflict.
The main principles of interpretation of the
meaning of the different definitions is well settled in
law and in this Court: The Territorial Application
of any definition of the terms “United States” and
“State” are determined by the specific inclusions
listed in the definition, excluding the general terms,
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius or Expressio Unius
Est Exclusio Alterius Other principles of
interpretation are listed in Exhibit A, Page 31.

9
Six (6) definitions are now quoted, with the
inclusions and list of the States, highlighted in bold
to identity definitions associated with the tax law:
§ 993. Definitions (Tax on International Sales)
(g) United States defined
For purposes of this part, the term “United
States” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico and the possessions of the United States.
§ 3121. Definitions (Employment FICA Tax)
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and
American Samoa. (list repeated)
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a
geographical sense includes the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, and American Samoa.
§ 3306. Definitions (Unemployment Tax)
(j) State, United States, and American
employer. For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. (list repeated)


10
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a
geographical sense includes the States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
§ 4612. Definitions – (Environment Tax/fuel)
(4) United States (for this Subchapter)
(A) In general
The term “United States” means the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United
States, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands.
(B) United States includes continental shelf
areas.
The principles of section 638 shall apply for
purposes of the term “United States”.
(C) United States includes foreign trade zones
(“States” not defined, there is no need)

§ 4662. Definitions - Environment Tax/chemical
(2) United States
The term “United States” has the meaning
given such term by section 4612 (a)(4)
§ 7701. Definitions (General Title 26 App)
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible
with the intent thereof—
(9) United States The term “United States”
when used in a geographical sense includes

11

only the States and the District of Colum-
bia. (Compare to definition of “State”)
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include
the District of Columbia, where such
construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title. (In essence, same
definitions of “United States” and “State”)
The key definition for Title 26 (in whole) is
7701(9)(10), since that is the Territorial Application
of Title 26 “Generally” (Legislated Under clause
17), allowing for other sections of tax law that have
different definitions and Territorial Application,
such as 4612 and 4662, there referencing the “50
States”. All definitions are not “generally applied”
to Title 26, like 7701(9)(10) is, but the Territorial
Application is described by the use of terms such as
“this part”, “this chapter”, or “this subchapter”.
§ 3121 and § 3306 stand apart with other
inclusions, by simply comparing the specific States
that are listed, “District of Columbia”, “Puerto
Rico”, the “Virgin Islands”, “Guam”, or
“American Samoa”.
“Northern Mariana Islands” and the
“Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands” come
into play only in connection with the tax on
petroleum, Section 4612, and no other definition.


12
There are other definitions of the Term
“United States” and “State” in Title 26. These are
found in §168, §217, §638, and §927 (repealed):
§168 - Accelerated cost recovery system
(g) Alternative depreciation system for
certain property (6) Imported property (B)
Imported property
For purposes of this subsection, the term
“imported property” means any property if—
(i) such property was completed outside the
United States, or
(ii) less than 50 percent of the basis of such
property is attributable to value added within
the United States.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term
“United States” includes the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the
United States.

§217 - Moving expenses, (h) Special rules
for foreign moves, (3) United States
defined: For purposes of this subsection and
subsection (i), the term “United States”
includes the possessions of the United
States. (The General term holds without a
specific list of inclusions of States)

§638 – Continental Shelf Areas. For purposes
of applying the provisions of this chapter
(including sections 861 (a)(3) and 862 (a)(3) in
the case of the performance of personal
services) with respect to mines, oil and gas
wells, and other natural deposits—
13

(1) the term “United States” when used in a
geographical sense includes the seabed
and subsoil of those submarine areas
which are adjacent to the territorial
waters of the United States and over
which the United States has exclusive
rights, in accordance with international law,
with respect to the exploration and
exploitation of natural resources; and
(2) the terms “foreign country” and
“possession of the United States” when used
in a geographical sense include the seabed
and subsoil of those sub-marine areas
which are adjacent to the territorial
waters of the foreign country or such
pos-session and over which the foreign
country (or the United States in case of such
possession) has exclusive rights, in
accordance with international law, with
respect to the exploration and exploitation of
natural resources, but this paragraph shall
apply in the case of a foreign country only if it
exercises, directly or indirectly, taxing
jurisdiction with respect to such exploration
or exploitation.
No foreign country shall, by reason of the
application of this section, be treated as a
country contiguous to the United States.

There was another definition in §927 that is
now showing “repealed”. This definition related to
Sources without the United States, Subpart C,
14
§927, that had stated, “Other definitions and special
rules (3) United States defined The term 'United
States' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.”
The definitions, and their meaning, are
crucial to determine the Territorial Application of
any tax law, and without question, the Territorial
Application of SUBTITLE A, Section 1 and 11
“taxes on taxable income” must be/is applied by
Section 7701(9)(10), only. This means Section 1
and 11 taxes on taxable income are legislated under
Clause 17 and applied only to the District of
Columbia, by definition, any contrary statement
NOT WITH STANDING. This interpretation is
affirmed in No. 13-344, where there were no Briefs
in Opposition and the Law Clerks with this Court
found no misstatements of facts or law, its research.
The United States District Court in South
Dakota is refusing to comply with this law and
limitation, or to determine a different meaning of
the definitions as to Territorial Application of law.
The United States Circuit Court refuses to review
these questions and issues. Both the United States
District Court for South Dakota and the 8th Circuit
Court refuse to assume the issue for adjudication
and instead seek to proceed with simulated process.
The meanings of the definitions of the terms
“United States” and “State” in varying statutes has
been ripe for finality and affirmation before the
Supreme Court, for enforcement to deal with
numerous matters throughout the 50 States.
15
DIRECT AND CONCISE ARGUMENT
The Writ should be granted, if any
misstatements of facts and law are found. The
definitions of the terms “United States” and “State”,
legislated by Congress, are causing breach and
vagueness in the law, resulting wrongful acts
against the People.
The definition of “United States” for Title 18
is stated here:
§5. United States defined
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a
territorial sense, includes all places and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, except the
Canal Zone.
Other Title 18 definitions are found: §1961 / §3156:
§1961: As used in this chapter—(2) “State” means
any State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
any territory or possession of the United States, any
political subdivision, or any department, agency, or
instrumentality thereof;
§3156: (5) the term "State" includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and any
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States.
16
When one examines §5 and scrutinizes the
meaning, one is left with mystery and bewildered.
Title 18 is the criminal code and, if any place law
shall not be “vague”, it shall be in the criminal code.
No criminal prosecution can survive “vagueness.”
The question has to be asked of § 5, where in
South Dakota is “all places and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, except the
Canal Zone”? Section 7201 and 7202 actions have
criminal implications. The United States District
Court for South Dakota has refused to answer the
question, where in ‘South Dakota is that
Jurisdiction of the United States?
In June 1957, the government of the United
States published a work entitled Jurisdiction
Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II,
which report is the definitive study on this issue.
Stated therein is, “The Federal Government cannot,
by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative
jurisdiction over any area with the exterior
boundaries of a State.” Page 46. A complete copy of
this document is available on line, at
www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm.
South Dakota, in its laws, also has declared
where the Legislature has “ceded” jurisdiction to the
United States. That list of areas includes, identified
in its laws, Title 1, Chapter 1, as follows: Indian
lands (totally assumed), Battle Mountain
Sanitarium Reserve in Fall River County, Fish
Lake in Aurora County, Wind Cave National
17
Park, the Badlands National Monument or
park, Mount Rushmore National Memorial,
Jewel Cave National Monument, Federal
Prison Camp (Yankton County), federally acquired
land (as recorded in the County Recorder Offices),
for conservation purposes, maps of which are filed
and recorded in the Office of the Secretary of State.
By the Compact with the United States in the
Constitution, further jurisdiction is ceded by South
Dakota to the United States over military
reservations: Fort Meade, Fort Randall and Fort
Sully, and assuming Ellsworth Air Base (although
no specific cessation in South Dakota law exists),
United States Post Offices (if building is owned by
the United States).
Getting back to the definitions, This Supreme
Court has definitively declared its confidence in the
law making power and integrity of the Congress of
the United States of America when Assembled, by
stating "we begin with the understanding that
Congress" says in a statute what it means and
means . . . what it says there," Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A.,
530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000) [quoting Connecticut Nat'l Bank
v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992)].
We know what Congress has legislated. We
know that they know what they are doing when
they legislate. The matter that appears to be still
unresolved is, getting the Executive and Judicial
Departments to honor the meaning of what
Congress legislates, i.e., the terms of “United
18
States” and “State” legislated with various tax law.
The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch of
the Government of United States need clear
assistance from this Court to comply with the law.
The rules of interpretation stated in Exhibit
A (page 31) are all well settled law in this Court and
apply to the various definitions of the terms “United
States” and “State” found in Titles 18, 26, and 28.
The opportunity and duty is now before this Court,
to weigh in now on the matter/issue. If the Solicitor
General provides a Brief in Opposition with clear
misstatements of facts and law and if this Court (by
it assisting Clerks) finds any misstatements of facts
and law, this Court is obligated to issue the Writ of
Certiorari, to call up the record and then declare its
findings that are or may be contrary to what is
declared and judged in this Petition, already: the
acts of the United States of America and the United
States (by various agents) are found to be outside
and beyond the law and violate basic human rights,
causing injury.
CONCLUSION
Undisputed is the fact that this Congress of
the United States when Assembled, has legislated
those six+ (6+) different definitions of the Terms
“United States” and “State” in Title 26. The real
meaning (Territorial Application) of §7701(9)(10) is
declared in the Petition. This Court has confirmed
that the meaning and territorial application is
correctly stated, but remains illusive in the United
States District Court for South Dakota and
19

unattended in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
8
th
Circuit. Proposed enactment of “Fair Tax Act of
2011” confirms the proper interpretations (See Page
31). If Congress seeks to apply tax law to “50
States”, they know how to do it.

This court is to confirm the facts and the law
by ordering the Clerk to deny the Petition for Writ
of Certiorari, Granting and ordering the Petition
only if and when there is found facts or law to the
contrary that need specific clarification from this
Court. Court should take judicial notice of Special
Plea for Mercy Justice (Appendix D).

Dated this ____ day of December 2013.


____________________________
Duane Kuyper
PO Box 246
Stickney, SD 57375


____________________________
Mary Kuyper
PO Box 246
Stickney, SD 57375


____________________________
Raymond Ehrman
PO Box 70
Freeman, South Dakota 57029
20

APPENDIX A – CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

CONSTITUTION: Article I, Section 8
Clause 1: To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States.
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all
Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding
ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the
Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by
the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which
the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings;
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free-
dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." (NOTE PERSON-
AL OPINION: PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF
21
THIS PHRASE SHOULD BE: are reserved to the
people, or to the States respectively. What has
happened is States have legislated anything they
want, regardless whether that Power is granted to
the States in their Constitution, or not, then they
rely on the people to say “no” to their legislation by
the Power of Petition. This is not the intent or
presumption of every State Constitution that states
in one way or another, “All political power is
inherent in the people”. The States are usurping
powers by assumption, intentionally exceeding their
stated constitutional powers and grants, and the
Federal Government is usurping delegated powers
by deceptive legislation and writs of execution and
enforcement beyond the stated law, AS IS IN THIS
CASE).
Article III Section 1: The judicial Power of the
United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish. The
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a
Compensation which shall not be diminished during
their Continuance in Office.
Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all
Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of
22
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Contro-
versies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States; between
Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or
the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or
Subjects.
STATUTES
Title 18
Section 5:
The term "United States", as used in this title in a
territorial sense, includes all places and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, except the Canal Zone.
Section 1603(c) The “United States” includes all
territory and waters, continental or insular, subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Section 3156(a)(5) The term “State” includes a
State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States.
Section 4001(a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or
otherwise detained by the United States except
pursuant to an Act of Congress.

23
Title 26
SUBTITLE A
Section 1 (a) Married individuals filing joint
returns and surviving spouses: There is hereby
imposed on the taxable income of—
Section 11
(a) Corporations in general. A tax is
hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable
income of every corporation.
definition Sections 61-65
61: (a) General definition: Except as otherwise
provided in this subtitle, gross income means all
income from whatever source derived,
62: (a) General rule: For purposes of this subtitle,
the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case
of an individual, gross income minus the following
deductions.
63: (a) In general: Except as provided in subsection
(b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable
income” means gross income minus the deductions
allowed by this chapter (other than the standard
deduction).
64: For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary
income” includes any gain from the sale or exchange
of property which is neither a capital asset nor
property described in section 1231 (b).
24
65: For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary
loss” includes any loss from the sale or exchange of
property which is not a capital asset.
Section 83 (a) General rule: If, in connection
with the performance of services, property is
transferred to any person other than the person for
whom such services are performed, the excess of—
(1) the fair market value of such property (deter-
mined without regard to any restriction other than
a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) at
the first time the rights of the person having the
beneficial interest in such property are transferable
or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture,
whichever occurs earlier, over
(2) the amount (if any) paid for such property, shall
be included in the gross income of the person who
performed such services in the first taxable year in
which the rights of the person having the beneficial
interest in such property are transferable or are not
subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever
is applicable. The preceding sentence shall not
apply if such person sells or otherwise disposes of
such property in an arm’s length transaction before
his rights in such property become transferable or
not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.
Section 993(g)
United States defined. For purposes of this part,
the term “United States” includes the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the
United States.
25
Section 3121(e)(1)(2)
(e) State, United States, and citizen: For pur-
poses of this chapter— (1) State: The term “State”
includes the District of Columbia, the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
and American Samoa. (2) United States: The term
“United States” when used in a geographical sense
includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Section 3306(j)(1)(2)
(j) State, United States, and American
employer: For purposes of this chapter— (1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. (2) United States: The term “United
States” when used in a geographical sense includes
the States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands.
Section 4612(4) United States (A) In general
The term “United States” means the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, any possession of the United States, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (B)
United States includes continental shelf areas
The principles of section 638 shall apply for
purposes of the term “United States”. (C) United
States includes foreign trade zones: The term

26
“United States” includes any foreign trade zone of
the United States.
Section 4662(2) United States The term “United
States” has the meaning given such term by section
4612 (a)(4).
7701(9)(10) (9) United States: The term “United
States” when used in a geographical sense includes
only the States and the District of Columbia. (10)
State: The term “State” shall be construed to
include the District of Columbia, where such
construction is necessary to carry out provisions of
this title.
Title 28
Section 3002(15) “United States” means— (A) a
Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department,
commission, board, or other entity of the United
States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United
States.
Sections 1291, 1292, 1295(a)(1)
1291: The courts of appeals (other than the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final
decisions of the district courts of the United States,
the United States District Court for the District of
the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the
District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a
direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.
The jurisdiction of the United States Court
27
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to
the jurisdiction described in sections 1292 (c) and (d)
and 1295 of this title.
1292: (b) When a district judge, in making in a civil
action an order not otherwise appealable under this
section, shall be of the opinion that such order
involves a controlling question of law as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion
and that an immediate appeal from the order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.
The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction
of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its
discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such
order, if application is made to it within ten days
after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That
application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay
proceedings in the district court unless the district
judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof
shall so order.
1295(a)(1): (a) The United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive
jurisdiction— (1) of an appeal from a final decision
of a district court of the United States, the District
Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin
Islands, or the District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, in any civil action arising under,
or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a
compulsory counterclaim arising under, any Act of
Congress relating to patents or plant variety
protection;
28
Sections 1331, 1332, 1340, 1345, 1346
1331: The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
1332: (10) For purposes of this subsection and
section 1453, an unincorporated association shall be
deemed to be a citizen of the State where it has its
principal place of business and the State under
whose laws it is organized.
1340: The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act
of Congress providing for internal revenue, or
revenue from imports or tonnage except matters
within the jurisdiction of the Court of International
Trade.
1345: Except as otherwise provided by Act of
Congress, the district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings
commenced by the United States, or by any agency
or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act
of Congress.
1346: Now repealed, but used when United States is
a Defendant.
Title 40 USC 255, 3111, and 3112
255/3111: (a) Approval of Attorney General
Required.— Public money may not be expended to
purchase land or any interest in land unless the
29
Attorney General gives prior written approval of the
sufficiency of the title to the land for the purpose for
which the Federal Government is acquiring the
property.
3112: (a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required.— It
is not required that the Federal Government obtain
exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land
or an interest in land it acquires.
Rule 1(b)(9) of Criminal Procedure: (9) “State”
includes the District of Columbia, and any
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States.
Rule 12(h)(3): (3) Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdic-
tion. If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.
Rule 81(d)(2) of Civil Procedure: (2) “State” Defined.
The term “state” includes, where appropriate, the
District of Columbia and any United States
commonwealth or territory.
Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States,
Part II Link is at www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-
0000.htm Chapter 4-6, Page 23, Chapter 7-8, Page
77, Appendix B-B, Page 201, 230 (The information
is on the “state” of South Dakota, appearing as a
“Buck Act State”), Chapter 5: Criminal Jurisdiction,
Page 105, Chapter 6, Page 145 for Civil Jurisdiction.

30
Maxims of Interpretation Settled In Law:
1) Lex specialis (Supreme Court case:
Congress says what it means and means
what it says)
2) lex posterior derogat legi priori (The
younger or later law supersedes the older or
earlier law)
3) Lex specialis derogat legi generali. [a
law governing a specific subject matter (lex
specialis) overrides a law which only governs
general matters (lex generalis), even within
the same law]
4) Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
(the expression of one thing is the exclusion of
all the others)
CONFIRMED RULE OF INTERPRETATION is
this: Reference to “United States”, “State”, and/or
“in a territorial sense” is to declare the territorial
application of the law with which the definition
associates, the scope of which is always stated in the
definition. A varying definition means a varying
Territorial Application.
“50 States”/”50 states” SEC. 201. SALES TAX
Chapter 9. Additional Matters in (PROPOSED TO
REPLACE SUBTITLE A TAXES) Fair Tax Act of
2011 Sec 2 Definitions, (15) UNITED STATES- The
term ‘United States’, when used in the geographical
sense, means each of the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.
31

APPENDIX B (Exerts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. )
DUANE L. KUYPER individually and as Trustee of
KUYPER FAMILY LIVING TRUST; MARY L.
KUYPER individually and as Trustee of KUYPER
FAMIL Y LIVING TRUST; KUYPER FAMILY
LIVING TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED,
Defendants.
4:11CV4170
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this action the United States seeks to
reduce to judgment tax assessments against Duane
KUyter and Kuyper Family Living Trust, and to
foreclose related federal tax liens on certain real
properties that were transferred by Duane and
Mary Kuyper to Kuyper Family Living Trust and
then to Vision Unlimited, another trust controlled
by the Kuypers. The United States alleges that the
trusts are alter egos, nominees, or transferees of
Duane Kuyper, and that the true and beneficial
owners of the real properties are Duane and Mary
Kuyper.
Duane and Mary Kuyper, who are named as
defendants in their individual capacities,' failed to
appear for their noticed depositions on August 27,
2013. As a result, the United States has filed a

32

motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(d), which provides in part:
Footnote I Default has been entered against all
other defendants for failure to plead or otherwise
defend the action. On April 6, 2012, the clerk of the
court entered default against Kuyper Family Living
Trust (docket no. 33). On March 30, 2013, the clerk
of the court entered default against Vision
Unlimited, Raymond Ehrman as Trustee of Vision
Unlimited, and Duane Kuyper and Mary Kuyper as
Trustees of Kuyper Family Living Trust (docket no.
56).
…….
Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi), the court is
authorized to "render] ] a default judgment against
the disobedient party," which is the sanction
requested by the United States.' For the reasons
discussed below, I find that the United States'
request, which the defendants have not actively
opposed, should be granted.
…..
"Default judgment is appropriate where the
party against whom the judgment is sought has
engaged in 'willful violations of court rules,
contumacious conduct, or intentional delays.'"
Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut
Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996)). "[T]he
district court must consider all of the evidence and
circumstances that tend to provide a 'complete
under-standing of the parties' motivations' ...." Int'l
Bhd. orE/ec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. J-!ope
Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1106 (8th Cir. 2004)
33

(quoting Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 344 (5th
Cir.l998)).
…..
On March 6, 2012, the Kuypers, despite
having already answered, filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint and reiterated their frivolous
contention that the federal income tax is not
collectible outside of the District of Columbia
(docket no. 25). The motion to dismiss was denied on
April 2, 2012 (docket no.29).
……
Footnote 6 Subsequently, the trustee's motion to
dismiss was ordered stricken as an improper pro se
filing (docket no. 47).
……
By refusing to participate in discovery, the
Kuypers have again demonstrated their disdain for
the United States and their contempt for this
judicial proceeding. They have provided no excuse
for their behavior and have given no indication that
they have a meritorious defense. Considering all of
the circumstances, and finding no good reason to
prolong the action further by imposing a lesser
sanction, I conclude that the Kuypers should be
declared in default. Also, because all other
defendants are in default for failure to plead or
otherwise defend the action, I conclude that a final
judgment can and should be entered.
……..
"A default judgment entered by the court
binds the party facing the default as having
admitted all of the well pleaded allegations in the
plaintiffs complaint." Angela Iafrate Canst.! LLC v.
34

Patashnick Canst.! Inc., 370 F.3d 715,721-22 (8th
Cir. 2004). Because the amended complaint only
sets forth the accrued tax liabilities of Duane
Kuyper and Kuyper Family Living Trust through
December 1, 2011, the United States should file an
affidavit computing the amounts currently due. The
United States will also be directed to provide the
court with a proposed final judgment, which may be
emailed to my chambers at kopf@ned.uscourts.gov.
…….
I caution the defendants that this
memorandum and order does not constitute a
judgment and cannot be appealed. Any appeal will
need to wait until after a final judgment has been
entered by the court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs motion for sanctions (docket no. 83) is
granted and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(d), default is entered against
Defendants Duane L. Kuyper and Mary L. Kuyper
in their individual capacities.
2. Plaintiff is directed to file an affidavit showing
computations of accrued tax liabilities and to
provide the court with a proposed final judgment
which, upon approval and filing by the court, will
conclude this action. October 23,2013. BY THE
COURT:
sl Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge



35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
DUANE L. KUYPER individually and as Trustee of
KUYPER FAMIL Y LIVING TRUST; MARY L.
KUYPER individually and as Trustee of KUYPER
FAMILY LIVING TRUST; KUYPER FAMIL Y
LIVING TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No.4: 11-cv-04170
JUDGMENT
The Court entered defaults against Duane
Kuyper and Mary Kuyper, in their individual
capacities, on October 23,2013 (Docket No. 85).
Previously, the Clerk of the Court entered defaults
against Kuyper Family Living Trust on April 6,
2012 (Docket No. 33), and Vision Unlimited,
Raymond Ehrman as Trustee of Vision Unlimited,
and Duane Kuyper and Mary Kuyper, as Trustees of
Kuyper Family Living Trust, on March 30, 2013
(Docket No. 56). Because defaults have been entered
against all of the defendants, each "is deemed to
have admitted all well pleaded factual allegations in
the complaint."Acuity Ins. Co. v. Jones, No. 4:11-CV-
2041-AGF, 2013 WL 1192764 at *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar.
22, 20 13)(citing Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849,
852 (8th Cir. 2010)).
In accordance with the Memorandum and
Order issued on October 23,2013 (Docket No. 85),
36

and the defaults entered by the Clerk of the Court,
and based on the Affidavit of IRS Revenue Officer
Advisor Deborah A. Olson (Docket No. 87),
judgment shall be entered in favor of the United
States and against Duane L. Kuyper, individually
and as Trustee of Kuyper Family Living Trust,
Mary Kuyper, individually and as Trustee of
Kuyper Family Living Trust, Kuyper Family Living
Trust, Vision Unlimited, and Raymond Ehrman, as
Trustee of Vision Unlimited, as set forth below.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment on
Count I of the United States' complaint is entered in
favor of the United States and against Duane L.
Kuyper (individually) in the amount of $240,170.42
(representing his federal income tax liabilities for
the tax years ending December 31, 2000 and
December 31, 2001), plus statutory additions that
have and will accrue thereon from October 28,2013,
according to law; from October 28,2013, according to
law;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on
Count II of the United States' complaint is entered
in favor of the United States and against the
Kuyper Family Living Trust in the amount of
$704,804.83 (representing its federal income tax
liabilities for the tax years ending December 31,
1997, December 31, 1998, December 31, 1999,
December 31, 2000, and December 31, 2001), plus
statutory additions that have and will accrue
thereon from October 28, 2013, according to law;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that judgment on Counts III and IV of
37

the United States' complaint shall be entered in
favor of the United States and against all
defendants as follows:
A. The federal tax liens that arose from the federal
income tax assessments against Duane L. Kuyper
for 2000 and 2001, and the federal tax liens that
arose from the federal income tax assessments
against Kuyper Family Living Trust for 1997, 1998,
1999,2000, and 2001, are valid and subsisting liens
that attached at the time of the assessments to all
property and rights to property held by Duane L.
Kuyper and Kuyper Family Living Trust, and to
property held by Kuyper Family Living Trust and
Vision Unlimited as the nominees and/or alter egos
of Duane L. Kuyper and Kuyper Family Living
Trust, respectively, including the real properties
located in Aurora County, South Dakota, described
as follows (the "Properties"):
Parcel One
Lot "B" of Block Thirteen (13) of Milwaukee Land
Company's Second Addition to Stickney, Aurora
County, South Dakota.
Parcel Two
Lot One "A" (1A), of Block Thirteen (13), in the
Milwaukee Land Company's Second Addition to
Stickney, Aurora County, South Dakota.
Parcel Three
The West Seventy-five feet (W. 75') of Lot One (1), in
Block Thirteen (13) of the Second Addition to the
Town of Stickney, Aurora County, South Dakota.
B. The federal tax liens referred to above and that
attached to the Properties are hereby foreclosed
against the Properties. The Properties shall be sold
38

subject to further order of the Court A separate
order of sale enforcing this Judgment against the
Properties will issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the
Court shall enter this judgment forthwith.
ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2013
BY THE COURT:
S/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
DUANE L. KUYPER individually and as Trustee of
KUYPER FAMIL Y LIVING TRUST; MARY L.
KUYPER individually and as Trustee of KUYPER
FAMILY LIVING TRUST; KUYPER FAMILY
LIVING TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4: ll-cv-04170
Defendants.
ORDER OF SALE
WHEREAS the Court entered judgment on Count I
of the United States' complaint in favor of the
United States and against Duane L. Kuyper
(individually) in the amount of $240,170.42
(representing his federal income tax liabilities for
the tax years ending December 31, 2000 and
December 31, 2001), plus statutory additions that
39

have and will accrue thereon from October 28, 2013,
according to law;
WHEREAS the Court entered judgment on Count II
of the United States' complaint in favor of he United
States and against the Kuyper Family Living Trust
in the amount of $704,80 .83 (representing its
federal income tax liabilities for the tax years
ending December 31, 1997 December 31, 1998,
December 31, 1999, December 31, 2000, and
December 31, 2001), plus statutory additions that
have and will accrue thereon from October 28,2013,
according to law;
WHEREAS the Court entered judgment on Counts
III and IV of the United States' complaint finding
and decreeing that the United States' federal tax
liens that arose from the federal income tax
assessments against Duane L. Kuyper for 2000 and
2001, and the federal tax liens that arose from the
federal income tax assessments against Kuyper
Family Living Trust for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and
2001, are valid and subsisting liens that attached at
the time of the assessments to all property and
rights to property held by Duane L. Kuyper and
Kuyper Family Living Trust, and to property held
by Kuyper Family Living Trust and Vision
Unlimited as the.nominees and/or alter egos of
Duane L. Kuyper and Kuyper Family Living Trust,
respectively,
……..
WHEREAS the Court in its final judgment referred
to above adjudged that Kuyper Family Living Trust
and Vision Unlimited held title to the Properties as

40

nominees and/or alter egos of Duane L. Kuyper and
Kuyper Family Living Trust, respectively;
WHEREAS the Court in its final judgment referred
to above ordered and decreed that the federal tax
liens were foreclosed against the Properties, and
ordered that the Properties be sold subject to
further order of the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Properties be
sold under the terms and conditions set forth below.
1. The Property Appraisal and Liquidation
Specialists of the Internal Revenue Service ("PALS")
are authorized and directed to offer for sale at
public auction and to sell each of the Properties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002. The
Properties may be sold separately or otherwise, as
PALS in its discretion may determine. Each
reference to a "Property" or the "Properties" below
relates to the subject of the sale conducted by PALS
with respect to one or more of the Properties.
2. The public auction sale(s) of each of the
Properties shall be made without right of
redemption.
3. The sale of each Property shall be subject to
building lines (if established), all laws, ordinances,
governmental regulations (including building and
zoning residences) affecting the particular Property
sold, and easements and restrictions of record, if
any.
4. The sale of each of the Properties shall be sold
free and clear of the federal tax liens, and free and
clear of all liens and claims, if any, of the other
parties to this action, including Duane L. Kuyper,
Kuyper Family Living Trust, and Vision Unlimited.
41

5. The sale of each of the Properties shall be held at
a place in Aurora County, South Dakota, either on
the premises of each respective Property or at any
other place in the county in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2001 and 2002.
6. The PALS shall announce the date and time for
the sales of the Property. The Property Appraisal
and Liquidation Specialists of the Internal Revenue
Service ("PALS") are authorized and directed to
offer for sale at public auction and to sell each of the
Properties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002.
The Properties may be sold separately or otherwise,
as PALS in its discretion may determine. Each
reference to a "Property" or the "Properties" below
relates to the subject of the sale conducted by PALS
with respect to one or more of the Properties.
2. The public auction sale(s) of each of the
Properties shall be made without right of
redemption.
3. The sale of each Property shall be subject to
building lines (if established), all laws, ordinances,
governmental regulations (including building and
zoning residences) affecting the particular Property
sold, and easements and restrictions of record, if
any.
4. The sale of each of the Properties shall be sold
free and clear of the federal tax liens, and free and
clear of all liens and claims, if any, of the other
parties to this action, including Duane L. Kuyper,
Kuyper Family Living Trust, and Vision Unlimited.
5. The sale of each of the Properties shall be held at
a place in Aurora County, South Dakota, either on
the premises of each respective Property or at any
42

other place in the county in accordance with the
provisions of28 U.S.c. §§ 2001 and 2002.
6. The PALS shall announce the date and time for
the sales of the Properties.
7. Notice of the sale of each of the Properties shall
be published once a week for at least four
consecutive weeks before the time fixed for the sale
in at least one newspaper regularly issued and of
general circulation in Aurora County, South
Dakota, and by any other notice that the PALS in
their discretion may deem appropriate. The notices
of sale shall contain a description of the Properties,
and shall contain the terms and conditions of sale in
this order.
……
ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2013
BY THE COURT:
S/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge














43

APPENDIX C
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No: 13-2975
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Duane L. Kuyper, individually and as Trustee of
Kuyper Family Living Trust; Mary L. Kuyper,
individually and as Trustee of Kuyper Family
Living Trust; Raymond Ehrman
Defendants - Appellants
Kuyper Family Living Trust; Vision Unlimited
Defendants
Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota - Sioux Falls
(4: 11-cv-04170-RGK)
JUDGMENT
The motion of appellee for dismissal of this appeal is
granted. The appeal is hereby dismissed. See Eighth
Circuit Rule 47A(b).

September 30, 2013
Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Isl Michael E. Gans

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No: 13-2975
United States of America
Appellee
v.
44

Duane L. Kuyper, individually and as Trustee of
Kuyper Family Living Trust, et al.
Appellants
Kuyper Family Living Trust and Vision Unlimited
Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota - Sioux Falls
(4: ll-cv-04170-RGK)
ORDER
The petition for rehearing en bane is denied. The
petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.
November 04,2013
Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
/s/ Michael E. Gans

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No: 13-2975
United States of America
Appellee
v.
Duane L. Kuyper, individually and as Trustee of
Kuyper Family Living Trust, et al.
Appellants
Kuyper Family Living Trust and Vision Unlimited
Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota - Sioux Falls
(4: ll-cv-04170-RGK)





45

MANDATE
In accordance with the judgment of 09/30/2013,
and pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is
hereby issued in the above-styled matter.
November 13, 2013
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit


APPENDIX D

Here is a recent notation now for the public
record from Duane and Mary Kuyper:
Due to the troublesome circumstances in my
lifetime, the following illnesses and
challenges have hit me very hard.

The day I have to completely stop working,
the only income will be our social security
check, which is $1020, and the IRS takes 25%
from that every month, and Mary's check
which is only $506

After having a trial fibrillation, (irregular
heart beat) for 7-8 years, trigeminal nerve
pain (stated in the medical journals, as the
worst pain known to man, also known as the
suicide pain) for two years before having
head surgery in 2007, severe back surgery &
carpel tunnel surgery in 2009, torn rotator
cuff injuries in both shoulders, from a fall on
the ice, in 2011, and triple by-pass surgery in
Aug. 2011. As you can see, I've had MANY
46

health challenges, along with unbelievable
stress. Now at age 75, I cannot continue even
the small business income, due to afib, and
the bad pain in my legs and shoulders. I
know it's only by the Grace of God, that I'm
still here!

I have nothing aside for retirement, so don't
know what to do. Lots in this tiny town of
300, are quite worthless, selling from 0-$300,
and even with houses on them going from
$4000-$13,000. So you can see, it's nearly
impossible to come up with any extra money,
plus we have to eat, pay electric and phone
bill, heat, gas, my prescriptions, and all the
rest of expenses every month. Also, hoping
we can keep our health insurance, which is
close to $300 a month!

Please have mercy on us (ALL OF YOU,
INCLUDING KOPF). We cannot lose the home
we live in, and the business, in regards to our
health and age, unless you want to make us
homeless. The home we live in is about 90
years old. We do NOT live a lavish
life. We need to keep trying to make a
living...eating and paying our bills. We know
you are good people inside, so ask yourself,
"could I ever be doing this to my elderly
parents?”

We pray that you can come up with
something that stops this.
No. _______

In The
Supreme Court of the United
States
----------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents
v.
DUANE L. KUYPER individually and as Trustee
of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING TRUST;
MARY L KUYPER individually and as
Trustee of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING
TRUST; VISION UNLIMITED; and
RAYMOND EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
UNLIMITED,
Petitioners
----------
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA AND UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE 8
TH
CIRCUIT
----------
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
The undersigned, Raymond Ehrman, hereby
certifies, in compliance with 26 USC 1746(1) (I
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct) that on the 11th day
of February 2014, that all parties, required to be
served, are served (reserved) a true and correct
copy (or copies) of PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI and is mailed by first-class mail,
postage prepaid, to:

C/o Department of Justice/Solicitor General
Room B-103 and Room 5614
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

United States
C/o US Attorney Room B-103
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Department of the Treasury –
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Internal Revenue Service
(with all its Altern Egoists)
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

United States District Court for South Dakota
400 S. Phillips Avenue
Federal Courthouse
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
Office of the Clerk
111 South 10
th
Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, MO. 63102

For United States of America
Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Lead counsel
U.S. Department of Justice – Tax Division
Post Office Box 502
Washington, D.C. 20044

address of BRENDAN V. JOHNSON,
United States Attorney,
DANIEL A. APPLEGATE,
Trial Attorney, Tax Division,
U.S. Department of Justice,
P.O. Box 7238,
Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, D.C. 20044

And forty (40) copies of PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI are sent to:
Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543-0001

On this 11th day of February 2014.



Raymond Ehrman,
P O Box 70,
Freeman, South Dakota 57029

SUBSCRIBED AND AFFIRMED TO before
me a notary public, on this ____ day of February
2014.

______________________________________________
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES _____________________
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 33,
SUBPARAGRAPH 1(g)
This is to certify the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari complies with word limitations in Rule
33.1. The number of words in the document are
3907, with 20 pages, 152 paragraphs, 639 lines, and
20294 characters.
This declaration made in compliance with 28
U.S.C. 1746(1) and declared under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this ____ day of December 2013.

__________________________________











Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful