UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORTHERN NEW YORK

William M. Greene Karen M. Greene Plaintiffs, ) ) COMPLAINT ) PURSUANT TO ) 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, ) 1001, 1031, 1341, ) 1344(2), 1346, ) 1581, 1621, 1622, ) 2113 & 3231, ) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 ) & 1343, ) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 ) & 1994

CASE NO. 08-cv-0280 (LEK/DRH)

Internal Revenue Service Defendant

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUBMITTED AS A QUI TAM ACTION AND REQUEST IS MADE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Dated: May 21, 2008

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action, allege(s)……………….…….……..…… 3-6 Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………..………….....…… 6-7 Venue ……………………………………………………………………………. 7–12 Identification of Parties …………………………………………………..…….. 12–14 Amount in Controversy ……………………………………………………….... 15–16 Demand for Jury Trial …………………………………………………………...…. 16 Public Interest and “Private Attorney Generals” ……………………………..… 16-18 Relief Being Sought …………………………………………………………..… 18-20 Statement of Complaint ………………………………………………………… 20-35 Exhaustion of Other Remedies ……………………………………………….… 36-49 Plaintiffs’ Repeatedly Requested that the IRS Provide Any Reference of Law Requiring Them to File .…………………….… 50-51 Revenue Officer even sought to Intimidate Plaintiffs by Providing Them with a Copy of Decision & Order Against Plaintiffs’ Participating Organization That Is/Was Based Upon IRS Falsification of Damages & Response to IRS ………………..………….… 51-63 The IRS Summonses to Plaintiffs Employer is in Defiance of Recent U.S. Court of Appeals Case …………………………..….… 64-67 IRS Notice of Levys Were Issued to Plaintiffs Employer and Plaintiffs’ Banks Without Court Order ……………………………………….… 68-75 A Retaliatory or Retribution Tax Imposed Against Plaintiffs Exercising Their Right to Withhold Their Moneys Pending a Redress of Grievances of Constitutional Torts is Unconstitutional and Is, Itself, Illegal and Should Not be Enforced ………………………….….…75-84 Plaintiffs Will Also Draw Upon Other Evidence of Fraud and Due Process Violations ……………………….…………………………...… 85-86 Further Expression of the Evidence Book and Proposed Ordinance May Ultimately Lead to Government Contractors like the IRS Being Responsive and Accountable to the Constitution ……………….……...… 87-91 Violations of the First Amendment are Occurring with Respect to the Plaintiffs’ Right to Liberty & Freedom of Religion (relating to freedom from peonage and slavery) ……………………………...… 91-113 Summary …………………………………………………………………….… 113-121 Cause of Actions ………………………………………………………………. 121-159 Plaintiffs Declaration …………………………………………………………... 160 Listing of Exhibits ……………………………………………………………... 161-168

2

PLAINTIFFS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED ACTION, ALLEGE(S) AS FOLLOWS 1. Believing that the United States of America was created as a Judeo-Christian Nation, Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene hold that the United States Declaration of Independence1 itself offers much to define the meaning and purpose of our Self-Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as Liberty. As Christians, Plaintiffs believe that irrespective of the historical use of the terms Inalienable and Unalienable2 in relation to their God given Right of Liberty3 it must necessarily include freedom from all

The United States Declaration of Independence was an act adopted on July 4, 1776 by the Second Continental Congress, formally entitled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America." See "The Declaration of Independence: A History" at http://www.archives.gov/nationalarchives-experience/charters/declaration_history.html 2 "Inalienable" and "Unalienable" are terms borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable in that they could be sold or granted while others were inalienable meaning that they could only be inherited according to fixed rule. The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights were popularly understood because of literary works like Francis Hutcheson’s A System of Moral Philosophy (1755), which was based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience whereby one could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." In the context of social contract theory, "Inalienable Rights" were thought to be the Natural Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or property)", which were independent of positive law. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity." (See Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, p. 134.) "Jefferson took his division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and important." (See Garry Wills, Inventing America. New York: Vintage Books, 1979, p. 213) Such that, Thomas Jefferson originally wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. . ." And although this was changed to unalienable by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration, it has been argued, in many cases other than this, that the axiom of inalienable rights was written into the Bill of Rights as the Ninth Amendment rights “retained by the people.” For example, as a lawyer, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued in his briefing on behalf of John Van Zandt (frequently spelled Vanzandt in court documents) who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that our Rights are Inalienable: “The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property.” Argument for the Defendant, Jones v. Van Zandt, 2 McLean 597 (Ohio Cir. Ct. 1843). When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chase argued: “No court is bound to enforce unjust law; but to the contrary every court is bound, by prior and superior obligations, to abstain from enforcing such laws.” Argument for the Defendant, Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. 215 (1847). 3 While most people are familiar with the phrase "give me liberty or give me death", very few are also aware that Patrick Henry’s reference to “liberty” was as opposed to the forms of "slavery" being experienced, which is self-evident from the statement/sentence Mr. Henry just before that: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"--Patrick Henry, in a speech March 23, 1775.

1

3

forms of slavery; including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery which was later addressed by the Thirteenth Amendment.4 As such, the term Liberty as used throughout this action is used in accordance with its original intent which included political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, and with respect to the subjects of taxation and the right to trial by jury, hold that the United States Declaration of Independence offers the “Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as American’s, which include(ed) “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.”5 Therefore, these clauses are actually very dispositive of the Declaration's philosophy of unalienable natural law rights into positive law, presenting the basis of basic statutes representing the underlying creative legal force for the proposed United States Government, and/or the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter "IRS" and/or hereinafter “Government Contractor” (See Exhibit 1 and Footnote #11), and therefore Plaintiffs bring their complaint to this Honorable Court, as a Qui Tam Action, that is a public interest suit, contending that they as well as every American have a First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, which does not only mean a Right to Petition but implicitly a Right to a Redress of Grievances as well, and pending the Redress of Grievances, Plaintiffs assert legal rights to their property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and

The clause "[h]e has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither." (Franklin 88) was removed from the earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence submitted to the Continental Congress, because the Southern delegation insisted that the charge be deleted so as to not confuse the subject of chattel slavery with the other forms of slavery being protested. 5 See Declaration of Independence, as an act of the Second Continental Congress adopted on July 4, 1776, at the National Archives; http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html

4

4

profits “derived from” the labor of others), the hard-earned fruits of their labor,6 as well as to assert that as Christians, Plaintiffs in this case do differentiate between the Hellenistic (Greco-Oriental) and Non-Hellenistic understandings of the nature of the soul to the extent that Plaintiffs believe that the IRS does not have the right to their souls.7 In this context, Plaintiffs assert their Right to Religious Freedom and believe it is the Right of every Christian to be very Christlike in opposition to the ancient system of novation called the biblical beast, and have an understanding of the role of the same in terms of the census in connection with the birth of the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef’s (a.k.a. Jesus) as a method on numbering (Wo)man for the purpose of tax slavery. Plaintiffs in this action, support their beliefs with respect to the opposition to tax slavery by reference to the history of the establishment of America as a nation as well as the Bible,8 and therefore, based on Plaintiffs Rights as Americans and Christians anything but an all-outaffirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people are
See “Continental Congress To Inhabitants of Quebec, an Act passed unanimously by the Congress.” Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113; “Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775.” Papers 1:225. 7 Plaintiffs use of definition of (a) the soul being physically manifest in terms of one’s very life and productivity and therefore defined in terms of the vital force of the body, (b) such that the definition of the First Death as falling into physical or mortal danger as a result of the loss of God’s Grace as well as that of overcoming the First Death by being restored to the land of the Living as a result of the infusion of God’s Grace, (c) and the definition of the Second Death as the physical death, (d) and as opposed to, and therefore not to be confused with the definition of the Shade as the sinful self represented after the physical death as the persistent elements of the personality and mind which are not burned off through repetitive experiences of union with God, (e) with reference to the Book of Wisdom being the first book of the bible in which the definition of the soul was changed from that of the vital force of the body so as to define the soul in terms of the shade which is a trait of Baalistic Theory as the Semitic/Hebrew culture as they came in contact with the Greek culture, and (f) the definition of the god referenced in certain sections of the bible (e.g., Psalm 68:5) as being Baal, may all be found in many religious documents, including the ''Encyclopedic dictionary of the bible'' (1963). A translation and adaptation of A. van dun Born's Bijbels Woordenboek, Second Revised Ed, 1945-57, by Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., Executive Secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 8 Particular attention is also given to reference from American history in support of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians (pgs. 91-113) as well from the Talmud in support of Plaintiffs beliefs that Jesus was convicted as a criminal for encouraging the people to rebel and to not pay taxes when the basis of such taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God (pgs., 109-111).
6

5

endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those rights.

JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon District courts by 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1001, 1341, 1344(2), 1346, 1621, 1622, & 2113 in terms of the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to the violations of First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, in terms of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances and Due Process Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs wherein the loss of their Self-Evident God given Right of Liberty9, when defined in terms of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), is in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians, our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast,10 which is definable in terms of

, Plaintiffs used of the term Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of freedom chattel slavery, also includes freedom from peonage and freedom from all other forms of slavery as well. 10 …under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact

9

6

slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994.

3. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief by the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2202. This Court is authorized to grant preliminary and permanent relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

VENUE 4. Venue is founded with this Honorable Court on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) to restrain and enjoin the IRS from the retaliatory acts of engaging in any and all IRS administrative actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, and specifically with regard to written communications to the government, the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), such that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First Amendment is considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v. Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), which the IRS Officials
a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be' perpetrated ad infinitum."

7

have admitted to in public form (e.g., During 2003, as indicated in paragraph #28 of this complaint, both I.R.S. senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, explained that “enforcement
actions taken by the I.R.S. … and the new agreement with the states, show other ways that government is answering the petition” and as outlined in paragraph #30 of this complaint,

IRS senior official, Dale Hart, said the IRS was “after mailing lists.”), and as evidenced by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit (United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352)) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, WTP Organization, where the statement of the Government assigned Counsel reveled that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants or the Government could know whether those individuals used the materials … the IRS obviously can't investigate whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of individuals" a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this District Court to violate the Plaintiffs Rights of Privacy and Free Association with the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, in terms of the “Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as American’s, which include “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.”

5. Venue could have been equally considered in terms of the fact that Plaintiffs’ Employer and one of their Banks being located in other States, as well as the fact that both Plaintiffs also were Plaintiffs in We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) and the very nature of this Qui Tam Action lends itself to being a public 8

interest suit on behalf of all Americans, whether or not they were signatories, but Plaintiffs’ legal address is also in Albany County, which is within the Venue of The Northern District of New York with one of the Court locations being in Albany, and as such, Venue is founded with this Honorable Court for this action as a direct result of the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain Inalienable Rights, including recent Summons and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer and Notice of Levies served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, and these administrative actions and seizures and violations of our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property and our Right to Trial by Jury have all been undertaken either without court orders or by the IRS’ fabrication of damages within the courts which is patently illegal (26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1)).

6. Given that both House Report No. 1337 (p. A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p. 168), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively (1954), specifically declared that the word “income” as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, it is clear to Plaintiffs that neither of these Branches of our government authorized peonage or tax slavery, and for that reason this complaint is not against the United States for act(s) of fraud involving only silence wherein-by duty and liability is to be determined and defined in federal courts as a matter of general law, unless it shall be shown and sworn to, by IRS officials, that officials of the United States were complicit in more than the act(s) of fraud involving silence,11 who with knowledge
11

As a matter of litigation of WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), the remedy for the act(s) of fraud involving only silence in

9

and forethought “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, designated as "Citizens of the United States" in the Constitution for the United States of America, long before the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ever thought of, who, when it comes to actions by the said People against or involving the alleged Unconstitutional Acts of a Federal United States of America, are in exercise of the only remedy of We, The People, who have the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances against the Federal Government of the United States of America, by going directly to the Executive and Legislative Branches of government for our Right to a Redress of Grievances to be honored in remedy or relief, and given that Plaintiffs in this case do not have a traceable lineage to those who were chatteled and released to a high standard of living as a result of the Thirteenth Amendment and thereafter afforded other rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore are not “persons under the law” and are not subject to the kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment and any application of the Fourteenth Amendment which might serve to diminish their enumerated and unremunerated Rights, particularly the accursed foundation of Tax-Slavery established under Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would therefore be an unconstitutional application of the Amendments to the Constitution given their standing as Americans and Christians, and as Americans and Christians who are not “subject” to the redefinitions of citizenship associated with the

the face of the People who act to peaceably procure relief is set forth as having been defined long ago in Act passed unanimously by the Continental Congress. (See Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113.), and expounded upon by Thomas Jefferson as the People’s Right of “…intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights…” (See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.).

10

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, for the Plaintiffs in the action are “not subject” to any Acts of Congress, other than the Eighteen-powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the United States of America, without Congress itself repealing the Constitution and every other Amendment to the Constitution, such that even Congress can not pass laws such as the Anti-Injunction Act nor honor any provision of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter “IRC”) that diminish or abrogate the People’s Right to Liberty, let alone the enumerated First Amendment Right of the Plaintiffs to seek and secure redress of grievances involving constitutional torts, and although the Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations into the Code (26 C.F.R. § 301.7805-1) with approval of the Secretary, without cites of authority for the offensive CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, nor even statute cite, the fact is, Plaintiffs are therefore left to conclude that it is written for no other purpose that to allow the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain Inalienable Rights, simply because the final wording of 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1) allows an Appeals representative at a later time to hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction is no excuse for the routine practice of Constitutional Torts such as these, and the very idea that 26 U.S.C. 6673(a)(1) would be used as an authority for an IRS Administrative Office (Tax Court) to impose a Civil penalty of up to $25,000 if an individual was honestly trying to get answers to his/her questions, which the IRS has consistently refused to provide, as well as the very idea that 26 U.S.C. 6673(a)(2)(a) would be used as an authority to impose additional penalties upon any attorney or other person to personally pay excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred because of such conduct when that attorney or other person was

11

honestly standing upon the individual’s Constitutional Rights is outrageous and the list of additional reasonable Constitutional Torts therefore seems almost endless, for based upon our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include freedom from all forms of slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery, political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property and our Right to Trial by Jury, and particularly our Right to Trial by Jury must be recognized before we might be deprived of any of these other Rights, and finally, in the context of 28 U.S. § 455, one has to wonder if anyone can truly receive a fair trial in light of such bias, and in the context of Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 U.S. § 238 (1980), the Supreme Court has also recognized the same, therefore in presenting this action, Plaintiffs can only pray that the presence of such underlying factors does not necessarily establish similar biases12 with respect to their having founded Venue with this Honorable Court.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES 7. Plaintiff William M. Greene is a citizen of the United States of America and one of America’s many homeless truck drivers on wheels, maintaining a legal postal address of PO Box 279, Voorheesville, NY 12186. He is a 57 year-old father and grandfather. He
e.g., “This complaint is developed in the spirit of the teachings one of the foremost founders of this country; i.e., "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819 in Appleby and Ball (1999) p 224 (Emphasis Added). As a Qui Tam Action, the information provided in the present text will allow the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department to review the case and decided whether or not the U.S. Attorneys will investigate charges against the Government Contractor (IRS), as well as to outline the fraud that has been perpetrated even upon this very Court. After review by the U.S. Attorney and Justice Department, permission will be sought from the Court to downsize the text presented within this suit such that most if not all the referencing footnotes will be removed.
12

12

has never been convicted of anything greater than a traffic infraction or log book violation, as interferences with their Right of Liberty which Plaintiffs would also seek to correct through future Petitions of their Right to a Redress of Grievances.

8. Plaintiff Karen M. Greene is a citizen of the United States of America and one of America’s many homeless truck drivers on wheels, maintaining a legal postal address of PO Box 279, Voorheesville, NY 12186. She is a 46 year-old mother and grandmother. She has never convicted of anything greater than a traffic infraction or log book violation, as interferences with their Right of Liberty which Plaintiffs would also seek to correct through future Petitions of their Right to a Redress of Grievances.

9. Defendant, IRS, is a “Government Contractor” for the United States of America with principle offices located at 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20224. Linda E. Stiff is the Acting Commissioner of the IRS.13

Although, the United States of America has long been recognized to be a corporation subject to suit (See Dickson v. U.S., 125 Mass. 311, 1878 WL 10951, 28 Am.Rep. 230 (Mass., 1878)) and 28 U.S.C. § 451 does define “agency” as including “any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense”, the term “Government Contractor” is appropriate per the pleadings in Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405E-EJL, UNITED STATES’ ANSWER AND CLAIM) wherein both Betty Richardson, a United States Attorney, and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax Division,“Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government ...” (See Page #2 – Exhibit 1, 2 of 6, paragraph 4), and contrary to the other assertions made in that same case, Plaintiffs in this action assert that the IRS can not also be defined as an "instrumentality of the United States" in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 3002(C) because other court documents on the subject shows that “There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.” (See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 292 (1979)), and research on Title 31 of the US Code, as currently published by the US Government, reflecting the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006, for the codification and "classification" to corresponding US Code sections contained in SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION, from Jan. 2, 2006 to the most recent entry on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, shows that although 31 U.S.C. § 301(f)(2) is a reference authorizing the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS, the IRS itself is not even listed as an

13

13

organization within meaning of TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER which explicitly lists the organizational structure of the United States Department of the Treasury. Moreover, although 5 U.S.C. § 105 defines an "Executive agency" as an "Executive department", "Government corporation" or an "independent establishment", the provisions of which are covered by section 101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and Section 1 of Title 5, referred to in text, is section 1 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, the provisions of which are covered by section 101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and the definitions of agency and department conform with such definitions in section 6 of revised title 18, U.S.C. (H.R. 3190, 80th Cong.), Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953 is the only authoritative document under which the pure Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service, thereby creating the illusion of the IRS being an actual agency of the Department of the Treasury with all regulations, mimeographs, forms, and other Internal Revenue and Treasury documents amended to conform to Treasury Order 150-06. In fact, according to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 26 is the authority for the Internal Revenue and Chapter I is entitled the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, and, of course, it is easy to surmise why this statute was adopted because it clearly appears to lack any substance given that the Internal Revenue is actually listed as a Trust at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2), with Districts and Boundaries established by the President 26 U.S.C. § 7621. Additionally, according to 26 U.S.C. § 7802, the Department of the Treasury the Internal Revenue Service is supervised by a Trustee or corporate body of independent of the Managers called an “Oversight Board” composed of nine members, with one of those nine members being the Secretary of the Treasury or, if the Secretary so designates, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(B)), with the Authority of the “Secretary” or “Secretary of the Treasury” being set forth at 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and according to 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a)(2)(A) the terms “Secretary” or “Secretary of the Treasury” means the Attorney General. Additional Oversight Board members include the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(C)), appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(1)(A)), and who can be removed from office at the discretion of the President (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(1)(C)), and while one of the other nine members Oversight Board must be a full-time Federal employee or a representative of employees and who again is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(D)), the six other members need not even be Federal officers or employees but are simply defined as individuals appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(A)), and according to 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a)(2)(A) the term “internal revenue officer” means any officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the Attorney General, and finally, in accordance with the US Attorney’s statement that the IRS is NOT an agency of the US government, operationally, rather than applying Levys at maximum allowable “15 percent levy”, the Government Contractor (IRS), more often than not, operating as a judgment creditor, is reported to Levy in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6331(h)(3) which appears to the Plaintiffs in this case to be the only possible justification under the Code for substituting “100 percent levy” which is ONLY applicable in terms of any specified payment due to a vendor of goods or services sold or leased to the Federal Government, and, as such, Plaintiffs maintain that the term “Government Contractor” is appropriate as used throughout this action, and more importantly, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional right to Contract, in which they would be entitled to the fruits of their labor as their Property, only as long as they pay a percentage of their labor property at 15% or at 100% is slavery or peonage and therefore criminal, for state ownership they have only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage and therefore criminal – state ownership of their labor property, which if constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%. But, if it should be argued and this Honorable Court should find that Congress has in fact passed a law for the codification and "classification" to corresponding US Code sections wherein-by the IRS could lawfully be defined as an agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, and/or that Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953, being the only authoritative document under which the pure Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter the named Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the named Internal Revenue Service, is sufficient to warrant a definition of the IRS as a legitimate agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, Plaintiffs respectfully demand that as a Qui Tam Action, the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department and/or the Private Attorney General(s) submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or also seek damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be sued in

14

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 10. The price of a (wo)man’s Soul (as the vital force of the body) exceeds any amount conceivable, but the amount in controversy in this case exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and by filing this action as a Qui Tam Action, that is a public interest suit, Plaintiffs believe that it is the rightful duty of a Grand Jury to investigate and the actual sum in controversy, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees that may be incurred may be established based upon Grand Jury findings. Damages are being sought from the IRS and not from the individual IRS agents or their supervisors by Plaintiffs’ filing this suit because Plaintiffs’ religious belief systems result in a definition of the underlying problem as that of a Root Sin in which ultimately even the victimizers are themselves unknowing victims wherein-by Plaintiffs are ever mindful views and teaching of the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) which appears inconsistently (some but not all original texts) in relation to such matters (e.g., Luke 23:34), but as a Qui Tam Action it is expected that other Americans will in fact sign on to the suit, in which case the initial Plaintiffs bringing this Qui Tam Action are not speaking for said others, such that, the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department and/or those who may be expected to sign onto this Action, who by common consent, may direct the U.S. Attorneys or Private Attorney General(s) to submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or also seek damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be

their individual and personal capacity, acting under “color of law”, as may be appropriate, for when the level of retaliation against the Plaintiffs, as set forth throughout this complaint, is placed in the context of 5 U.S.C. § 3331 it is much more that truly reprehensible, because “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

15

sued in their individual and personal capacity, acting under “color of law”, as may be appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 11. Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, hold that in accordance with the United States Declaration of Independence and particularly the “Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as American’s which include(ed) “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”, demand the right to a jury trial as set forth in the United States Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment United States Constitution, as well as the United States Supreme Court.

PUBLIC INTEREST and “PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS” 12. According to the law, this Qui Tam Action is to be filed under seal for 60 days to allow the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department that will be reviewing the case to investigate charges against the Government Contractor (IRS) and decide whether or not to intervene in the case.14 In fact, with Presidential candidates now making the

14

Plaintiffs are concerned about possible extensions. The reason Plaintiffs have a concern is that along with IRS Form 668-A(ICS), the IRS agent notified Plaintiffs’ employer in January that once they are in receipt of the levy they can not issue an advance, and the only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees. Yet the actual contract calls for Plaintiffs’ employer to advance the expense moneys to pay for fuel and tolls (which at current prices runs about 45-50 cents on every dollar they make) to complete the contracted job. Without these contracted funds from their employer, Plaintiffs are unable to work. In addition, on February 1, 2008 Plaintiffs employer notified them that he just received another form, Form 668-W(ICS), which puts us out of work permanently unless and until this Honorable Court provides Injunctive Relief. Because Plaintiffs live in the truck they work out of (maintaining their PO Box as their legal address), without the ability to make truck payments Plaintiffs and their thirteen year old son will be homeless very soon.

16

elimination of the IRS a formal aspect of their campaign, public awareness of the illegality and misapplication of income tax statutes has been steadily growing. Add to that, in the related § 6700 Suit (United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352)) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, WTP Organization, that at least one U.S. Attorney was compelled by her sense of honesty and integrity to admit to the Second Circuit that they have been caught on the wrong side,15 and for these reasons and much more Plaintiffs believe it to be an opportune time for the U.S. Attorney and Justice Department to intervene on behalf of We, The People.

13. It would also be preferable to Plaintiffs if the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department intervened in this Qui Tam Action, but in the event they should not, Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Supreme Court held that, “…This and other federal courts have repeatedly held that individual litigants, acting as private attorneys-general, may have standing as "representatives of the public interest." Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm'n, 316 U.S. 4, 14. See also Commission v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477; Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694; Reade v. Ewing, 205 F.2d 630; Scenic Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608; Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994. Compare Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 137 -139. And see, on actions qui tam, Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 225 ; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 546 . The
15

e.g., Where evidence of the falsification of damages was provided to the Second Circuit through the statement of the Government assigned Counsel reveled that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants or the Government could know whether those individuals used the materials … the IRS obviously can't investigate whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of individuals…"

17

various lines of authority are by no means free of difficulty, and certain of the cases may be explicable as involving a personal, if remote, economic interest…” See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 120 (1968).

14. This suit is also written with the expectation that other People will sign on to it as additional Plaintiffs, and by common consent, the Plaintiffs may be expected to choose a “private attorney general” from among themselves or act individually as “private attorney generals” such that, We, The People, have standing in this action if the DOJ attorneys do not have the inclination or time to prosecute the Named Accused “Government Contractor (the IRS)”, and, as such, Plaintiffs hereby claim the status of “representatives of the public interest” in addition to their status as Plaintiffs.

RELIEF BEING SOUGHT 15. Due to the on-going nature and extent of the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs caused by the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain Inalienable Rights, including the ongoing siege, harassment, and intimidating activities, involved with recent Summons served on Plaintiffs Employer, Notice of Levies unlawfully served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer and other interferences with Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right of Contract (which has effectively put them out of work) and Freedoms of Association and Religion, Injunctive Relief to protect against the irreparable harm is being respectfully requested, granting Plaintiffs the temporary relief requested in their Complaint, or alternatively move this Honorable Court for an entry of an Order:

18

a) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining all ultra vires (without bona fide authority) administrative actions, and prohibiting the IRS from acting under color of the IRC in attempting to force Plaintiffs as ordinary Americans to file and pay an un-apportioned, direct tax on their salaries, wages and compensation; and

b) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the collection of any tax from any Plaintiff that is based on the Plaintiff’s labor, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court are finally determined; and

c) directing the IRS to immediately release and suspend all Notice of Liens, Notice of Levys and audits put into effect against Plaintiffs, until the government either answers the Petitions for a Redress of Grievance to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution or until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems by the Governments Contractor (the IRS) now before this Court are finally determined; and

d) directing the IRS to send a letter to State and County officials for prudent policies of commercial process to be implemented including (1) the Immediate Removal of All Unsupported Notices of Lien Filings of Records for the protection of business and property holders of this State which have been filed under Fraud, (2) directing all State and County officials to protect themselves from possible litigation resulting from the IRS Fraud, by immediate reorganizations of the Recorder of Conveyance to include a separate

19

alphabetical “Notice of Federal Tax Lien Index” without recordation and therefore without Securities value and worth, and (3) Only when IRS agents/officers submit the supporting documents including affidavits, 23C Assessments, judicial orders, and process documents with delegated authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, may said Federal Tax Lien be recorded, thus becoming transformed and worthy to be placed correctly in a “Federal Tax Lien Index” as a Bonafide Tax Lien; and

e) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the IRS and any other real agency of the United States that arguably may act in this matter under color of the IRC, from advancing any and all administrative, civil and criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, including the sharing of information and/or cooperation with state taxing authorities, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights, including Plaintiffs’ Christian Religious Belief Systems, now before this Court are finally determined; and

f) granting any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT 16. Plaintiffs, William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, who are Pro Se, contended that in accordance with the United States Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the context of the first Thirteen Amendments the Constitution, Slavery and Peonage are unconstitutional, and as a God given Inalienable Right, the subjects of Liberty and Freedom, as rights of citizenship, are also inclusive within their right to

20

Religious Freedom (e.g., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23; I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men), such that, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our servant government has any right to diminish or abrogate or otherwise divorce the People from their Rights, and when We, The People, perceive this most basic of Rights as being violated as a matter of the government or its contractor’s unconstitutional actions, the People have a First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and that means not just a Right to Petition, but if the Petition Clause itself is to not be rendered in whole or in part without meaning, it means that the Plaintiffs have a First Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances as well, and pending the Redress of Grievances, Plaintiffs assert legal rights to their property - namely, their money, the hardearned fruits of their labor, state as follows:

17. Plaintiffs have been facilitating citizen vigilance and activism in the form of petitioning state government since the early 1990’s, which involved the exercise of their First Amendment Right of Petitioning the State of New York with respect to Fraud in employment practices and the Right to Life on behalf of the Medically Frail, and in terms of more recent events, Plaintiffs have been active members of We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education (herein after referred to as the “WTP Foundation”) and We The People Congress (herein after referred to as the “WTP Congress”) and collectively known as We The People Organization (herein after referred to as “WTP Organization”), have been a part of a number of demonstrations in Washington DC regarding their First Amendment Right to Petition government for a Redress of Grievances regarding Constitutional torts.

21

18. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have been exercising their First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding (1) the IRS’s apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and the Government's apparent violations of (2) the War Powers Clauses (by the Iraq Resolution), (3) the privacy and due process clauses (by the U.S.A. Patriot Act), (4) the money and debt limiting clauses (by the Federal Reserve System) of the Constitution, (5) the President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws (Illegal Immigration), (6) regarding the North American Union, (7) Gun Control, (8) U.S Aid to Israel, (9) are currently proactive in the national distribution a Freedom Flyer (Exhibit 2) to encourage other truck drivers to contact WTP Organization for the purposes of developing a new Petition involving constitutional torts regularly experienced in the trucking industry, and (10) apart from petitions put forth by WTP Organization, are also signed on to another Petition for Redress of Grievances authored by the five widows of 9-11 victims, a group of 9-11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

19. Both Plaintiffs were also signed onto WTP Foundation’s original historic Right-toPetition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)16 and because of many concerns over possible

16

WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintWTPvUS7-12-04.PDF).

22

retaliation the initial complaint did not list our names individually, however Plaintiff William M. Greene is listed on WTP Foundation et al.’s First Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive Relief17 and both Plaintiffs are listed on the Second Amended Complaint,18 and following the District Court having dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint (We The People v. United States, No. 04-cv-1211, slip op. at 6 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2005)) and thereby essentially voiding the First Amendment Petition clause by ruling that the First Amendment does not provide plaintiffs with the right to receive a government response to or official consideration of their petitions (Id. at 2-3) and also concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act bars plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief with respect to the collection of taxes (Id. at 5 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7421)), both Plaintiffs remained as Appellants in the Appeal and based upon the decision (485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007), with rehearing en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007), Writs of Certiorari were filed in a timely manner (Dockets Number 07-680 & 07-681) with Petitions for Writ of Certiorari denied as well (January 7, 2008), WTP Foundation submitted the final appeal, the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari which SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, voted to not hear in spite of the Constitutional duty to declare the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment and provide relief for those of us who contend that recent IRS administrative actions taken against them under the Color of Law are retaliatory with respect to our guaranteed

WTP Foundation et al.’s First Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintAmended-9-15-04.PDF); 18 WTP Foundation et al.’s Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04CV01211) (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/SecondAmendedComplaintWTPvUS11-1204.PDF);

17

23

First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution.

20. On April 13, 2000, for example, the major points expressed in WTP Organization’s Petition for a Redress of Grievances concerning the alleged illegal operations of the federal income tax system and the IRS was hand delivered to leaders of the three branches of the federal government by a group of citizen-delegates representing all 50 states, and on April 2, 2001, Robert Schulz, Chairman and founder of WTP Organization, requested that he be allowed to testify at the April 5, 2001, Senate Finance Committee hearing, under the chairmanship of Senator Charles Grassley, which was a hearing specifically to warn taxpayers about illegal tax schemes, scams, and cons. After which, Robert Schulz was informed that he would not be allowed to testify but was informed that if WTP Organization submitted a written statement the Committee would decide whether it would be added to the official record of the hearing. Robert Schulz followedup on this advice by mailing the statement to the Senate Finance Committee,19 which directly incorporated a shortened version (with reference to full-length version) of Larking Rose’s March 6, 2001 letter to Attorney General John Ashcroff. Before the April 5, 2001 hearing began, WTP Organization also submitted the required number of copies for the record of the hearing, which had twenty (20) exhibits attached to it, and although Robert Schulz’s statement was attached to the official record of the Senate

See Statement Submitted to Senate Finance Committee, "Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and Fraud." April 5, 2001, Submitted by Robert L. Schulz, Chairman, We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc. (http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/PressKit-04-05-01.pdf)

19

24

Finance Committee hearing20 as pp. 117-124, and because, none of the exhibits were included in the record, Plaintiffs can not help but believe that the suppression of evidence might constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (i.e., Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees), because among those attachment was included a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated June 26, 1989 and a copy of WTP Organization’s letter to Commissioner Rossotti, which included a copy of Sen. Inouye’s letter (Exhibit 3 ) which reads in part:

"…I am writing in further response to your inquiry regarding the precise provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRS [sic]) that render an individual liable for income taxes…Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes."

21. Joseph Banister, Bill Benson, Larken Rose and Robert Schulz also attended that April 5, 2001 Senate Finance Committee hearing, but were not allowed to testify because the message offered by WTP Organization would "detract from the message the Committee was trying to convey." In response, on April 9, 2001, WTP Organization invited any representative of the IRS and/or IRS Commissioner Rossotti, himself, to answer the questions and allegations raised by tax researchers or even respond to the simple statement of “show me the law!”

See Taxpayer beware: schemes, scams, and cons: hearing before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session on IRS oversight, April 5, 2001. Y 4.F 49:S.HRG. 107-77, Item Number: 1038-A. (http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov&v%3afile=viv_901%4029%3at3h2GQ&v%3astate=ro ot%7croot&opener=fullwindow&url=http%3a%2f%2ffinance.senate.gov%2f73551.pdf&rid=Ndoc4&v%3aframe=redirect&rsourc e=firstgov-msn&v%3astate=%28root%29%7croot&rrank=4&)

20

25

22. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have been a part of the effort to present our questions to elected representatives, and even though we are only two of the people who have signed onto the Petitions for Redress of Grievances, we not only believe it is our government’s constitutional duty to respond but further believe that a failure to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional torts constitutes, among other things, fraud, extortion, and civil rights violations, on the part of government and/or the government’s contractors (the IRS).

23. Some of the questions presented include questions and reasons for questions regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment and are included in said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax”21 under the “Sixth Belief”, paragraphs 1-119. Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have said questions been answered except by Bill Benson in his two volume research report, “The Law That Never Was” and at the two-day Citizens’ Truth in Taxation Hearing22 in Washington DC on February 27-28, 2002 by a panel of experts including constitutional attorney Lowell Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister and Bill Benson, and it is Plaintiffs’ understanding that American jurisprudence have never successfully refuted said facts.

24. Other questions and reasons for questions regard “Section 861” which are found in said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under the “Ninth Belief”, paragraphs 1-16. Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have
See Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax, (www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/STOP/StmtOfBeliefs3-09-03.PDF) 22 See Truth-In Taxation-Hearing, Initial Questions, January 22, 2002 (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/News/Historical/WTPQuestions-020122.pdf)
21

26

said questions been answered except by Larken Rose in his research report, “Taxable Income”, and it is Plaintiffs’ understanding that nowhere in American jurisprudence have said facts been formally and specifically refuted.

25. Moreover, representatives of the United States as well as the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) have refused to answer questions and reasons for questions regarding “Liability” which are found in said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under the “Second Belief”, paragraphs 1-82, and under the “Third Belief,” paragraphs 1-45, and under the “Fourth Belief,” paragraphs 123, and under the “Seventh Belief,” paragraphs 1-42, and under the “Eighth Belief,” paragraphs 1-23, and under the “Tenth Belief,” paragraphs 1-24, and Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have said questions been answered, except by various tax professionals at the Citizens’ Truth in Taxation Hearing in Washington DC on February 27-28, 2002.

26. As stated on pages #8 and 9 in connection with paragraph 27, WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit23 again, in October, 2003, Department of Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Ms. Pam Olson, was respectfully Petitioned by over five hundred people to answer the six questions regarding Section 861.

See pages #8 and 9 in connection with paragraph 27 regarding six questions about Section 861, in WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintWTPvUS7-12-04.PDF).

23

27

27. Moreover, these six questions were also presented as an attachment “2D” of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6), but the point Plaintiffs would seek to make here is that Neither Ms. Olson, nor any other individual from the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch nor the IRS responded to these simple questions, and whatever effect the silence of the Executive and Legislative Branches of government may have in terms of legal definitions of fraud, it is important to make the distinction between silence as fraud and the criminal acts of those who with knowledge and forethought “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and because the government's dual actions of evading the public discussion of the issues while not interfering with the IRS’ actions to strengthen its steel-fisted, heavyhanded enforcement campaign of fear and terror, thereby eroding the Constitution by sanctioning the IRS’ retaliation, under color of law, against the People who have, in good faith, claimed and exercised unalienable Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which by-and-of-itself only serves to strengthen the resolve and determination of a People who see themselves as free and sovereign and who see all of government limited by a written constitution, can no longer be tolerated and therefore warrants the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department, or Private Attorney General, to intervene against the Named Accused “Government Contractor (the IRS).

28. Plaintiffs, through the more formal efforts of the participating organization, of which the Plaintiffs are a part, have gone to great lengths to express the fact that what is truly reprehensible is not the subject matter presented in the Petitions for Redress of

28

Grievances, and not even the government’s unwillingness to answer legitimate questions and be held accountable to the Constitution prior to the matter being resolved by some form of court action, but rather the lengths that the IRS, as the Government’s contractor, was and is apparently willing to go to silence anyone who questioned its power in the context of the petitions, for, as shown by Paragraph #1650 of the WTP Foundation et al.’s Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) on September 16, 2003, at a press conference held at the US Treasury Building, organized by the US Treasury Department and IRS, Mr. Terry Lemons, a senior spokesman for the IRS stated, in response to a question put to him by David Cay Johnston of The New York Times as to why the Government had not responded to the petitions and questions regarding the legality of the income tax system as applied, “We are answering those petitions through enforcement actions.”

29. David Cay Johnston’s article reported in the September 17, 2003 publication of The New York Times (Exhibit 4) also presented the IRS’, as the Government’s Contractor’s, response to WTP Petitioning process this way:

“Later, an I.R.S. senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, said that courts had upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the agency did not want to waste time and resources dealing with well-settled issues. Mr. Lemons added that the recent spate of enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. against promoters of abusive tax schemes, and the new agreement with the states, show other ways that government is answering the petition.”

29

30. As also presented on page 26 of WTP Foundation’s September 30, 2004, Memorandum In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint,24 at the same press conference, IRS senior official, Dale Hart, said the IRS was “after mailing lists.” All of this is obviously meant to have a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their fundamental Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances. Dale Hart’s statement about mailing lists can be seen and heard on the web cast of the 9/16/03 press conference, which is archived on the Treasury Department’s Internet site, and Plaintiffs in this case believe such actions to be unlawful; “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) and “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” (Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886).

31. As far as IRS claims “that courts had upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the agency did not want to waste time and resources dealing with well-settled issues”, the IRS Officials are making an excuse for not answering reasonable questions, even when those reasonable questions are put forth in terms of our First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and a declaration that "the courts have ruled against these issues" is nothing less than another of those deceptive "Terror Tactics" to induce “fear” as the IRS mounted its "crusade" against the Plaintiffs as members of We, The People, (See Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959)):

See WTP Foundation’s September 30, 2004, Memorandum In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/MemoLawOpposition11-11-04.PDF).

24

30

"The most authoritative form of such explanation is a congressional report defining the scope and meaning of proposed legislation. The most authoritative report is a Conference Report acted upon by both Houses and therefore unequivocally representing the will of both Houses as the joint legislative body. No doubt to find failure to file a declaration of estimated income to be a "substantial underestimate" would be to attribute to Congress a most unlikely meaning for that phrase in 294 (d) (2) simpliciter. But if Congress chooses by appropriate means for expressing its [361 U.S. 87, 95] purpose to use language with an unlikely and even odd meaning, it is not for this Court to frustrate its purpose. The Court's task is to construe not English but congressional English. Our problem is not what do ordinary English words mean, but what did Congress mean them to mean. "It is said that when the meaning of language is plain we are not to resort to evidence in order to raise doubts. That is rather an axiom of experience than a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists." Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 . Here we have the most persuasive kind of evidence that Congress did not mean the language in controversy, however plain it may be to the ordinary user of English, to have the ordinary meaning. These provisions were first enacted in the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, c. 120, 57 Stat. 126, as additions to 294 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The Conference Report, H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, p. 56, and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 221, p. 42, both gave the provision dealing with substantial underestimation of taxes the following gloss: "In the event of a failure to file any declaration where one is due, the amount of the estimated tax for the purposes of this provision will be zero." The revision of the section eight months later by the Revenue Act of 1943, c. 63, 58 Stat. 21, did not affect its substance, and this provision, therefore, continued to carry the original gloss. While the Court adverts to this congressional definition, it disregards its controlling significance. * [361 U.S. 87, 96] (Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959) 32. Apart from the fact that Plaintiffs claim that a disregard of the controlling significance of the word “income” can result in slavery and/or peonage, which is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and which is a subject of this case, given that, apart from some differences, depending upon reference, pointing to these provisions as being first enacted in the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, c. 120, 57 Stat. 31

126, as additions to 294 (a) of the IRC of 1939, and the Conference Report, H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, p. 56, and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 221, p. 42, as compared to House Report No. 1337 (p. A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p. 168), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively (1954), which specifically declared that the word “income” as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, and since the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter “C.F.R.”) does not otherwise define what is meant by “income” (See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206), why would anyone expect the Plaintiffs to believe that the word “income” should mean anything other than what the Supreme Court had also otherwise consistently defined the word “income” to mean, which is “profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets” (See Stratton v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399,414 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179,185 (1918); So. Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 198 (1920) and Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smeitanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921).

33. Additionally, given the various classes of citizenship and therefore the various legal meanings of the terms “Citizen” and “citizen” (e.g., See People v. De Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588m 590 (1875); Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, page 941-942 (1975); Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738), and that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally held that regulations cannot exceed the underlying statutory authority, most workers do not even fit the definition of “employee”

32

under the internal revenue laws (See 26 C.F.R. § 3401(c), 3121(d), and 3306(i)), most personal earnings are not taxable under the internal revenue laws (See 26 C.F.R. § 1.8631(c) and 26 C.F.R. 1.861-1 (1956)), and questions as to why the Regulations would be revised so as to obscure proper references and why any court would disregard the controlling significance of such terms without a corresponding Constitutional Amendment as authority by-and-of-itself more than substantiates Plaintiffs’ significant questions presented in the context of our First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances.

34. Regarding the "861 evidence" in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed it, and the various lower court rulings, when they have done anything more than declare the position "frivolous" or "without merit," have relied exclusively upon the broadly-worded general definition of "gross income" found in Section 61 (USC, Title 26) to the exclusion of all else, therein-by avoiding the responsibility to respond to complaints involving legally cognizable "grievances", and because unsupported assertions and unexplained conclusions do not constitute a valid substitute for Plaintiffs’ reasonable questions, WTP Foundation sponsored and Plaintiffs signed onto the Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts.

35. Keeping in mind the fact that Plaintiffs have a Constitutional right to Contract, in which the fruits of their labor is their Property, and that any law which would imply that they only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage can not be definable in terms other than slavery and/or peonage, and therefore is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §

33

1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because even state ownership of their labor property is unconstitutional (See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910)), if Plaintiffs are to ignore the fact that Congress specifically declared that the word “income” as used in Section 61 of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, and need only look to the general statutory definition of "gross income" (as found in Section 61 of the tax code) in order to determine whether their income is indeed taxable, the following obvious questions also arise:

36. Why are Plaintiffs to rely only on a section which says nothing at all about who is receiving income or where it is coming from, while ignoring the part of the law which specifically deals with such issues (Subchapter N, which begins with Section 861)?

37. If Plaintiffs need look no further than the general definition of "gross income," why do the past regulations specifically make reference statements like some “income, which are, under the Constitution, exempt from taxation by the federal Government” (e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 1.312-6(b), 26 C.F.R. § 39.22(b)-1 (1956))?

38. If Section 61 makes all income taxable, no matter where it comes from, why do the regulations under 861, and more than eighty years of predecessor statutes and regulations, plainly identified U.S.-source income as being taxable for foreigners, and for certain Americans with possessions income, while never mentioning Americans who live and work only in the U.S.?

34

39. If the broad language in Section 61 means that all income is taxable, no matter where it comes from, again, keeping in mind that slavery and/or peonage is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, why did a Supreme Court justice state that, "'From whatever source derived,' as it is written in the Sixteenth Amendment [which is where the wording in Section 61 came from], does not mean from whatever source derived" (Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938), dissenting opinion)?

40. Court rulings concerning 861 have never addressed ANY of the issues or sections cited therein. But, more importantly, given that slavery and/or peonage is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because even state ownership of their labor property is unconstitutional (See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910)), and that “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the [339 U.S. 382, 443] citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” (See Communications Assn. v. Douds 339 U.S. 382 (1950)), and referring to reasonable questions as being "frivolous conclusions" or "without merit" is not an adequate substitute for a Redress of Grievances, the Plaintiffs as members of WTP Organization believe that the provision of reasonable answers is but the first step in satisfying the plain language of the Petition clause, which is “a Redress of Grievances.”

35

EXHAUSTION OF OTHER REMEDIES 41. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have focused on the fact the First Amendment itself guarantees the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution in terms of the proper Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts, and given that the Government, and Government Contractor (IRS) in this instance, would not even enter into discussion of the matters addressed through WTP Organization’s proper Petitions our Constitutional Right to a Redress of Grievances is not even recognized, let alone satisfied, and the aforementioned tact approval for the Government Contractor’s retaliatory illicit activity is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and particularly pursuant to the provisions of Subchapter I of Chapter 21, and in bringing this case to this Honorable Court as a Qui Tam Action, Plaintiffs also believe that it is the duty of the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department or Private Attorney General(s) to request a Grand Jury whereby monetary damages will be further set forth.

42. Being signed onto all of the Petitions and Class Action Complaint put forth by WTP Organization, Plaintiff William M. Greene’s contact with the IRS was limited to responding to their letters (e.g., to IRS letter dated 08/19/2002 on form letter 2797 (CG) (Rev. )3-199) on 09/01/02 with short statements asserting knowledge of the IRS’ fraud (Exhibit 5) and phone calls (e.g., from Ms. Graham, Employee #1601098, on 04/30/04), and Plaintiffs did not immediately respond with WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication

36

entitled “Tell IRS To “Drop Dead”,25 whereby all members were encouraged to appropriately use the suggested “Draft Letter”26 and its three attachments, which included a Memorandum of Law regarding the Right to Petition,27 a re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and Beliefs,28 and a further statement of legal facts addressing the vital issue of IRS’ Lack of Federal Legal Jurisdiction,29 to enforce the tax upon ordinary Americans; and these three documents themselves contain most of the references of law which Plaintiffs will be using throughout this case.

43. Nevertheless, beginning with Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6), which was submitted as Plaintiffs’ statement in lieu of a tax return for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and for all future years, … and further explained that as he understands it he had no income as defined by Federal L1475 legislation and IRS Code, and that in the context of that letter he had returned the preparer’s assessments for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, as Attachments, stating “No Answers No Taxes”, as well as to state that, if the IRS does not provide him with

See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication entitled “Tell IRS To “Drop Dead”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/update09-27-03.htm); 26 See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication whereby all members were encouraged to appropriately use the suggested “Draft Letter”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/LetterToIRS.htm); 27 See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Memorandum of Law regarding the Right to Petition, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS REGARDING THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach1-petition.pdf); 28 See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and Beliefs, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO STOP FILING AND PAYING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach2-537.pdf); 29 See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and Beliefs, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO STOP FILING AND PAYING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach2-537.pdf);

25

37

reference to the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction that requires him to properly respond, he would assume that the preparer did not in fact have the authority and the IRS Office has therefore procedurally rescinded that notice of deficiency in accordance with Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 63, Subchapter B, Sec. 6212(d). (See Pages #15 & 19 - Exhibit 6, pgs. 2 & 6 of 12).

44. In that July 22, 2004 letter, the Plaintiff also stated that if and when the IRS Office responds with that reference to the law requiring him to file, or responds to the "Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax" he would of course comply with the law, but further stated that such compliance would be only as that of a Slave shackled by that law, given that, as outlined in his letter, the IRS’ activities constitute a violation of my right to religious freedom, and in paragraph #22 of his letter, the Plaintiff also stated that "if I am presented with such a law I hereby reserve the right to submit my own income tax assessment for the aforesaid years, which will of course include whatever credits due me for the loss of my home, etc." (See Pages #19 & 20 Exhibit 6, pgs. 7 & 8 of 12).

45. As such, with the context of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 he indicated he contested the “routine practice” of filing the substitute assessments, and reserved the right to submit his own income tax assessment for the aforesaid years, which will of course include whatever credits due for the loss Plaintiffs’ home, etc., and within the context of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s letter dated

38

September 28, 2007 (Exhibit 12), she explained the substitute assessments which “the IRS has been sending illustrates how that process works, but these mailings raise other questions about the lack of sufficient factual basis for information submitted on the substitute returns, given that the IRS of all agencies should know that a truck driver’s gross compensation for labor is offset by approximately 40% in fuel alone. Add to that lease payments, bobtail and cargo insurance, maintenance and breakdown costs, tolls and food and a truck drivers real compensation for labor is often less than $0.15 to $0.25 (cents) on the dollar. In fact in my husband’s case, because of the declining business climate to provide pre-manufactured fixtures to newly developing shopping malls and schools following 9/11, we could no longer even make our weekly lease-purchase payments of almost $1,000.00 per week. We had to return all of our leased equipment, thereby losing all of our investment and had to start all over again with contracts in my name because of my husband’s resulting credit problems and we have been slowly working ourselves out of the credit crunch ever since.” (See Page #71 - Exhibit 12, pg. 6 of 7).

46. Apart from Plaintiffs’ personal letters to the IRS, even though Congress enacted § 6330 – along with § 6320 – in order to provide certain procedural safeguards for “taxpayers” facing IRS collection activity, and Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the IRS’s CDP determination of an income tax liability (26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 6330(d)(1), 7442; 26 C.F.R. §§ 301.6330-1(f)(1), 601.102(b)(1)(i)), Plaintiffs

39

have reason to believe that the IRS may not have legislative and territorial jurisdiction30 ((U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 17; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Adams v. U.S. 319 U.S. 312 (1943), and 40 U.S.C § 255 (now 40 U.S.C. § 3111 and 40 U.S.C. § 3112)), and therefore are “not taxpayers” as defined under the income tax law.

47. “The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry” (48 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Series, Section 2, page 80), and given that, Plaintiffs were born and lived most of their lives in the State of New York, and although they are currently employed as truck drivers involved in interstate commerce, fuel taxes are paid both at the pump and through their employer,31 and it has only been a condition of their employment that they furnish their own IFTA which required a EIN for the purpose of the payment of the Heavy Highway Use Tax directly to the IRS,32 rather than
30

See “[ Footnote 23 ] There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.” (See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 292 (1979). 31 The collection of a percentage of the surcharge, is no more than a federal tax on interstate commerce, which Plaintiffs are not trying to claim in this action to be an invalid exercise of either Congress' commerce or taxing power. Cf. United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44 -45 (1950); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 -583 (1937), unless Plaintiffs admittance of being a taxpayer within the context of the fuel taxes collected at the pump and State Fees paid through their employer’s payroll services should be inappropriately used to defined them as a taxpayer in the context of the income tax laws. 32 Should the Plaintiffs admittance of being a taxpayer within the context of the Heavy Highway Use Tax be used to argue that the Plaintiffs must therefore be defined as a taxpayer in other contexts such as the income tax laws, Plaintiffs reserve the right to argue this point as well, given that, although in 1796, the United States Supreme Court in Hylton v. U. S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796) finding was that the tax was on the “use” of the carriage rather than the carriage itself and therefore an “excise” tax which did not need to be apportioned, an argument within the context of this suit will be based upon Hylton’s fraud upon the courts and the American people given that Hylton only owned one carriage involving a $16.00 annual tax but lied about the number of carriages, alleging that Hylton owned 200 carriages to increase the amount in controversy equal to $3200.00, and thereby qualifying the case to be herd in the Federal Circuit Court (now the District Court) because the case in controversy involved an amount greater than $3000.00. Originally filed in the New York Court and then removed to the Circuit Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, Mr. Hylton agreed to pay $16.00, the amount of the tax on the one carriage he actually owned. Hylton v. U. S.,

40

through their employer, but Plaintiffs do not and have never carried their own interstate authority, are not a possessions corporation, do not have employees, and therefore are not “subject” in terms of the gains and profits “derived from” the labor of others.33 That is, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (United States Constitution, 9th Amendment) Such that, “Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.” Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, 455-456 (Tenn.1960).

48. In this context, it is Plaintiffs understanding that IRC §§ 6001, 6011, 6012(a) are the regulations which address liability for the income tax relative to the subject of record keeping, where for example, Plaintiffs have read 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1 through the end and 31.6001-1 through the end and find that the payee and employee aren't required to file returns except to secure refunds, and although Section 6001 states that “Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe…” and “The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with

3 U.S. 171 (1796) has subsequently been used as the basis for the misuse of the Excise Tax in the United States. Had Hylton not fabricated an excess of damages to qualify the case to be adjudicated in the Circuit Court, this case would have stayed in the State Courts, and the tax would have been declared invalid in New York and the Supremes would not have accepted jurisdiction on the Writ of Error. 33 “The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.” Butcher’s Union Co. v Crescent City Co. 111 U.S. 746 (1884).

41

charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with Section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under Section 6053(a).” Moreover, while Section 6011 states that, “(a) General Rule. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations . . . (g) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C”, and then actually look to those subparts B and C referred to at IRC Section 6011(g) contain IRC Sections 6012 through 6017a, and in this respect knowledge of how to determine whether or not the individual is “liable for” a tax is displayed at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states that: “(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1)” and further, Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that “(a)(1) The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701”, such that “persons made liable” at IRC Sections 5005 and 5703 for the taxes imposed at IRC Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701, respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make returns and keep records. Finally, given that Section 1461 of Title 27 is the only place in Subtitle A of the IRC where Congress used the words “liable for”, that means that the person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a withholding agent for nonresident aliens, and although Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the

42

withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, “liable for” any income tax imposed in Subtitle A, such that the canon of statutory construction, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”, which means the “express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of another” has been the underlying construct motivating Plaintiffs to sign onto the first Petition for Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on labor) as well as their personal letters to the IRS requesting any reference to the law requiring them to [keep records and/or] file. (See Pages #14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 23 Exhibit 6, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 of 12; Pages #26, 27 & 29 - Exhibit 7, pgs. 1, 2 & 4 of 4; Pages #30 & 31 - Exhibit 8, pgs. 2 & 3 of 3; Pages #34, 35 & 38 - Exhibit 9, pgs 2, 3 & 6 of 8,; Page #41 - Exhibit 10, pg. 1 of 9).

49. Plaintiffs’ beliefs are also supported by the fact that Plaintiffs in this case are signed onto the Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct unapportioned tax on labor), which questions whether or not they are legally defined as tax payers, and are also signed onto the Class Action Lawsuit the WTP Foundation's historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury Department, the IRS, and the U.S. Department of Justice, We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) which SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, voted to not hear in spite of it’s Constitutional duty, as well as the fact that the IRS has consistently failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for any reference to the law requiring them to file, and as such have historically contested the IRS’s filing of substitute assessments.

43

50. As long as declaratory relief remains unavailable34, Plaintiffs have also maintained their right to personally complain to the IRS Commissioner(s) by letters about the extensive irreparable harm they are suffering as a result of the on-going IRS administrative actions taken against them, in terms of those administrative actions being a coordinated, broad based, enforcement program of malicious intent that is impeding the administration of justice without judicial review and abridging Plaintiffs’ Inalienable Rights to freedom from a government that would infringe or erode their rights of association, petition, speech, privacy, information, property, due process and religious freedom.

51. Plaintiffs are asserting their Constitutional Rights in this matter and from their review of 28 U.S.C. § 451, and the Reference Notes (See 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559) which indicate that all of the provisions of this Section 451 which related to the Tax Court were eliminated by Senate amendment, believe that the Tax Court is not authorized to consider issues dealing with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights, especially when the IRS has consistently failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for any reference to the law requiring them to file, but even if the Tax Court may indeed be authorized to hear constitutional claims, issues such as exhaustion of administrative remedies are meaningless, in the face of WTP Organization’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances, and particularly the Petition relating to the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor and the fact remains the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has admitted in public form, not once but

Cf. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430 (1963) ("[U]nder the conditions of modern government, litigation may well be the sole practicable avenue open to a minority to petition for redress of grievances.").

34

44

twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint) that IRS administrative actions with respect to these Petitions are retaliatory acts, and as evidenced by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint), as well as the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain Inalienable Rights, including recent Summons and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer and Notice of Levies served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, all done without judicial review and formal orders issued by an Article III Federal Court would constitute a direct violation of the Privacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. For these reasons alone, apart from any other evidence of complaint Plaintiffs bring before this Honorable Court, issues of legal obligation and authority with respect to those administering the body of Regulations used by IRS employees are clearly biased on the part of the Government Contractor (the IRS), such that Plaintiffs believe that an exception to the exhaustion of the administrative remedy should be found to be an unconstitutional application of the IRC where an adverse decision would be certain because the IRS has not only articulated a very clear position on the issue but even gone so far as to falsify damages in this very District Court to qualify for a complaint under Article III of the Constitution, wherein-by the IRS has not only demonstrated it would be unwilling to consider and respond to requests involving constitutionality of the tax liability but the bias in denial of the individuals’ Constitutional Rights appears to be further demonstrated by Tax court decisions holding constitutional defenses to be

45

meritless (See Russell S. Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January 21, 2000)):

“As a threshold matter, we observe that petitioner's efforts to shift the burden of proof to respondent on constitutional grounds are meritless. The burden of proof rests on the taxpayer, except in certain situations not relevant here. See Rule 142(a). Furthermore, this burden of proof has been uniformly applied, regardless of whether the taxpayer's arguments addressed the amount or the constitutionality of the tax. See, e.g., Larsen v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 1985); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 405 (1984); Kish v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-16; Minguske v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-573; Frami v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-509; Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-277.”

52. The government’s unwillingness to answer legitimate questions and be held accountable to the Constitution is one thing, but the lengths that the IRS, as the government’s contractor, was and is apparently willing to go to silence anyone who questioned its power in the context of the petitions, supports Plaintiffs’ belief that pursuing available administrative remedies for individuals facing IRS administrative actions and collection activity would have been clearly useless, and that the ultimate denial of relief was/is an unconstitutional certainty, and Plaintiffs’ beliefs in this matter are not only supported by the fact that Plaintiffs are listed on the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts, but that given the fact that "The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." (See Ellrod v. Burns 427 U.S. 347 (1976)), Plaintiffs have been signed on to the Class Action Lawsuit the WTP Foundation's historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, believing that the only appropriate action was/is for Plaintiffs to await the outcome of the WTP Foundation's Right-to-Petition Lawsuit; We the People v. United

46

States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), however SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, voted to not hear the appeal in spite of it’s Constitutional duty.

53. As Plaintiffs understand it, the DC Circuit Court decisions have held, in effect, that even if the Plaintiffs have a Right to Petition to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, we do not have a Right to a Redress of constitutional torts (let alone a Response from the Government to the Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts), and, citing the Anti-Injunction Act, the Plaintiffs could not expect the judicial department to assist the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs were: a) attacked by the Executive Branch35 for withdrawing their financial support until their Grievances were Redressed; and b), if, in reaction to the retaliation, the Plaintiffs were to approach the Judicial Branch for an order blocking any further retaliatory actions by the Executive Branch until Plaintiffs’ Grievances were Redressed such relief would not be granted.

54. However, this action is not being brought against the Executive Branch, but against the IRS as the Government’s Contractor, and as an empirical matter, the DC Circuit Court decision conflicts with a long line of Supreme Court decisions that stand for the proposition that no Act of Congress (including the IRC) can trump the Constitution, but in citing the Anti-Injunction Act as the reason for being barred from protecting the Plaintiffs from such retaliation because of the Act’s provision that “no suit for the
The question of whether the people’s fear of government should ever be allowed/justified is one which has been considered as the very basis of American government. See John Adams, Thoughts on Government (Boston, 1776), rpt. In Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, eds., AMERICAN POLITICAL WRITING OF THE FOUNDING ERA 401, 402 (Liberty Fund 1983) (“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it”); available online at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/adams/filmmore/ps_thoughts.html.
35

47

purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person”, the decision itself implies that Acts of Congress, which may or may not be founded upon the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, can trump the Constitution and whether that decision is viewed in terms "Inalienable Rights" were thought to be the Natural Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or property)", which at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence were clearly understood as Rights independent of positive law Inalienable Rights, or in terms of "Unalienable Rights" as it was so changed to by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration, the Plaintiffs in this action assert that the axiom of Inalienable rights was written into the Bill of Rights as the Ninth Amendment Rights “retained by the people” and in doing so believe that the DC Circuit Court decision conflicts the Fundamental, Individual Rights that the Courts are expressly authorized to protect. That is, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

55. In any event, Plaintiffs in this case do not have a traceable lineage to those who were chatteled and released to a higher standard of living as a result of the Thirteenth Amendment and thereafter afforded other rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore are not “persons under the law” and are “not subject” to the kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, and being signed on to all of the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances put forth by WTP Organization, have a Constitutional Right to Contract and their labor as their Property, such that any law which would imply that they only have such Rights so as long as they pay a

48

percentage can not be definable in terms other than slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because, even state ownership of their labor property is unconstitutional (See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910)).

56. In fact as this case proceeds, Plaintiffs will base their legal arguments upon the information presented in WTP Organization’s publication entitled “The Legal Authority Of The IRS And The Income Tax”36 which was submitted to Representative Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil and Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, Asst. to the President, on March 16, 2002, in support of Plaintiffs’ belief that a choice to keep expense records, apart from whether or not they actually keep such expense records, is personal and private and that the IRS nor anyone else has a right to know how they are supporting themselves and keeping a roof over their head, even if it is on wheels, who their friends and associates are/were, whether or not they have/had any health issues and who their doctors are/were, whether and why they paid money to clinics and hospitals, who their telephone and IT service providers are, how much they paid to lease their truck and for fuel and maintenance, whether or not they insured their truck and car, and/or where they shopped for food and how much they spent, etc., and as such believe that they have already provided the IRS with much more information than they are actually entitled to under the law.

See WTP Organization’s publication entitled “The Legal Authority Of The IRS And The Income Tax” which was submitted to Representative Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil and Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, Asst. to the President, on March 16, 2002, (www.givemeliberty.org/post-hearing/HearingQsToBartlett4-4-02.PDF);

36

49

PLAINTIFFS’ REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT THE IRS PROVIDE ANY REFERENCE OF LAW REQUIRING THEM TO FILE

57. Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6) was followed by Plaintiff’s second letter dated January 31, 2005 (Exhibit 7), third letter dated July 27, 2005 (Exhibit 8), forth letter dated April 13, 2007 (Exhibit 9), fifth letter dated May 5, 2007 (Exhibit 10), sixth letter dated September 6, 2007 which was Response letter to the IRS mailing of the 6700 suit (Exhibit 11), and a seventh letter dated September 28, 2007 by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene (Exhibit 12).

58. Knowing that silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading and refusing to cave into psychological intimidation or deceptive tactics calculated to overcome the Plaintiffs’ “free will", Plaintiff William M. Greene had personally and repeatedly requested in all of his letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides Plaintiffs with the law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in these matters he would do so (See Pages #14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 23 - Exhibit 6, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 of 12, Pages #26, 27 & 29 - Exhibit 7, pgs. 1, 2 & 4 of 4, Pages #30 & 31 - Exhibit 8, pgs. 2 & 3 of 3, Pages #34, 35 & 38 - Exhibit 9, pgs 2, 3 & 6 of 8, Page #41 - Exhibit 10, pg. 1 of 9), and following the Plaintiffs’ claim of a “notorious default” with respect to IRS’ failure to respond with an appropriate reference of law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in these matters (See Pages #57, 58 & 61 - Exhibit 11, pgs. 7, 8 & 11 of 15), which itself was a response letter to the IRS having mailed the copy of the case against

50

Plaintiffs’ participating organization in which damages were clearly falsified, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene also personally notified the IRS “If the court provides a ruling with respect to our guaranteed First Amendment Right of Petitioning in the matters and deems it appropriate, after I have requested and the court has reviewed a Bill of Particulars related to subjects already outlined in the petition for redress involving tax provisions of the Constitution and defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for me to pay income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return and the court finds I am actually required (liable) under the law to comply, I will ...” (See Page #71 - Exhibit 12, pg. 6 of 7), but the IRS has not respond accordingly in a lawful manner, and in the face of such fraud, IRS’ “enforcement actions” are, in effect, prohibited retaliatory actions, infringing on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Petition the government for a Redress of Grievances.

REVENUE OFFICER EVEN SOUGHT TO INTIMIDATE PLAINTIFFS BY PROVIDING THEM WITH A COPY OF DECISION & ORDER AGAINST PLANITIFFS’ PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATION THAT IS/WAS BASED UPON IRS FALSIFICATION OF DAMAGES & RESPONSE TO IRS

59. In short, the IRS has been sending very ominous and threatening “enforcement” letters to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Banks and Employer, including their own personal copy of the 6700 suit against Robert Schulz and WTP Foundation, which falsely characterizes the promotion of the First Amendment Petition process as a “promotion of an abusive tax shelter,” characterizing Plaintiffs as well as the thousands of people who have signed the Petitions for Redress as “investors” in the “abusive tax shelter,” and requesting full information about the people who had signed the Petitions for Redress, full information

51

about the source of funds used to finance Plaintiffs to Petition the Government for Redress of grievances, and so forth, and yet, to date, the Plaintiffs have not received any responses from the IRS Office either showing them the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction that requires them to respond and/or file, nor has the IRS responded to the "Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax”, and absent a sufficient response, Plaintiffs continue to hold the Government and its’ Contractors accountable to the Constitution and to the Bill of Rights in terms of the proper Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts.

"Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 350, 372] in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) - includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations." McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307.

60. And, following the Give Me Liberty (GML) 2007 conference event and Right-toPetition “V” Protest in Washington on March 29-31, 2007, on April 2, 2007 Plaintiff William M. Greene responded to a phone call from the person who identified herself as Holly Nolan, but did not provide her Federal Employee Identification Number, who informed the Plaintiff that she was about to initiate administrative actions, after which the Plaintiff informed her that both he and his wife are signed onto all of the Petitions and Lawsuit (USDC Case # 04-cv-01211) put forth by WTP Organization, that Plaintiffs have

52

been exercising their Constitutional Rights with respect to these matters, and that it was his understanding that all administrative actions taken without judicial review and formal order issued by an Article III Federal Court would constitute a direct violation of the Privacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution, and Plaintiff followed up with his forth letter to the IRS, dated April 13, 2007 (Exhibit 9), addressed to Commissioner Everson and Ms. Nolan that referenced the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv) thusly:

From the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv): "The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus; any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties `so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,' Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." [Page 10].

61. In response to the Plaintiff’s April 13, 2007 letter to Commissioner Everson and Ms. Nolan that referenced the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv)37, IRS Officer Holly L. Nolan finally provided her Federal Employee Identification Number, and as a matter of the response she did begin to initiate administrative actions against Plaintiff William M. Greene which the Plaintiff contends are occurring under the Color of Law. 62. In any event, following notice by IRS Officer Holly L. Nolan of her intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs via administrative agency actions, Plaintiff responded with his fifth
Other courts have also ruled that the provisions of the "Internal Revenue Code" are only "directory in nature" and not mandatory [See Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1962); Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980); and United States v. Goldstein, 342 F. Supp. 661 (E.D.N.Y. 1972)], and further have held that the provisions of the "Internal Revenue Manual" are not mandatory and lack the force of law. [See Boulez v. C.I.R., 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987); United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967,(6th Cir. 1982)]. These decisions further support the fact that the provisions of the IRC may not be relied upon as the legal authority for any part of a collection action as well.
37

53

letter dated May 5, 2007 (Exhibit 10), and respectfully, said that he has not and will not give into the unconstitutional actions of the IRS, and the Court's reaffirmation of Case No. 04-0196-cv is clear: “any legislative scheme that forces a taxpayer to make a ‘Hobson's choice’ between either capitulating to an IRS administrative demand, or risk bearing the pains of IRS's wrath if [s]he refuses to comply -- without access to judicial review, violates the Constitution”, and following Plaintiffs’ refusal to accept liability pending a Redress of Grievances, or even a valid reference to the law requiring him to file and/or assume a liability in these matters, IRS Officer Nolan, did in fact fulfill her threat of retaliation such that an IRS correspondence, Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 (Exhibits 13 & 14), was sent to Plaintiff’s mailing address (See Page #75 - Exhibit 14, pg. 1 of 3), and it is assumed that IRS mailed a copy of the same to one of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s past employers, and thereafter, Plaintiff’s present employer, with which the Plaintiff did not and never did have a contract, notified him that they had received a copy of the same. Form 668-A(ICS), of course, is but one example wherein-by the Plaintiff contends the IRS actions are occurring under the Color of Law, in part because these documents sent to the Plaintiff do not have a valid signature (See Page #73 - Exhibit 13, pg. 1 of 2; Page #76 - Exhibit 14, pg. 2 of 3) and the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of property such as wages, salaries, etc., is presented in Section 6331(a) and the fact that the statement of that limitation of that authority appears nonexistent or absent (See Page #74 - Exhibit 13, pg. 2 of 2; Page #75 - Exhibit 14, pg. 3 of 3), wrongfully and even criminally, indicates that, by mere copy of a “Notice of Levy” the IRS had the right to collect.

54

63. Plaintiff William M. Greene’s sixth letter to the IRS was dated September 6, 2007 (Exhibit 11) and was written in response to an August 15, 2007 mailing to both Plaintiffs, from the person who in the past has identified herself as Holly Nolan, Revenue Officer, Employee Number: 14-02284, which included within a copy of Case 1:07-cv-00352TJM-RFT38, Document 30, Filed 08/09/2007, the 25 page Decision and Order, signed by Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior United States District Judge, and within that response letter the Plaintiff explained that “apart from the fact that this “Notice of Levy” was also mailed to a past employer and one employer with which the Plaintiff does not and never did have a contract with, it is merely a “Notice of Levy” which does not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court stamp.”

64. Within the context of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s sixth letter, he also commented on the fact that he was never formally noticed of a Tax Lien, which the Plaintiff became aware of the first change to his public records, such that on 07/12/2007 Tax Lien information had been added to or changed on his credit file to indicate that on the Date of “05/01/2007”, with a Court/Case Number of “Franklin County Court/0731”, a Release
A suit which Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, believe was/is to justify the Government’s Contractor’s impermissible retaliation, and divert attention away from the IRS’ unwillingness to be held accountable by the Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts put forth by WTP Organization, in which the Government Contractor (the IRS) labeled the People’s campaign in support of the enforcement of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment a “promotion of an abusive tax shelter,” and one in which all members of WTP Organization know that the Government officially adorned its attack by “mixing apples with oranges” by taking what they called damages in the contents of the "Blue Folder” from the Right to Petition program in which We, The People, have asserted our legal rights to our property - namely, our money - pending the Redress of Grievances, and listed them as if they were damages associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder." But, the suit was not about the Right to Petition program. The suit was about the damages associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder." And, without damages being clearly associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder", as required by Article III of the Constitution, we, as members of WTP Organization, are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find that there is no case now that Robert Schulz et al., has also outlined this fact for the appeal.
38

55

Date of “N/A”, with the Amount being “$171,000”, and Creditor Class of “Federal” (See Page #57 – Exhibit #11, 7 of 15).

65. As well as the fact that the Plaintiff, William M. Greene, without being formally noticed of a Tax Lien by the IRS, also became aware that there had been another change to his public records, such that on 07/29/2007 Tax Lien information had been added to or changed on his credit file to indicate that on the Date of “05/01/2007”, with a Court/Case Number of “Albany County Court House/9946543”, a Release Date of “N/A”, with the Amount being “$171,000”, and Creditor Class of “Federal” (See Page #57 – Exhibit #11, 7 of 15).

66. As a matter of process, Plaintiff William M. Greene has also requested a Document Search for the Document Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated April 18, 2007, with the Amount being “$171,479.86” (Exhibit 15). The Notice of Federal Tax Lien shown on (Page #79 - Exhibit #15, 2 of 2) does not even have a valid signature because the person “R. A. Mitchell” signed for the Revenue Officer Holly Nolan.

67. Looking into the matter further, Plaintiff went online to the New York State Secretary of State's Website, to UCC information on Filing Data Reports, and the State Secretary of State's UCC document services reports “No Debtors found” (Exhibit 16) which is not surprising given that this issue has yet to be considered by the federal court, but further validation of the IRS’ fraud is established by documentation offered by the

56

Clerk’s record indicating that there is not a judgment signed by a Federal Judge involving a Federal Tax Lien (Exhibit 17) against Plaintiff William M. Greene nor Plaintiff Karen Greene. In addition, in a letter dated February 11, 2008, Plaintiff has also submitted an IRS FOIA Request (Exhibit 18) to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214, Philadelphia, PA 19106, and the details derived from the decoded file will be presented to this Honorable Court and Plaintiffs will motion to amend this complaint so as to add additional Causes of Actions when that information is available.

68. Moreover, in at lease two of his letters to the IRS, Plaintiff William M. Greene informed the IRS that they are already in a “notorious default” with respect to these matters, and in one of those letters the Plaintiff informed Commissioner Everson and Revenue Officer Nolan that the “IRS’ notorious default” in these matters has a much broader application, for while the IRS has been claiming that the many are in default, which appears itself to be an actionable denial of due process on the part of the IRS, the Government and the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has been in “notorious default” for quite some time now, by not answering to the WTP Organization's petitions hand delivered to them, at every step, all pushing the IRS toward this simple work-book Common Law default. Explaining further that, given that this Common Law default has been accomplished openly in numerous public records and in the context of the petitions we are signed on to (see Pages #57 & 58 - Exhibit #11, pgs. 7 & 8 of 15), which involve our First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the Government's violations of the war powers, privacy, money and tax provisions of the Constitution, as well as the

57

President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws, in fact, our actions with respect to these matters meet all the requirements for the IRS to be held in default, and notoriously so, in the open public record:

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

69. Similarly, a seventh letter dated September 28, 2007, which was the first and only letter authored by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, addressed to Acting Commissioner Linda E. Stiff and Revenue Officer Nolan, including a copy of WTP Organization’s Black Folder39 (Exhibit 19) in response to the letters, Substitute Assessments, Notice of Tax Lien (Exhibits 20 & 21), Notice of Tax Levy (Exhibits 22 & 23), and Summons’ sent to Plaintiffs’ employer (Exhibits 24 & 25), as well as the copy of the § 6700 suit against WTP Organization which Plaintiffs are members, indicated that, especially in light of Ms. Nolan’s having sent Plaintiffs the copy of the § 6700 suit against WTP Foundation of which Plaintiffs are a part, clearly, even that could have served no other purpose than to harass and intimidate us as petitioners of the government with regard to the constitutional torts.

39

Exhibit #19 annexed hereto is a copy of the only brochure ever published by the WTP Organization. It describes the commitment of the WTP Foundation to civic education, the commitment of the WTP Congress to civic action, and the emphasis the WTP organization has been placing on enforcement of the People’s Rights and the Government’s obligations under the Constitution, especially the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.

58

70. Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS was also sent by facsimile to (1) Mr. Robert L. Schulz, 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804, (2) Mr. Mark Lane, Attorney for We The People Foundation For, & We The People Congress, Inc., 2523 Brunswick Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22903, (3) Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20500, (4) Mr. Michael Peroutka, Peroutka 2004, Suite #303, 8028 Ritchie Highway, Pasadena, MD 21122, (5) Rep. Ron Paul, Ron Paul 2008, 850 N. Randolph St., Suite 122, Arlington, VA, 22203, (6) Mr. Burr V. Deitz, 444 Whitehall Road, Albany, New York 12208, (7) Hon. Henry M. Paulson Jr., United States Treasury Secretary, Main Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, (8) Hon. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of Justice-Main, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530, (9) Ms. Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, (10) Ms. Donna Lieberman, Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004, and (11) Ms. Melanie Trimble, Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union Capital Region Chapter, 90 State Street, Room 518, Albany, NY 12207, in her effort to urge the IRS to obey the Constitution and answer the questions presented in WTP Organization’s Petitions, but being aware of the fact that, “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences” (Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742) and the IRS’ past history of abusing the constitutional rights of the people, Plaintiff wrote that the IRS should comply with the ruling from the decision of Schulz v. IRS (Case No. 04-0196-

59

cv), to ensure Plaintiffs due process rights in these matters: stating that if the court provides a ruling with respect to our guaranteed First Amendment Right of Petitioning in the matters and deems it appropriate, after Plaintiffs have requested and the court has reviewed a Bill of Particulars related to subjects already outlined in the Petition for Redress involving tax provisions of the Constitution and defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Plaintiffs to pay income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return and the court finds Plaintiffs are actually required (liable) under the law to comply, we, the Plaintiffs in this case, will of course thereupon [hire a competent professional to compile and] produce our records of gross compensation for our labor and expense records. (see Page #71 - Exhibit #12, pg., 6 of 7)

71. Instead of responding to proper statements of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene in these matters, in a letter dated January 11, 2008, Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance Services, informed the Plaintiff that a penalty of $5,000.00 (See Page #117 – Exhibit #26, pg., 4 of 5) in addition to all other penalties was imposed (Exhibit 26) as a response Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS, which Field Director incorrectly states as having been dated October 1, 2007. As such that, Plaintiffs maintain that IRS administrative actions continue to be carried out, without any response from the Government to the subject Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, and although the Field Director did site numerous sections from Title 26, none of sections quoted contain any reference to the law which actually pertains to the Plaintiffs in terms of the authority delegated to the IRS and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction that requires them to respond and/or file. Moreover, although Field Director Slaughter asserted some very general rights of investigation and enforcement by the IRS,

60

his response constitutes yet another failure of the IRS to respond with an appropriate reference of law requiring the Plaintiffs to file and/or assume a liability in these matters and given that the IRS has once again refused to respond accordingly in a lawful manner, in the face of such fraud, Plaintiffs continue to maintain that IRS’ “enforcement actions” are, in effect, prohibited retaliatory actions, infringing on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances.

72. In fact, Plaintiffs have also been unable to find any reference to indicate that Title 26 has actually been enacted into positive law, and the Title itself appears to be written to primarily address the responsibilities of the IRS employees with respect to those who are "liable" to file, and as previously stated, Plaintiffs pay the Heavy Highway Use tax and pay road taxes due at the pump and through deductions whereby road taxes are paid through payroll deductions, but a matter of law revenues received by the Plaintiffs in this action are not taxed or taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax laws and regulations thereunder promulgated, nor are any revenues received by the Plaintiffs for their labor within the powers of the federal government to tax and that the revenues received by the Plaintiffs for their labor are exempt from taxation by excise under the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, an essential element of the IRS’ claim of a "tax due and owing" is absent, and it is respectfully submitted that if Field Director, Henry Slaughter, or anyone else for that matter, had provided any reference to the law requiring Plaintiffs to file and/or assume a liability with respect to the income tax, that would have been the only appropriate response, for as it stands, Plaintiffs are still left to believe the statement presented in the context of Senator Inouye’s letter (Exhibit 3) which

61

reads in part “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes" and that they are “not a taxpayer in the context of the income tax statutes”, and therefore, Plaintiffs believe they are not liable to file and not “subject” to the many enactments under Title 26. That is not to say that Plaintiffs have been unable to find any statutes of liability, for the four categories for Federal Income Tax liability which the Plaintiffs are aware of are (1) Non-resident aliens with domestic source income, (2) Foreign corporations with domestic source income, (3) Withholding agents for either of the above, and (4) U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign earned income. Moreover, although Section 3401(a) does define the term “wages” as meaning all remuneration for services performed by an “employee” for his “employer”, the definition of “employee” given in Section 3401(c) for the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any one or more of the foregoing, including an officer of a (government) corporation, such that, the Field Director’s specific response, does not appear to Plaintiffs to have been offered in the context of Field Director, Henry Slaughter’s actual authority, and Plaintiffs are therefore left to conclude that the Field Director’s actions, as well as all of the other IRS administrative actions that have been taken before and after the Field Director’s response, are in direct violation of the privacy and due process clauses, without having first sought judicial review and formal order issued by an Article III Federal Court.

62

73. That is, without judicial review and formal order issued by an Article III Federal Court, Notice of Tax Lien Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated August 14, 2007, was sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address (Page #97 - Exhibit #20, pg., 2 of 5), and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk, following which the Plaintiff requested the Albany County Clerk to provide copy of the Document Search for the Document Details including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c), dated August 14, 2007, with the Amount being “$96,305.16”, and (as shown on Page #99 - Exhibit #20, pg., 4 of 5; Page #102 - Exhibit #21, pg., 2 of 2) the Notice of Federal Tax Lien does not even have a valid signature because the person “R. A. Mitchell” signed for the Revenue Officer Holly Nolan. Thereafter, Plaintiff also went online to the New York State Secretary of State's Website, to UCC information on Filing Data Reports, and the State Secretary of State's UCC document services reports “No Debtors found” (Exhibit 27) and further validation of the IRS’ fraud is established by documentation offered through the Clerk’s record and by the letter signed by the Case Processing Clerk, United States District Court, Northern District of New York, documenting that there is no record for proceedings filed let alone a judgment signed by a Federal Judge involving a Federal Tax Lien against the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene. In addition, in a letter dated February 11, 2008, Plaintiff has also submitted an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214, Philadelphia, PA 19106, (Exhibit28) and the details derived from the decoded file will be presented to this Honorable Court and Plaintiffs will motion to amend this complaint so as to add additional Causes of Actions when that information is available.

63

THE IRS SUMMONSES TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER IS IN DEFIANCE OF RECENT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CASE

74. The Court’s attention is invited to the decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005), in which the Second Circuit held that if the IRS felt it was entitled to Summons the individual’s records the IRS would have to initiate a lawsuit in federal district where, in the interest of due process, the individual would be able to assert his or her constitutional defenses, and there would be a full adversarial proceeding and hearing, and a court order would be required before the individual would have to turn over his private and personal information to the IRS. Yet, instead of honoring the spirit and intent of the Second Circuit rulings that spoke clearly and unrestrained regarding the citizen’s Right to Due Process protections against IRS administrative actions, IRS Official Holly Nolan formally summoned Plaintiff’s Employer for information. The Summonses are dated September 5, 2007.

75. Now, Plaintiffs have only recently become aware that the Second Circuit has amended the wording of its earlier findings with reference to the fact that Congress has given the IRS broad directions under 26 U.S.C. 7601 to investigate " all persons therein who may be liable to pay any internal revenue tax, and all persons owning or having the care and management of any objects with respect to which any tax is imposed” as well as the authority to seek “penalties applicable to forcible obstruction or hindrance of Treasury officers or employees in the performance of their duties”, and in this context,

64

the Plaintiffs can understand that the simple issuance of an IRS summons itself does not in-and-of itself create an Article III controversy for those who may in fact be liable under the income tax laws, but consideration must also be given to the fact that the IRS has historically refused to provide Plaintiffs with any reference of law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in these matters and in checking both, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules and the Cornell University Law School resources it is shown that there are no regulations, either legislative or substantive or even interpretive regarding 26 U.S.C. § 7801, 26 U.S.C. § 7802, 26 U.S.C § 7803 nor 26 U.S.C. § 7804, as well as the fact that the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and IRS Officials have admitted to in public form (i.e., as outlined in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), that “enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. … and the new agreement with
the states, show other ways that government is answering the petition”, and that, decisions

to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First Amendment is considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v. Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), such that Plaintiffs have good reason to believe that the federal courts would have had jurisdiction over motions to quash IRS summonses even in the absence of some effort by the IRS to seek court enforcement of the summons.

65

76. Yet, Plaintiffs were denied their Right of due process, because the Summonses in question were never sent to Plaintiffs PO Box to allow Plaintiffs the ability to respond by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner,40 and that Plaintiffs were only notified of the existence of Summonses, dated September 5, 2007, by their Employer, who thereupon provided Plaintiffs with their only copies of the same on September 24, 2007. At that time, Plaintiffs informed their employer that the Summonses were yet another act of defiance employed by the IRS to quash the Plaintiff’s exercising of their First Amendment Right to Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional Torts.

77. Plaintiffs thereupon provided their Employer with the quote from the Second Circuit indicated on page 10 in Schulz, that whether in defense against a “two-party” or a “threeparty” summons, in the interest of Due Process the individual is entitled to a full adversarial proceeding and judicial hearing before being put in jeopardy of penalty by having his private and personal property turned over to the Government without his consent, as would be the case if the Employer complied with the Summonses. And, this was followed by Plaintiffs further informing their Employer that just because they have chosen to exercise their Constitutional Rights in these matters, they also believed that it was a personal choice and their decision to exercise their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional Torts which should not be
40

The following is language from 26 U.S.C. 7609 (b)(2): (2) Proceeding to quash. (A) In general. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2). In any such proceeding, the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with the summons. (emphasis added).

66

in anyway whatsoever a burden to others, such that Plaintiffs informed their employer that Plaintiffs did not have the ability to respond to the Summonses by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, and that if they (Plaintiffs’ Employer) did not comply the IRS would in all probability simply retaliate against them as well and that any cost of said compliance should be billed to Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs would be filing a suit at a later date in the event of other real damages. At that time, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene wrote her September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS, and provided the employer with a copy of the same.

78. To repeat, the Summonses in question were never sent to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs were only notified of its existence by their Employer, who thereupon provided Plaintiffs with their only copy. Plaintiffs responded to the IRS Summonses provided to them by their Employer by informing their Employer that they had a Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances and that the summonses were a deliberate infringement of that Right – i.e., impermissible retaliation – and further informed their Employer of the United States Court of Appeals Case in which the Second Circuit ruled that before an individual could be put in jeopardy of penalty by having his [or her] private and personal property turned over to the Government without his [or her]consent, [S]he was entitled, by Due Process, to assert his [or her] defenses in an adversarial judicial proceeding and hearing.41

41

Quoting Schulz: “United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 719, 63 L. Ed. 2d 141, 100 S. Ct. 874 (1980) (‘The summoned party is entitled to challenge the issuance of the summons in an adversary proceeding in federal court prior to enforcement, and may assert appropriate defenses.’ (emphasis added))” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005).

67

IRS NOTICE OF LEVYS WERE ISSUED TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER AND PLAINTIFFS BANKS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER 79. Instead of bringing Plaintiffs into a Federal District Court or even providing the Plaintiffs with copy in a timely manner where they could assert their defenses and where they would have a public, adversarial hearing and receive the full protection of the Court, the IRS served summonses on the Plaintiffs Employer, and shortly thereafter, on November 5, 2007, Plaintiffs were informed that both their Joint Account and Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Personal Account were inactive because IRS Notice of Levies had been served on both of the Plaintiffs’ Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT. Plaintiffs were in California at the time, and did not arrive in Albany NY until late on November 9, 2007.

80. On November 10, 2007, Plaintiffs got the mail from their PO Box, which included copies of IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 29, 2007, that had been

“Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 525, 27 L. Ed. 2d 580, 91 S. Ct. 534 (1971) (‘Thus the [IRS] summons is administratively issued but its enforcement is only by federal court authority in an adversary proceeding affording the opportunity for challenge and complete protection to the witness.’ (internal quotations marks omitted, emphasis added))” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005). “Reisman advances this view. 375 U.S. at 450 (‘We remit the parties to the comprehensive procedure of the Code, which provides full opportunity for judicial review before any coercive sanctions may be imposed."); see also Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 151 ("Congress has provided protection from arbitrary or capricious action by placing the federal courts between the Government and the person summoned [by the IRS].’). Schulz I provided our first opportunity to conform the law of this Circuit to that view.” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005). “The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus: any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties ‘so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,’ Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333, 64 L. Ed. 596, 40 S. Ct. 338 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This is so even if ‘in the proceedings for contempt the validity of the original order may be assailed.’ Id. at 335; see also Reisman, 375 U.S. at 446; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 147-48, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908).” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 303 (2d Circuit, 2005).

68

served on both of the Plaintiffs’ Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT from that bank (Exhibits 29 & 30), as well as copies mailed from the IRS (See Page #128 - Exhibit 31, pg. 1 of 3; Page #131 - Exhibit 32, pg. 1 of 3) to both of the Plaintiffs’ mailing address (Exhibits 31 & 32). These documents do not have a valid signature (See Page #123 - Exhibit 29, pg. 2 of 3; Page #126 - Exhibit 30, pg. 2 of 3; Page #129 - Exhibit 31, pg. 2 of 3; Page #132 - Exhibit 32, pg. 2 of 3), Section 6331(a) as the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent (See Page #124 - Exhibit 29, pg. 3 of 3; Page #127 - Exhibit 30, pg. 3 of 3; Page #130 Exhibit 31, pg. 3 of 3; Page #133 - Exhibit 32, pg. 3 of 3), and of course, because 26 U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court order, Plaintiffs maintain that the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued the Notice of Levys exposing the Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT to possible law suits. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court order:

(c) Special rule for banks Any bank (as defined in section 408 (n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.

81. In addition, two other IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levys, Dated October 29, 2007, mailed from the IRS (See Page #134 - Exhibit 33, pg. 1 of 3) to both of the Plaintiffs’ mailing address. The Notice of Levys, Dated October 29, 2007, indicated service would also be made upon Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Citizens Bank account

69

(Exhibit 33), as well as an IRS Notice of Levy being served in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene addressed to Citizens Bank42 (Exhibit 34).

82. The Citizens Bank that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene does business with is located at 1440 Central Ave., Albany NY 12205, yet IRS Notice of Levies were addressed to Citizens Bank at 20 Blackstone Valley Place, Lincoln, RI 02865-1145. It is, therefore, important to note that the branch of the Citizens Bank in question that the Plaintiff does business with is also located in the Second Circuit, indicating the degree of defiance IRS has exposed in its pursuit of quashing the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment Right to Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances.

83. In a letter, dated January 18, 2008, Citizens Bank notified Plaintiff Karen M. Greene that the IRS served a Tax Levy against her account at RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. with funds being withheld in the amount of $1,077.37, and a pay out date of 2-8-2008 (See Page #139 - Exhibit 35, pg. 1 of 3). The letter from Citizens Bank also included a copy of Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 (Exhibit 35), Again, these documents do not have a valid signature (See Page #135 - Exhibit 33, pg. 2 of 3; Page #137 - Exhibit 34, pg. 1 of 2; Page #140 - Exhibit 35, pg. 2 of 3), Section 6331(a) as the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent (See Page #136 - Exhibit 33, pg. 3 of 3; Page #138 - Exhibit 34, pg. 2 of 2; Page #141 Exhibit 35, pg. 3 of 3), and of course, because 26 U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court order, Plaintiffs maintain that the
42

The Plaintiff William M. Greene does not have a Bank account at Citizens Bank but Plaintiffs’ son William M. Greene, Jr. does have a savings account at the same branch of Citizens Bank that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene does business, which is located at 1440 Central Ave., Albany NY 12205.

70

IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued the Notice of Levy to RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. exposing this bank to possible law suits.

84. Moreover, copies of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) -- Notice of Levy, dated January 3, 2008, were also issued, with one being mailed (See Page #142 - Exhibit 36, pg. 1 of 3) to the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene (Exhibit
36

) and the other being served upon the Plaintiffs’

Employer, and along with the copy of Notice of Levy to Plaintiffs’ Employer (Exhibit 37), Revenue Officer, Holly L. Nolan, attached a letter notifying the employer that “This will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees”. (See Page #145 - Exhibit 37, pg. 1 of 7)

85. Apart from the fact that most of these documents issued as IRS Form 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, do not have a valid signature (See Page #143 Exhibit 36, pg. 2 of 3; Page #148 - Exhibit 37, pg. 4 of 7; Page #150 - Exhibit 37, pg. 6 of 7) and Section 6331(a) as the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent all of these documents (See Page #144 - Exhibit 36, pg. 3 of 3; Page #147 - Exhibit 37, pg. 3 of 7; Page #149 - Exhibit 37, pg. 5 of 7), Plaintiffs believe that this document itself is founded in fraud wherein-by the IRS filed a Notice of Liens with the County Clerks Office without a Federal Court Order (Exhibits 15 & 21), and given that Revenue Officer, Holly L. Nolan attached her letter notifying the employer that they can not issue Karen Greene an advance (Page #145 - Exhibit 37, pg. 1 of 7), this also

71

constitutes an interference with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Contract, given that as truck drivers Plaintiffs’ contract calls for the employer to advance us the expense moneys to pay for fuel and tolls to complete the contracted job, and without these contracted funds from our employer, Plaintiffs can not complete contracted job assignments and the only reason that Plaintiffs’ were able to continue working was that their Employer sought legal consultation before levying Plaintiffs’ payroll account (Exhibit
38

) in the amount of $1,475.00 (See Page #152 - Exhibit 38, pg. 1 of 1)

86. Following interference with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Contract, Plaintiffs feared that they might be out of work altogether very soon, unless their employer was willing to put up with all of this, as Plaintiffs awaited a final decision in the first impression case of We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) , but as it happened Plaintiffs employer notified them by email that they just received another form, IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008 (Exhibit 39) and Plaintiffs responded (Exhibit 40) to the employers’ email by stating that Form 668-W is a "Notice of Levy" that do not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court stamp, and that a lawful Levy can only be effected by Form 668-B (Exhibit 41) and even then, a Levy is ONLY lawful if it is effected by Form 668-B, which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a) (See Page #160 - Exhibit 41, pg. 2 of 2) and even that only pertains to those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers, employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their "employer", as well as to explain that if either of the Plaintiffs were uneducated enough

72

(not a put down because most lawyers don’t even understand) to in fact sign away our Due Process Rights by filling out Form 668-W and signing parts #4 and #5, then and only then would this form carry any weight as a lawful document as they could then file a signed copy with the District Court, even though we are not officers or employees of a federal possessions corporation, elected federal government officials, nor employees of the federal government, and the employer has since provided the Plaintiffs with pages of IRS Form 668-W(ICS) he had originally omitted (Exhibit 42), but the overall effect of all of this is not simply that the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued Notice of Levies forms, which are materially false and fraudulent documents for such purposes, and in this instance seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $352.30 (See Page #169 - Exhibit 42, pg. 9 of 9), but in the process Plaintiffs are out of work unless or until this Honorable Court grants Injunctive Relief.

87. The effect of the Plaintiffs Banks and Employer complying with the IRS Notice of Levies without a court order is the same as if the IRS used force against Plaintiffs directly, for by engaging in acts of malicious intent seeking to obstruct justice the IRS has effectively denied Plaintiffs their Due Process Rights protected under our Constitution, i.e., the Right to face an accuser and assert defenses in a full adversarial judicial proceeding and hearing before suffering injury, and thereby without their consent or even a judicial hearing Plaintiffs have been penalized by having their private and personal finances seized by the Government Contractor (the IRS), with the intent (and effect) of

73

infringing on their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, when in reality, Plaintiffs maintain that the IRC of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Code clearly indicates that the IRC itself was designed to preserved those same Due Process Rights:

[SEC. 7804. EFFECT OF REORGANIZATION PLANS -[(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. --Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law.]43 88. Finally, because “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137), Plaintiffs maintain that the mandate for Due Process protections with respect to IRS administrative acts, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, explicitly require an Article III judicial hearing before Plaintiffs can lawfully be injured by such an administrative action, is clearly antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens and levys, except where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life,
43

See [SEC. 7804. EFFECT OF REORGANIZATION PLANS -- [(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES at (http://www.irstaxattorney.com/legislation/RRA_1998_House_ways_report_p6.html)

74

liberty or property, which, was the original intent of IRC which served in preserving the dependent clause “including trial by jury.”

A RETALIATORY OR RETRIBUTION TAX IMPOSED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THEIR MONEYS PENDING A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS, ITSELF, ILLEGAL AND SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED

89. In order for the Government Contractor to justify its failure to respond to Plaintiffs for Petitioning the Government for Redress of Constitutionally directed Grievances, the IRS, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint) announced in public form that “…enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. … show other ways that government is answering the petition” and then in the related § 6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) the IRS had the audacity to lie to the US Department of Justice and fabricate the estimated cost to the U.S. Treasury, by listing damages attributable to filing substitutes for the 2991 unfiled returns equaling $4,806,537 for which they clearly would have had to have some idea of the names to which the Blue Folder had been distributed. Yet, during the Oral Arguments at U.S. Court of Appeals presented in Manhattan the Government’s Counsel admitted that the IRS fabricated damages (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) and this statement alone by the Government’s Counsel is evidence of the extent to which the IRS, as a Government Contractor, has gone to impose a retaliatory or retribution tax against Plaintiffs as active members of their participating organization, while attempting to involve the US Department of Justice in their crimes through representation by Government’s Counsel, and, of course, because of the honesty of Government’s Counsel in this instance, a serious federal offense has been correctly

75

identified and admitted to in terms of the major fraud upon the American People which Plaintiffs believe is cognizable in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and the United States in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1031.

90. In short, the IRS served third party summonses without a court order on the employer through which both Plaintiffs work and through which Plaintiff Karen M. Greene is contracted. Plaintiffs Banks and Plaintiffs Employer have receive from the IRS Forms 668-A(ICS), the "Notice of Levy" that were sent to Plaintiffs Banks and Employer, which are third parties, for the purpose of collecting taxes that are allegedly owed, but the fact remains the Government’s Contractor has historically admitted in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), that IRS administrative actions are retaliatory and imposed against Plaintiffs and other members of WTP Organization as a response to petitions for the sole purpose of quashing their First Amendment Right, which is, itself, illegal and unconstitutional and should not be enforceable, but Plaintiffs also contend that the IRS’s enforcement actions are executed “… afoul of the due process requirements …" (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv).

91. In addition, along with the last IRS Form 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, served upon the Plaintiffs’ Employer, the IRS attached a letter notifying the employer that “This will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees.” And finally, Plaintiffs employer notified them that they (the employer) received another form, IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008, which

76

has served to put the Plaintiffs out of work all together, unless or until this Honorable Court provides Injunctive Relief.

92. In part, Plaintiffs belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief is supported by the fact that Title 26 itself is the body of Regulations that contains reference to the legal authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to administer provisions pertaining to the collection of income taxes. In this context, until Plaintiffs reviewed the information collected and presented for public review by WTP Foundation our appreciation of American history and events like that of President Taft’s June 16, 1909 letter to Congress to propose an income tax amendment for the purpose of overturning the Pollock Decision would have been difficult at best:

Senate Doc. No. 98 at 2, 61st Congress, 1st sess. (1909), is as follows: "That decision of the Supreme Court [Pollock] in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power… It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have… I therefore recommend to Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population." Senate Doc. No. 98 at 2, 61st Congress, 1st sess. (1909). (emphasis added)

93. In other words, it seems rather apparent that the 16th Amendment was enacted to tax particular types of “income” as an excise tax on privileged activities, not everyone "Since the Right to receive income or earnings is a Right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege." Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, 455-456 (Tenn.1960).

77

94. However, Plaintiffs contend that they are being retaliated against for even asking questions about all of this in terms of their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances and their belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief is supported by other facts that are explained in the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. entitled “Tax Law – Basics of Tax”44 which also explains that the legal authority for the use of IRS Form 668-W, "Notice of Levy", is extremely limited and depends upon the statutory provisions for "levying" upon the wages, accrued salary, or other property of an individual, such that Plaintiffs contend that IRS administrative actions taken in their effort to impose their retaliatory or retribution tax against Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment Right are occurring where the IRS has not even followed the statutory provisions in connection with their actions.

95. For example, the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. explains that when the IRS Form 668-W, the "Notice of Levy" was designed, the cite of authority that would reveal its limited application was conveniently omitted - a cite that must, by law, accompany the notice. The individual who actually receives the "Notice of Levy" is, of course, a third party who then acts upon the Notice of Levy to send moneys to the IRS merely on the "presumption" that if it was sent from the IRS then the authority must be valid. Yet, the authority to levy is restricted to and contained within Section 6331(a) of the IRC:

See On-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. entitled “Tax Law – Basics of Tax” (http://www.pappastax.com/taxbasics.php?cat=3). Also same information is available at (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/IRSLiensAndLevies.htm), (http://www.usa-therepublic.com/revenue/levy.html), (http://www.save-a-patriot.org/articles/levy.html), (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/emailarticle.html?ID=26559), and many more;

44

78

IRC 6331 - Levy and distraint. (a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official). If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section. [Emphasis Added]

96. The on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. further explains that Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc., specifically referred to as the “employment tax” on income under Subtitle C, and the "limitation" of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their employer, the government, but it is important to emphasize that this section is also implemented by regulations pertaining to “excise taxes” under Subtitle E of the IRC, and making enforceable, levies on the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms under 27 CFR Part 70. Therefore, assuming that all other legal requirements are met (e.g., notice and demand, court order, lien, etc.), a levy may be made only on property of those persons who are described in IRC Subtitle E, and on the property of the government employees described in 26 U.S.C. 6331(a). If any similar provisions exist for anyone or anything else to provide connection with the income tax in Subtitle A, Plaintiffs are

79

simply unaware of it, and given that Plaintiff William M. Greene has personally and repeatedly requested in all of his letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides the Plaintiff with the law requiring him to file and/or assume a liability in these matters he would do so, and to date the IRS has failed to respond accordingly, Plaintiff’s belief that no similar provisions exist for anyone or anything else appears justifiably and rationally correct.

97. Our Servant Government, and Government Contractors which include IRS Officials and Agents, have a legal obligation to not exercise excesses of their authority, and retaliation against Petitioners is an excess of their authority, and specifically with respect to those IRS Agents who are errantly exercising a "presumed" authority, Plaintiffs believe that these same IRS Agents are supposed to be acting in accordance with the provisions that hold them responsible for its administration.

98. Specifically, the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. also explains that these provisions deal with what are called "delegation orders" because no agent may administer a provision of the IRC without a proper order delegating such authority, and the authority to "administer" the provisions of Section 6331, regardless of its applicability, is further restricted by national and local "delegation orders" designed to ensure compliance with the limited application of the IRC, indicating that it is the Secretary who is responsible for administering the provisions for the levy or delegating the authority if and when appropriate.

80

99. However, given that Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that the IRS provide reference to the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction that requires him to properly respond, and the IRS has failed to comply with Plaintiffs requests, Plaintiffs must conclude such "delegation orders" are either absent or invalid, and that the IRS at all times must use the enforcement authority in good-faith pursuit of the authorized purposes of Code (U.S. v. La Salle N.B., 437 U.S. 298 (1978)), and IRS Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices of Levy(s)" that are sent to third parties such as banks, employers, and other financial institutions to confiscate property for the purpose of collecting taxes allegedly owed, however the "nonjudicial" collection authority is wholly dependent upon a statute (Section 6321) which provides for a lien to automatically arise, and on the back of the 668-W Notice of Levy form, the reference to Section 6331(a) which is the actual authority for a levy is omitted, such that the authority listed includes Section 6331(b) through Section 6331(e) and those are the Sections which the third parties erroneously rely on and refer to, but then again, because the authority for the levy pertains only to government agencies within the territories (which is what it actually says), then it should certainly come as no surprise that "delegation orders" pertaining to service centers and district offices within the 50 states cannot authorize such a levy, but again, the actual authority for a levy is, in part:

26 U.S.C. 6331- Levy and distraint. (a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay … Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official). … 81

[Emphasis Added]

100. As such, Plaintiffs belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief is supported by the fact that the Internal Revenue Manual is written to protect people from these misapplications of code to justify the IRS’ retaliation, and Section 6331 appears to be the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of property such as wages, salaries, etc., and given that the limitation of that authority shown at Section 6331(a) appears nonexistent or absent, a sufficient employer-employee relationship which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a) is also absent, given that it only pertains to those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers, employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their "employer."

101. In short, the IRS has been exercising its administrative procedures (enforcement) against Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, a constitutionally-assured right, and in doing so has also violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights included in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several States. After utterly refusing to respond to the Petitions, let alone provide Redress, IRS officials publically announced their intention and method of retaliating under the color of federal and state assessment and collection proceedings, and when Plaintiffs look into the subject of legal authority being used against them, Plaintiffs find that it can not be interpreted in any other way than to say that the IRS have to knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed acts in

82

violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation. Such actions by the government contractor (the IRS) are reprehensible and unconstitutional and should be enjoined.

102. IRS administrative procedures including Dummy Returns and other “enforcement” actions, including Summonses, order-less Levies and Liens, and by sending the Plaintiffs their own personal copy of the § 6700 suit against the WTP Foundation, of which Plaintiffs are a part, the IRS is retaliating against Plaintiffs by attempting to disqualify them from taking a public position on matters in which they are financially interested, depriving Plaintiffs of their Right to Petition, and Freely Associate with other group members and to speak freely in the very instance in which those Rights are of the most importance to Plaintiffs. See Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).

103. The IRS certainly had no moral or legal authority to falsify damages for the purposes of enlisting the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney(s) to deploy the vast resources of the United States against WTP Organization which Plaintiffs are members, and the IRS’ actions, clearly, could have served no other purpose than to harass and intimidate us as Petitioners who are clearly exercising and seeking the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it is not just a matter of the duty of the Court to interfere with Revenue collection proceedings under 26 U.S.C. § 7421 if such proceedings are exercised in excess of statutory authority granted to the IRS and/or in violation of constitutional rights (See Yannicelli v Nash (1972, DC

83

NJ) 354 F Supp 143, 72-2 USTC P 9763, 31 AFTR 2d 315), but research needs to address the question of how it is that, given the IRS itself, being the successor of the Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal Revenue, was not created by Congress, as required by Article I § 8, clause 18 of the Constitution of the United States, how can any court believe and/or hold that the IRS has any authority whatsoever to legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United States in States of the Union (See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100 through the 1997 edition; see also, United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886)) against People who are duly signed onto and therefore exercising their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievance? . 104. The ability of the IRS as a Government Contractor to insult people, and lie about damages in the effort to enlist Government Counsel to redefine their acts of retaliation so as to bring actions into the Federal Courts to fine and otherwise control people or even imprison them, is no substitute for the ability to actually help people "understand" their tax responsibilities, as the IRS' own Mission Statement dictates. In a country based upon the rule of law, "enforcement actions" are an unacceptable response to the asking of questions by honest people who peaceably Petition the Government for Redress of alleged Grievances, particularly those dealing with constitutional torts.

84

PLAINTIFFS WILL ALSO DRAW UPON OTHER EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

105. In this case, Plaintiffs also draw upon the research by a group of people within the State of Oregon who have created the Evidence Book45 as a summary of their actions to put their county officials on notice and is distributed on-line for others to use within their respective counties and states, to similarly put their federal, state and county officials on notice of the fraud and Due Process violations which normally occur in the context of Counterfeiting Securities, fraud, extortion, racketeering, official misconduct, falsifying documents and abuse of seal, because of the requirement of Counties to record Notices of Federal Liens into a system of records reserved for liens, as though they were liens, such that, State and County employees and officials are perpetrating a multitude of felony crimes in the context of 18 §§ 3, 4, 513, 872, 873, 1017, 1020, 2381, 2384, and 42 U.S.C § 408(a)(8) for the benefit of the IRS, which fails to even follow the statutory provisions in connection with their actions, and this wealth of information, including the “Report concerning Liability of US Citizens in regard to Federal Income Taxes”46 are also offered in the context of this case to further explain that, simply changing the index from Lien, to Notice of Lien is insufficient to file them as Notice of Liens, because a Notice of Lien index is still a fraud when a signature cannot be verified, and given that a verified
See the “Evidence Book” with face of the book reading, “ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and Property Owners to correct the improper recording of : INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE –mere“NOTICES” OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN AS ACTUAL “LIENS” -- This “Counterfeits a SECURITY” AND ESTABLISHES FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY A POTENTIAL CLASS-ACTION LIABILITY FOR “DAMAGES” FROM THE “VICTIMS” OF THIS I.R.S. SCAM IN DOUGLAS COUNTY AS WELL AS ALL OTHER OREGON COUNTIES -- Attention: OREGON STATE AUDITOR – Loma-Marie: Family of Wharton, ad hoc Steering Committee Chairman [and] Rae Copitka: Family of Copitka, Minister and ad hoc Steering Committee Co-Chair. (http://theliberators11.org/gpage.html); 46 See “Report Concerning Liability of U.S. Citizens in Regard to Federal Income Taxes, (http://theliberators11.org/downloads/03%20revised%2027%20page%20report%20on%20liability.doc);
45

85

signature is required on ALL instruments evidencing a debt, the instruments constitute “fraudulent securities” in that these instruments are:

(a) Counterfeited to an evidence of debt; (b) They are numbered; (c) They are recorded; (d) They are used in commerce to levy.

106. Along with the Evidence Book, the ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and Property Owners have recently developed a proposed “Ordinance [that] can be applied to any State in the Union, presented to county commissioners/supervisors for adoption to Stop the Securities Fraud in the Recorder of Conveyance against property for any county in the Federation” to correct the improper recording of liens in the County of Douglas, Oregon, and the Ordinance is complete with Constitutional Provisions and a demand for findings of facts and conclusions of law,47 should the court choose to also investigate the IRS in terms of securities fraud. As such, Plaintiffs in this case are offering the weight of evidence presented in the “Evidence Book” which is being distributed on-line for other concerned people to use within their respective counties and states, and based upon the information in the Evidence Book, county and state officials are now becoming aware that by accepting these Notices without verified signatures the recorder converts a nonnegotiable instrument/non-“spendable” paper into a negotiable/ “spendable” ledger entry, and therefore has, without full disclosure, counterfeited a currency for the United States.

See copy of ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and Property Owners proposed “Ordinance [that] can be applied to any State in the Union, presented to county commissioners/supervisors for adoption to Stop the Securities Fraud in the Recorder of Conveyance against property for any county in the Federation” to correct the improper recording of liens in the County of Douglas, Oregon. The Ordinance is complete with Constitutional Provisions and a demand for findings of facts and conclusions of law, should the court choose to invalidate. (http://theliberators11.org/downloads/Ordinance%20EW-2%20%2001.03.08.wpd)

47

86

FURTHER EXPRESSION OF EVIDENCE BOOK AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAY ULTIMATELY LEAD TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS LIKE THE IRS BEING RESPONSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CONSTITUTION 107. Plaintiffs believe that a further expression of the Evidence Book and proposed Ordinance, which are being distributed on-line for other concerned people to use within their respective counties and states, is not an abuse of any of their First Amendment Rights, but would point out to the Court that by communicating information, expressing facts and opinions, reciting grievances, protesting abuses and praying for answers to specific questions, Plaintiffs have been part of WTP Organization to give expression essential to the end that our Servant Government, as well as Government Contractors such as the IRS, may ultimately be responsive and accountable to the Constitution and to the sovereignty of the People and these facts satisfy the Founders intent for the provision of our First Amendment Right to Petition, and in this context much of the information presented in the Evidence Book has also been asked in terms of the first Petition involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and its’ Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS's apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on labor):

"The original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be exercised only in extraordinary exigencies, and down to August 15, 1894, this expectation has been realized" (See, the United States Supreme Court. 1895, Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157, U.S. 429, 574 (1895), declaring income tax unconstitutional. Harold M. Groves, University of Wisconsin, Financing Government - Revised Edition, New York: Henry Holt and Co. Inc., 1939, 1945, p. 156).

87

108. Apart from their First Amendment Right to Petition, Plaintiffs contend that it is also our Right in terms of our First Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances to expect real changes or corrections of grievances involving constitutional torts, and it is in these terms by which Plaintiffs are entitled to and have therefore come before this Honorable Court seeking to be assured and affirmed of the full force of their Rights, that is, by lawful and peaceful means (See McDonald v Smith (1985) 472 US 479; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 at 266, 269.), and while the Petitions for Redress of Grievances make no claim that the United States Government lacks authority to tax, merely asking the government and its contractor (the IRS) for answers to specific questions regarding the tax, war, money and debt and “privacy” clauses of the Constitution, Plaintiffs argue that under the circumstances of this case, the enforcement actions being taken against them by the Government’s Contractor amount to a very ominous and frightful retaliation in which the harm being done is both immediate and irreparable, which is impermissible and prohibited by the original meaning and spirit of the Petition and Assembly, Speech, Press and due process Clauses of the Constitution.

109. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that Right against abridgment even by Congress, and the Right to Petition is among the most precious of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and as an essential element of self-government that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions, and in this case, Plaintiffs have been signed on to all the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances beginning with (a) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un-apportioned

88

tax on labor, which was later followed by other petitions including (b) The war powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution, (c) The money clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve, and (d) The “privacy” clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act, and specifically with regard to written communications to the government, the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), such that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First Amendment is considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v. Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), and “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to Petition for a Redress of Grievances." See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876). As such, in bringing this action, Plaintiffs believe such further expression is not an abuse of any of their First Amendment Rights, but an extension of their First Amendment Rights and any further intervention by the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) against such exercise of these First Amendment Rights represents a curtailment of Plaintiffs’ Rights and is forbidden, such that Plaintiffs do not believe it to be improper for this Honorable Court to exercise its authority to provide Injunctive Relief, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court are finally determined:

89

“Although the [enforcement] power provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are to be liberally construed, a court must be careful to insure that its construction will not result in a use of the power beyond that permitted by law.” United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953 at 958 (5th Cir. 1974).

110. In short, while much hung in the balance as Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, have had to endure the injustice of the DC Court’s having dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint (We The People v. United States, Case No. 04-cv-01211 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2005)), the Appeal and decision (485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007), with rehearing en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007) and Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied as well (January 7, 2008), and now with SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, also having voted to not hear the final appeal in the Class Action suit, the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, given the facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be unreasonable to provide the Plaintiffs with some measure of protection against an adversarial Government Contractor (the IRS) that continues to openly demonstrate its intent to impede Justice and quash the fundamental Rights of those of us who have signed onto all the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, and therefore, based on Plaintiffs Rights as Americans and Christians anything but an all-out-affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people are endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those rights:

"If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the 90

laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. 'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.' And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.' The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE OCCURRING WITH RESPECT TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY & FREEDOM OF RELIGION (relating to freedom from peonage and slavery)

111. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers have infringed upon Plaintiffs’ Rights to Liberty and Religious Freedom48 to the extent

Given that the courts will always presume that a law is valid (US v. Harris (1883) 106 US 629 at 635; Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 10 US (6 Cranch) 87 at 128) and the burden of proving its unconstitutionality, or the invalidity of its adoption, rests entirely on the litigant who is challenging the law (Brown v. Maryland (1827) 25 US (12 Wheat.) 419 at 436; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Tompkins (1900) 176 US 167 at 173), Plaintiffs in this action are aware that by denying the validity of the laws developed under the authority of the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Plaintiffs claim constitutes an infringement upon their Right of Liberty in terms of tax slavery, in doing so, that means that they must take on the entire burden of proving that the law is invalid, and have, therefore, gone to a great length to set forth the historical significance herein of the use of the term Liberty as opposed to all forms of slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery so as to explain the used of the term Slavery in accordance with its original intent which included political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery,

48

91

that Plaintiffs can not help but recognize the fact that such actions actually constitute the essence of slavery itself:

"But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, … For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

112. The Right to Liberty, itself is a subject that that may be divided in terms of Liberty being natural, personal, civil and political, but the first two categories involving our natural and personal Rights in relation to the subject of Liberty are at issue here as the Inalienable Right of Liberty is first identified in the Declaration of Independence, and the First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, with respect to our Inalienable Rights Liberty as it relates to the Right of Religious Freedom, Plaintiffs also contend that peonage and slavery is a violation of our right to Religious Freedom (e.g., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men).

113. The subject of “slavery” is not only definable as “chattel slavery” which is addressed in terms of the Thirteenth Amendment, but a number of other forms of
knowing that if Plaintiffs statement herein, as well as in the context of other paperwork which may be submitted in this case, fails to make that proof then they must also take on all the penalties for disobeying that law.

92

“slavery” which are not definable in terms of the Thirteenth Amendment, but rather in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery. Similarly, Plaintiffs believe that the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or Bonded Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending through the labor of our children and our children’s children is a subject that falls under the general subject area of slavery.

114. Plaintiffs believe that because of the complexity of the subject matter itself, volumes could be dedicated to the subject and still much would go unaddressed, and as such, Plaintiffs seek to only set forth a minimal amount of detail related to their understandings of the subjects of Liberty and Religious Freedom, as they are related to both the establishment of America as an independent nation and in terms of historical foundation for their Religious Belief systems.

115. The historical significance of the subjects of Liberty and Religious Freedom are meaningfully the basis of the war between the American colonies and Great Britain (1775–1783), leading to the formation of the independent United States, and the establishment of our Inalienable Right of Liberty considered in terms being free from tax slavery, and the Inalienable Right of Religious Freedom involving that of Protestants’ (and then a particular flavor of protestantism at that) being free from Roman Catholicism, and as such the Establishment Clause was certainly never meant to separate Christians from the due respect of such belief systems by their servant government.

93

116. Plaintiffs maintain that our Inalienable Right of Liberty is comparable to our modern day Government's apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct unapportioned tax on labor), in that it is important to remember that Great Britain’s greatest weapon was its funded national debt, in which British financiers, managing the joint stock corporations of the Bank of England, the South Seas Company and the East India Company, to loan the government money in wartime and thereby harness private savings to military ends. Great Britain thus used postwar tax revenues to pay interest on what became a perpetual debt, with the demand for revenues stimulating the growth of Great Britain’s Treasury.49

117. In the early years before 1758 many of the colonists traded with the enemy as well as refused to pay for British military operations rather than participate in this form of tax slavery, and by 1765 outrage at British control became the overriding factor effecting everything else as the British Parliament tried to extract money directly from the colonies with the Stamp Act of 1765, and in response Americans began to insist that submission to

The Bibliography for paragraphs 134-145 of this complaint include: Alden, J. R., General Gage in America: Being Principally a History of His Role in the American Revolution, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, 1948. 313 p.; Bailyn, B., The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Harvard University Press, 1967, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize in 1968; Billias, G. A., George Washington's opponents: British generals and admirals in the American Revolution, New York, Morrow, 1969; Brewer, J., The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688-1783, New York: Knopf, 1989; Colley, L., Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837, Yale University Press, 1992; Fleming, T.J., Liberty! The American Revolution, Viking Press, 1997; Jensen, M., The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution 1763-1776, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2004 (original 1968); Maier, P., From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, W. W. Norton & Company, 1992; Shy, J.W., Toward Lexington, Princeton University Press,1965; Thomas, P. D. G. British Politics and the Stamp Act Crisis: The First Phase of the American Revolution, 1763–1767, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975; Thomas, P. D. G., The Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution 1767-1773, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987; Thomas, P. D. G., Tea Party to Independence: the Third Phase of the American Revolution 1773- 1776, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991; Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775, an Official Document of the Second Continental Congress; Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20001.

49

94

taxation without consent would enslave the colonists to whatever faction controlled British Parliament, and as long as they remained unrepresented in the House of Commons, Britain had no right to tax them.

118. According to British constitutional conceptions, taxation was a function of sovereignty (the state's ultimate power to take property and life), which the Glorious Revolution had vested in the king in Parliament, and British Parliament made its claims explicit by asserting its sovereignty over the colonies in the Declaratory Act of 1766 which stated that Parliament's authority was the same in America as in Britain and asserted Parliament's authority to make laws binding on the American colonies, thereinby rejecting the American understanding of taxation in terms of slavery.

119. Nevertheless, in the face of virtual anarchy, the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in March 1766, and by 1770 colonial arguments, at the urging of a new prime minister, Lord North, were addressed by Parliament having opted to repeal all but one of the forms of taxation (Townshend Duties), retaining only a single tax, on tea, to maintain Parliament's claim to authority while conciliating the colonists.

120. Of course, most children exposed to anything about American history know, the colonists saw the Tea Act of 1773 as an effort to force them to consume a taxed commodity, such that in the context of the Boston Tea Party, three shiploads of tea were destroyed on 16 December 1773 and no colonial port would allow the tea to be landed, after which Lord North's ministry regarrisoned Boston and proposed a set of Coercive

95

Acts which were passed by the British Parliament in May and early June 1774; General Thomas Gage was appointed governor in chief of Massachusetts, who closed the port of Boston and suspend all representative government in the colony.

121. At the same time, the British Parliament also responded to problems in the west by passing the Quebec Act in 1774, protecting the practice of the Roman Catholicism and establishing French civil law in the province of Quebec, extending Quebec's boundaries to give them province control over the territory and fur trade between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and Protestants in the American colonies protested the Quebec Act as an act empowering what Calvinists, and even some royalist historian Catholics, viewed as a cryptopapist regime, which more than any other single factor brought arguments about sovereignty and therefore inflamed by religious passion thousands of men were brought to rally to the standard of writing, debating and risking their lives, such that the Quebec Act was lumped with the Coercive Acts together to produce Legal and Constitutional arguments as “Intolerable Acts” and resolved to stand fast.

122. The result was the most effective intercolonial resistance movement yet. On September 5, 1774 representatives of the colonies convened as America’s First Continental Congress50 to protest the Intolerable Acts and create a nonimportation

50

The Continental Congress was the first governing body or national government of the United States which was comprised two successive bodies of representatives, with the First Continental Congress meeting from September 5, 1774 to October 26, 1774 and the Second Continental Congress meeting from May 10, 1775 to March 1, 1781, after which the membership of the Continental Congress was automatically carried over to form the first legislative government of the United States, the Congress of the Confederation or the United States in Congress Assembled, which ran from March 1, 1781 until the government under the Constitution became operative on March 4, 1789. As such, the Capstone Right which was expressed in an official Act passed unanimously by the First Continental Congress in 1774 is also the same Capstone Right of the Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence.

96

measure called the Continental Association. The association empowered local committees of safety to enforce the agreement, creating a crude intercolonial union and vesting police powers in radical hands. Agreeing to meet again on May 10, 1775 if the British government had not yet repealed the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental Congress adjourned on October 26, 1774. By then, Massachusetts patriots had created an extralegal government called the Provincial Congress, taken control of the province's arms, and organized self-defense forces.

123. In the ensuing crisis, General Thomas Gage was ordered to take military action to forestall rebellion. Receiving these orders too late to capture the Provincial Congress, General Gage tried to seize munitions stockpiled at Concord, triggering the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, and when the Provincial Congress reconvened on May 10, 1775, as America’s Second Continental Congress, the real meaning of Liberty is evidenced in terms of their opposition to the various forms of slavery they were facing and was evidenced by the joint product of John Dickinson and Jefferson, the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms:”

“…We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his

97

Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.” See Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775, an Official Document of the Second Continental Congress, written by Thomas Jefferson and Colonel John Dickinson. [emphasis added]

124. Accordingly, America’s Second Continental Congress took control of the incipient war on behalf of all thirteen colonies, adopting the New England forces as a Continental army, appointing George Washington as commander in chief on June 15, 1775. Following the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775), General Gage was recalled to England and blamed for allowing the American colonies to rebel. Although it would be a year before the colonies declared independence from Britain, the Revolutionary War had begun.

125. In summation, the war between the American colonies and Great Britain (1775– 1783), leading to the formation of the independent United States had it basis in the Inalienable Right of Liberty, which included being free from tax slavery, and the right of Religious Freedom in terms of Protestants’ rights to be free from Roman Catholicism, and as such, the Establishment Clause itself can historically be understood as a protection against the same type of interference from a national government that the American colonies had experienced in terms of Great Britain’s interference with the peoples’ existing religious backgrounds.

98

126. The Barbary Powers conflict also began (lasting thirty-two years) during the American Revolution when Muslim terrorists from four different Islamic nations (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) began making indiscriminate attacks against the property and interests of what they claimed to be “Christian” nations (America, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, etc.), yet because the United States was protected by the 1778 alliance with France which protected Americans at sea against all violence during the Revolution, it was not until after the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783 that it had to protect its own commerce against dangers from the Barbary Powers (pirates), which was accomplished in part through annual bribes of money settled by numerous treaties,51 and because the enslavement of Christians by Muslims was such a widespread problem in 1797 one of the formal treaties even went so far as to state that the government of the United States of America is/was not founded as Christian nation:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
51

See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor (Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799; ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.

99

religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." See Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America, Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797, pp. 43-44.

127. Objections to officially stating in treaties or otherwise that the United States of America is/was anything other than a Christian nation are easily documented, as even President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) dissented to any provision which repudiated Christianity as exhibiting nothing less than an act of cowardice. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

"The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours." See John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.

128. Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation, and when Congress renegotiated and ratified the "Treaty of Tripoli" in 1805 it was only after the unauthorized phrase "The United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" was repudiated and deleted,52 and although tribute payments by the United States’ treaties did not end until 1815, it was Adams who declared:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of
See Federer, W.J. (Editor)(2000), America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, Amerisearch, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri; Beliles, M.A. & McDowell S.K. (1988), America's Providential History, Providence Press, Charlottesville, VA.
52

100

liberty are as unalterable as human nature." See John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

129. In 1776, only a small number of Catholics lived in America and not that many Jews, and America essentially remained a Protestant nation throughout the 1800s, and the ideals of the Republic contemplated and penned by the 56 Founding Fathers, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, define our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the history of the subject clearly shows that, when understood in terms of the meaning of words used at the time, Christian faith is not irrelevant, not based on secular 'ethics', and certainly did not seek to regulate, through taxation, the churches and the people, and the Bill of Rights further serves to protect the individual from interference from the federal government--providing rights given by our Creator establishes that the rights expressed cannot be given or taken away from any American by another individual or government action, as they are inherent rights given to each of us by God. Ignoring history and law, and in all fairness probably out of ignorance of the past, much of government, including the courts, have been working vigorously to turn America into something other than a Christian nation.

130. Plaintiffs in this action must admit that until they reviewed the vast amount of information collected and presented for public review by WTP Organization, their appreciation of the history and events like the November 27, 1773 Boston Tea Party, and/or Isaac Backus’ 1775 Resolution to the Massachusetts Assembly was very limited at best.

101

Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75 "Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands us to stand fast in it."53

131. But it is exactly because of WTP Organization’s educational information that Plaintiffs are aware that after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any government to impose new legal duties on the People in the several states. The Creator and the common law had imposed all legal duties on the People that were possible up to the time of Independence. The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on July 4, 1776, under the common law. The Declaration of Independence accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that governments exist to secure the Rights endowed by the Creator.

132. Be that as it may, as Christians, Plaintiffs are not suggesting anything like the alliance between Church and State which existed in England and which resulted in a variety of common law outcomes made by judges as accomplices in the frauds of the clergy, but would rather point to the fundamental arguments of the frauds of the clergy that caused Thomas Jefferson to write what is now known as the "Jefferson Bible," or "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" as it is formally titled, which was published by an act of the United States Congress in 1904, in terms of their beliefs that the United States of America was created as a Judeo-Christian Nation.

Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75, (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu:80/founders/documents/amendI_religions21.html).

53

102

133. Moreover, the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation that included a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment wherein-by religion was a matter to be left solely to the individual States. “The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama,” William P. Gray, Jr. Alabama Law Review Volume 49 Winter 1998 Number 2, offers further insight into the Founders belief systems of the same and the historical foundations First Amendment’s Establishment Clause:

[T]he Establishment Clause was enacted to prevent Congress from interfering with the church-state relationships that existed in 1791. Specifically, the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent Congress from

interfering with the established state churches and with state efforts to accommodate religion. At the same time, the Clause disabled Congress from interfering with the states that had already disestablished their churches. In other words, the Establishment Clause was intended to embody a principle of federalism. [. Id . at 1703 (emphasis added). [….] Indeed, state establishments of churches were common at the time of the Revolution and the drafting and adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. [. See Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States , 42746 (1950).] There were at least five state establishments in 1787: the Anglican Church was the state church of in Virginia until 1786; the "Christian Protestant Religion" [. The "Christian Protestant Religion" was not a denomination in the traditional sense but represented the various denominations that fell under that broad heading. See id . at 51 (listing Protestant denominations).] was the state religion in South Carolina until 1790; and the Congregational Church was the state church in Connecticut until 1818, in New Hampshire until 1819, and in Massachusetts until 1833. [. Stokes, supra note 46, at 427-46.] Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its state church, and did not do so until forty-four years after the Establishment Clause was drafted by Congress. [. Stokes , supra note 46, at 418.] No informed constitutional attorney or historian would argue that the First Amendment in its original form applied to anything more than "laws" passed by "Congress." Even Justice Hugo Black, a proponent of the "incorporation theory," which would apply the First Amendment to the states, admitted that "[p]rior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the states." [. Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 13 (1947) (emphasis added).

103

134. Additionally, because Plaintiffs in this action assert that they are not subject to the kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment which might serve to diminish their enumerated and unremunerated Rights, particularly the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment which constitutes an infringement upon the Right of Liberty in terms of tax slavery, Plaintiffs in part reference herewith the article, the Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center also expounds upon Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) to explain why the First Amendment is misconstrued by misconstruction of the 14th Amendment:

"For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. "54

135. Plaintiffs’ views on the subject of Liberty versus tax slavery have also been expressed by Former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who is also the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council, and has a Ph.D. from Harvard and also served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the Reagan administration. Mr. Keyes has also equated the U.S. tax code to slavery. He has been a regular on Free Congress Foundation's National Empowerment Television and a favorite on the Conservative lecture circuit:
54

Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20001; (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx)

104

"We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with liberty. It is actually a form of slavery.... Under the income tax, the government takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax, therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all the money we earn." (Alan Keyes, 2000 Presidential candidate)

136. In so stating, Plaintiffs are aware that the Courts have consistently declined to take a rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause, refusing to construe the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by History, and in doing so have historically rejected "ahistorical literalism," and instead has turned to history, practice, precedent, and the structure of the Constitution. However, without emphasizing the significance of the historical Christian influence on the Framers of the Constitution, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, and the context of the Inalienable Right of Liberty as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and First Amendment, an individual could easily miss the original intent of the subject of Religious Freedom, and in doing so, simply follow in the footsteps of those who would force, unconditionally, a Thirteenth and/or Fourteenth Amendment interpretation upon the population in general.

137. For example, in United States v. Astrup, No. 05-5701-cv (2d Cir. 06/14/2006) the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in stating “Astrup’s
constitutional and jurisdictional arguments are wholly frivolous. These contentions have been repeatedly rejected by the IRS and the federal courts. See, e.g. ,United States v. Ramsey,

992 F.2d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 1993) (determining that the taxpayer had “no First Amendment
right to avoid federal income taxes…”);” And, in relying on U.S. v. Ramsey, 992 F.2d

831,833 (8th Cir. 1993), quoting U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260, held that there is “no

105

First Amendment right to avoid federal income taxes on religious grounds.” And although Ramsey and Lee were Free Exercise cases that did not involve a Petition for Redress of a violation by the Government of any Article of the Constitution or the refusal of the Government to justify and/or cease its unlawful behavior, Plaintiffs contend that the many courts erred in deciding for the proposition that the imposition of taxes did not substantively infringe the exercise of religion, simply because such laws represent an attempt to regulate religious practices.55 But, just as importantly, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in United States v. Astrup, No. 05-5701-cv (2d Cir. 06/14/2006), as it stands one must consider the fact that under the Constitution, any rational that would allow the Government to violate any Article of the Constitution is itself an unconstitutional act, but one must also rely on history, the framers’ other writings as well as prior judicial precedent when considering the meaning of the term “establishment of religion” as the term was intended, to prohibit the establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over another, even when the many are not be aware of the nature of their actions. In the words of the Court in Everson:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non55

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943) (noting that “[f]reedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position” to economic interests); see also id. at 121 (Reed, J., dissenting) (“None of the provisions of our Constitution is more venerated by the people or respected by legislatures and the courts than those which proclaim for our country the freedom of religion and expression.”).

106

attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." (Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) [Emphasis added]

138. That is, in terms of our God given Inalienable Right to Liberty, even an Amendment to the Constitution can not divorce the People from their right to not be Slaves and especially in the context of a Christian’s Right to Religious Freedom from the (re)establishment of a national religion by governments and the establishment of social slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery) and laws which has historically been associated with the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast:

…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu’s mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh’s dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be “only in the eyes of those who would want the model of ‘powers-that-be’ perpetrated ad infinitum.”

139. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs belief systems with respect to their First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom is supported by various publications

107

including “2002 Freedom Drive: Houses of Worship”,56 “Why Have Our Churches Been Silenced”,57 and “Does God Belong In Civil Government” 58 and, this type of belief system or animosity towards peonage in terms of tax slavery is a very common one as is evident from this quote of Robert Bernhoft:

Robert Bernhoft, quoted By Jon Dougherty © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com "The federal income tax is a slave tax. We're a free people, we're not slaves. There are so many constitutional violations and legal problems with the current tax as it's imposed and collected that the tax will unwind eventually, somehow." [emphasis added] (Exhibit 43)

140. However, as stated earlier, when most people think of the subjects of “peonage” and/or “slavery” they are only able to relate to the subject in terms of what is definable as “chattel slavery” whereas the subject of “slavery” in the context of the Declaration of Independence, lends itself to an entirely different interpretation relative to the People’s Inalienable Right of Liberty and the First Amendment, wherein-by the subject also includes a number of other forms of “slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery. As it stands, one must consider the fact that under the Constitution, any form of Slavery itself is unconstitutional and as a God given right, even an Amendment to the Constitution can not divorce the People from their right to be Free, and even more so if they recognize their Judeo-Christian heritage.

56

See 2002 Freedom Drive: Houses of Worship

(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDhow.htm);
WHY HAVE OUR CHURCHES BEEN SILENCED? (http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDmisc/WHYSILENCED.PDF); 58 DOES GOD BELONG IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT? (http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDmisc/DoesGodBelongInCivilGovernment.PDF);
57

108

141. In terms of the historical context,59 writers on the subject have tended to lose touch with (1) the role of the Sanhedrin in the process of Redemption and (2) the fact the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) was convicted and suffered the crucifixion (actually the "stauros" is a Greek word which translates as "staff" or “stake” and primarily an "upright stake"60 and for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes as tribute to Caesar. That is, based upon the account presented in Matthew 22: 15-22, Mark 12: 13-17, and Luke 20: 20-26), our culture almost always claims that Jesus unconditionally condoned the paying of taxes. Yet, based upon the passages referencing Jesus’ answers to the spies of the Pharisees and Herodians, they in fact handed over Jesus to the Roman Governor, and the two criminal complaints against him were (1) that Jesus was encouraging his followers not to pay tribute to Caesar, and (2) that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the Christ and King of the Jews. In any account, the event is recorded as follows:

142. Although the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus to death, they had to present this judgment to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Usually Pilate lived in Caesarea, but he had come to Jerusalem to watch the Jews in the Holy City during Passover. He stayed in his palace which Herod the Great had built for himself in the highest part of the city.

143. At sunrise, the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate' they remained outside the palace door so they would not come into contact with a pagan polytheist and thus be defiled
The historical context presented in paragraphs 141 through 144 of this complaint can also be reviewed at a number of on-line sources, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); Reference.com, (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); Medlibrary.org, (http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); as well as being published in other more expansive documents, e.g., “Perspectives on Transformational Leadership in the Sanhedrin of Ancient Judaism”, Management Decision: Focus on Management History, Vol. 41(2), 2003, 199-207. (c)2003. 60 cf. Thayers New Greek English Lexicon p. 586.
59

109

(i.e., if they were defiled, they would not be allowed to celebrate Passover). Therefore, the governor had to come outside in order to ask the Jews what he should do with the prisoner? They said, "We have judged him and according to our Law he should be put to death." "So he deserves death; but what crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. "If he were not a criminal we would not have brought him to you. We have two complaints against him. He is encouraging our people to rebel and not to pay tribute to Caesar. And, he proclaims himself to be the CHRIST and King of the Jews.

144. In this same context, most people are also not aware that there is a considerable amount of information in the Talmud61 about Jesus’ motivation in encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay the taxes used to pay for construction,62 and of course, Acts 5:1718 refer to the high priest’s arresting Peter and the apostles, and Acts 5:27 refers to a trial before a Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, and Luke 22:66 also refer to the council or Sanhedrin as trying Jesus because of His outspokenness and the fact that Jesus
Most people are not aware that there is a considerable amount of information in the Talmud about the ancient Sanhedrin, which was the legal-religious Jewish court that evolved away from the priesthood following the overthrow in approximately 148-164 BCE (depending upon source) of the Greeks who had occupied ancient Judah. It is recorded that in about 175 BCE, the Hellenists, admirers of Greek culture, whose ranks included most of the aristocratic priests, neglected their priestly duties in the interest of participating in Greek games and set to work transforming the Jewish Temple and the Jewish religion. The high priest Jason, for example, erected a gymnasium near the Temple for sporting events and young men participated naked, in the manner of the Greek Olympics, Hellenization resulted in the growth of immorality and the decline of religious observance, and laws were even passed prohibiting the practice of Judaism, especially circumcision and keeping the Sabbath and festivals. Eventually, the high priest, Menelaus, who succeeded Jason, built an acropolis that overshadowed the Temple and a statue of Jupiter was erected in the Temple and to add insult to injury pigs were brought as sacrifices. In order to pay for all this construction, taxes were raised, and of course, Acts 5:17-18 refer to the high priest’s arresting Peter and the apostles, and Acts 5:27 refers to a trial before a Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, and Luke 22:66 also refer to the council or Sanhedrin as trying the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) a criminal because of His outspokenness and the fact that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate later convicted Him of the same resulting in HIS suffering the crucifixion for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes as tribute to Caesar. As such, by example Jesus’ suffering offers the believer the example to follow in terms of their Right of Religious Freedom to not pay taxes when the basis of such taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God. (see, Zeitlin, S. (1943), Who Crucified Jesus?, Harper and Brothers, New York). 62 Johnson, P. (1987), A History of the Jews, Harper and Row Publishers, New York; Roth, C. (1948), A Short History of the Jewish People, East and West Library, London.
61

110

was later convicted and suffered the crucifixion for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes as tribute to Caesar.

145. And when we talk about what it means to be an American with Liberty and Truth, Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, also believe that the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or Bonded Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending needs to be mentioned, as well as the fact that the subject of “Slavery” includes more than just “chattel slavery” as it also involves a number of other forms of “Slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery, and in terms of the issue of tax slavery, and while Plaintiffs certainly do not intend to present within this petition to the court all the pertinent references necessary to classify it as an abstract treatise of theological truths, Plaintiffs have offered herewith that in addition to all of the points in law put forth in the We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) with Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari now before United States Supreme Court, Plaintiffs contend that neither the US Government nor the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has a right to their souls, and in this context the IRS’ administrative actions do constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Religious Freedom because the IRS does not have a right to the Plaintiffs’ soul or any part of their soul, and in this context, Plaintiffs believe that their use of the word “soul” is in the same context as set forth under Yahwistic Theory, as well as, for all intents and purposes, in the same context used by

111

Jim Davidson, of the National Taxpayers Union, which is reported by the authors of Give Me Liberty63 this way:

Jim Davidson, National Taxpayers Union, quoted by GiveMeLiberty.50megs.com. "The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and hopeless." [emphasis added]

146. In order to understand this, one must first understand that prior to the Book of Wisdom the only understanding of the human soul was the vital force of the body in which all that is experienced physiologically was the measure of the soul.64

147. In this same context, where the soul is the vital force of the body, even the very first founders of this country were very clear that even a man's possessions were equated with the man's soul as shown in "England and the War" By Walter Raleigh (credited with establishing the first English colony in the New World):65

Quote from England and the War, By Walter Raleigh "The State, organized as absolute power, responsible to no one, with no duties to its neighbour, and with only nominal duties to a strictly subordinate God, has challenged the soul of man in its dearest possessions." [emphasis added]

Quote of Jim Davidson, National Taxpayers Union, reported by GiveMeLiberty.50megs.com at (http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/Death%20and%20Taxes.htm). 64 The definition of the soul as the vital force of the body can be found in various religious writings, including the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (1963). A translation and adaptation of A. van dun Born's Bijbels Woordenboek, Second Revised Ed, 1945-57, by Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., Executive Secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. In this context, the authors the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible went to a great length to document and extensively reference the term so as to provide the reader with an appropriate means of understanding the words used in the bible apart from the corruption of ideas that would otherwise arise from Hellenistic (Greco-Oriental) premises of the nature of and meanings of such words, and it is in this context, which was the same context the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (aka Jesus) spoke, which was the ancient Semitic language of Aramaic, that the authors the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible have documented the meanings of the term “soul” prior to and following the influence of the Hellenists. 65 "England and the War" By Walter Raleigh (credited with establishing the first English colony in the New World), which can also be viewed on line at (www.authorama.com/book/england-and-the-war.html):

63

112

148. The founders of this country were very clear in their use of the word “soul” in connection with one’s productivity and creations, and this is shown in Paul J. Cella III’s Technology and the Spirit of Ownership:66

"In the hyper-modern age, it is sometimes a challenge to remember the human hands behind every technological artifact, and to remember the distinctly human character of production itself. As G. K. Chesterton elegantly put it in his 1935 book The Well and the Shallows: The man who makes an orchard where there has been a field, who owns the orchard and decides to whom it shall descend, does also enjoy the taste of apples; and let us hope, also, the taste of cider. But he is doing something very much grander, and ultimately more gratifying, than merely eating an apple. He is imposing his will upon the world in the manner of the charter given him by the will of God; he is asserting that his soul is his own, and does not belong to the Orchard Survey Department, or the chief Trust in the Apple Trade. But he is also doing something which was implicit in all the most ancient religions of the earth; in those great panoramas of pageantry and ritual that followed the order of the seasons in China or Babylonia; he is worshipping the fruitfulness of the world. An orchard shares something very basic with a computer: it is a technological artifact. It is the produce of human creativity engaging the natural world. An animal will never make an orchard, even if it will make a nest. But men make things which fill no immediate need—save their own need to master and shape the materials of the earth. "And God said unto them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'" The biblical tradition calls men image-bearers, reflecting in some small but real way the singular power of Divine Creativity. It was the Creator who gave us the principle of property and charged us with the duty and privilege of interacting with the created world. This doctrine is what Chesterton refers to when he writes of a "charter" given by God. The original author of the ownership society was also the Author of the universe." [emphasis added]

SUMMARY 149. Plaintiffs believe that Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievances is the only non-violent way that We, The People, have to hold our servant government accountable to its primary role of protecting the People’s individual, Inalienable Rights to

Paul J. Cella III’s "Technology and the Spirit of Ownership," The New Atlantis, Number 9, Summer 2005, pp. 55-64, can also be viewed on line at (www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/cella.htm).

66

113

Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances is a Right for the individual to hold government accountable to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and to the protection, preservation and enhancement of individual Rights, Liberties and Freedoms.

150. As a First step, Plaintiffs believe that our servant government of the People is obligated to listen and honestly respond to We, The People’s Petitions for Redress, otherwise individual Rights are at risk of a take-over by the servant of the majority, and the Right to a Redress67 of Grievances itself is not satisfied and the People are thereby subjected to the very forms of slavery which the Official Acts passed by the Continental Congress and Declaration of Independence, as well the Constitution and first Thirteen Amendments, were established as official Laws of the Land, and the fact that the Congress created by the Constitution of 1789 was qualitatively different than that created by the Articles of Confederation, in which, among other things, it had ‘legislative’ powers and could enact ‘law’, which the Article Congress did not have, could not and does not detract from the fact that it is the People’s Right to retain their money pending a Redress of Grievances. 68

Redress: 1 a: relief from distress, b: a means of obtaining a remedy; 2: compensation (as damages) for wrong or loss. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 68 “If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.” Continental Congress To Inhabitants of Quebec, an Act passed unanimously by the Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113. “The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.

67

114

151. As such, Plaintiffs maintain that the United States Government as well as the Government Contractors such as the IRS is/are obligated to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances, and the People have a Right of enforcement, especially when, as outlined herein, the oppression is caused by unconstitutional government acts and the Government refuses to be held accountable by answering the questions in the People’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional torts.

152. Yet, while the first vice is the United States federal government’s misbehavior in making policy without regard to the First Amendment’s right of the people to a Redress of Grievances and the ethics to actually confess to it and carry it out, and thereby being complicit in act(s) of fraud involving silence only said acts of fraud involving only silence is/are not the subject of this complaint given that both House Report No. 1337 (p. A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p. 168), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively (1954), specifically declared that the word “income” as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, and it is therefore clear to Plaintiffs that neither of these Branches of our government authorized peonage or tax slavery, and for that reason this complaint is not against the United States for act(s) of fraud involving only silence wherein-by duty and liability is to be determined and defined in federal courts as a matter of general law, but rather this action is being brought as a result of the greater acts by the Government Contractor (the IRS), who, with knowledge and forethought, “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of

115

Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and in this context the IRS has admitted to in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), of engaging in retaliatory administrative actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, and as evidenced by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, WTP Organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim of multiple acts in violation of our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include freedom from all forms of slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery, political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property and our Right to Trial by Jury, even occurred within this District Court, and Plaintiffs reassert their beliefs herein to say once again that our Right to Trial by Jury must be recognized before we might be deprived of any of these other Rights.

153. Apart from everything put forth by WTP Organization thus far, when the Plaintiffs presenting this action talk about what it means to be an American with Liberty and Truth, we can not help but believe that if the District Courts continue to maintain that they are divested of jurisdiction over cases involving the IRS, holding that they are barred by the Tax Injunction Act, the question must also be asked of the District Court in terms of what does that mean in terms of the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or Bonded

116

Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending, as well as the fact that the subject of “Slavery” includes more than just “chattel slavery” as it also involves a number of other forms of “Slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery, and in terms of the issue of tax slavery, the statement must be made that for the District Court to leave the Plaintiffs in a position where IRS administrative actions remain undisturbed would be to reverse humanity’s steady march towards “ordered liberty,” suggesting that we transitioned from a form of government in terms of a National Republic to a Federal Democracy without going through the amendment process required by Article V of the Constitution.

154. Believing the preservation and protection of individual, Inalienable, creatorendowed Rights to be the responsibility and duty of every American and Christian, Plaintiffs have been facilitating Citizen vigilance and activism in the form of petitioning state government since the early 1990’s, which involved the exercise of their First Amendment Right of Petitioning the State of New York with respect to Fraud in employment practices and the Right to Life on behalf of the Medically Frail, and in terms of more recent events, Plaintiffs have been active members of WTP Organization signing onto all of the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances, have been a part of a number of demonstrations in Washington DC regarding their First Amendment Right to Petition government for a Redress of Grievances, and were also Plaintiffs signed onto the case We The People et al. v. United States, et al., which is/was the first impression case in which the Federal Courts had been asked to declare the contours of the meaning of the First Amendment’s Petition Clause.

117

155. No matter how the Federal Courts have ruled on the merits of We The People et al. v. United States, et al., to date, the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari which is now before United States Supreme Court was filed in a timely manner, and even though the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied, it is certain that the Plaintiffs have been and continue to be affected by such decisions as long as the Plaintiffs continue to live in the United States of America and as long as the Constitution remains in full force and effect, but even though the Petition for Rehearing was denied, that decision does not by any means suggest that the Plaintiffs in this action are left with a “lack of standing” as Americans and Christians.

156. The issue being brought before the Court in this matter is not so much about the subject matter of “taxes”, but rather an issue of popular sovereignty, the individual’s natural Right to hold government accountable to the Constitution by Petitioning the Government for a Redress of Grievances, Government’s obligation to provide specific, official answers to the People’s Petitions, the Right of the People to enforce their Rights, and the impermissibility of retaliation of the Government Contractor (IRS) against those who Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, and the IRS knows from the Plaintiffs’ letters, which are sworn affidavits being duly notarized, that Plaintiffs have testified to the fact that they have Petitioned the Government for Redress of Grievances, and even personally and repeatedly requested in all of their letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides Plaintiffs with the law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in these matters they would do so, and the IRS has not only failed to respond accordingly

118

but in the face of such silence/fraud, IRS’ “enforcement actions” which are, in effect, prohibited retaliatory administrative actions, have occurred and the list of reasonable Constitutional Torts seems almost endless, for based upon our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include freedom from all forms of slavery, the Government Contractor (IRS) has retaliated against Plaintiffs to deprive us of our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property, and our Right to Trial by Jury.

157. Given that, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional right to Contract as long as they pay a percentage of their labor property is slavery or peonage and therefore criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, for state ownership they only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is definable in terms of slavery and therefore criminal – state ownership of their labor property, which if constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%, and the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has admitted in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint) that IRS administrative actions with respect to these Petitions are retaliatory acts, and has even gone so far as to have falsified damages in the related § 6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, and that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First Amendment is considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v. Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United 119

States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), and that Plaintiffs have offered herein the nature of authority for the levy, as the cornerstone of the process leading up to the lien/levy procedure, and have shown that the IRS did not even bother to seek, let alone obtain, the necessary "Court Order", and without it, the resulting liability is that of a third party who is not knowledgeable enough to know that the IRS is not obeying their own Regulations, let alone the law, it would seem reasonable that Injunctive Relief should be granted, at least until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court are finally determined.

158. Even if the court should find that it is not the Government Contractor’s (the IRS) responsibility to tell the third party that the Notice of Levy is invalid without the necessary court order, the bottom line is, Plaintiffs Humbly Request that the court demand that the IRS include the cite of authority that would reveal IRS Form 668’s limited application - a cite that must, by law, accompany the notice – to make it impossible for the IRS to seize property under the guise of collecting taxes.

159. If we have been correct by assuming that high ranking IRS officials know that their retaliatory administrative actions, outlined in this complaint and as evidenced by the falsification of damages in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) are in violation of the law, then, in fact that their actions are willful, outrageous acts in violation of various statues, constitutional provisions and common decency and is regarded as atrocious and

120

intolerable in a civilized society who are conspiring and acting in concert to suppress, chill and "neutralize" our constitutionally protected activities for government reform in such a way as to restore constitutional order and abridge our civil rights, as Americans and Christians, Plaintiffs believe that it is their Right to not pay taxes when the basis of such taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God, and therefore, anything but an all-out-affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people are endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION -- 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 18 U.S.C. § 1031 --

160. In violation of the spirit and intent of the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America wherein-by the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government failed to respond to the various Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional torts pending litigation as to their responsibility in these matters, and particularly with respect to the Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on labor which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994), and in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 involving the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the United States, as outlined in paragraph #20 of this complaint involving the suppression of evidence, as evidenced by its omission from the official record of the April 5, 2001

121

Senate Finance Committee hearing, which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C.§ 1505 (i.e., Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees), the Government Contractor (the IRS), with knowledge and forethought, “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and in this context the IRS has admitted to in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), of engaging in retaliatory administrative actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, and as evidenced by the falsification of damages (which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (i.e., whistleblowers against corruption in government)) to qualify for a complaint under Article III in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim even occurred within this District Court in the attempt to create a false presumption involving fraud to escape answering honest questions put forth regarding the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax on labor (which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994) which were presented lawfully in the context of the People’s Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, and in doing so the Government Contractor (IRS) has retaliated against Plaintiffs to deprive us of our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property, and our Right to Trial by Jury.

122

CAUSE OF ACTION –18 U.S.C. § 1621 -- PERJURY

161. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1621, even IRS Oversight Board members who are not necessarily Government Employees, as well as Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other IRS Employees have taken an Oath to Uphold the Laws and the Constitution of the United States during their terms of Office or employment, and thereafter certain members of the IRS have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, and, ultimately in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 4 Plaintiffs believe that it should be the Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1622 -- SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

162. Based upon the falsification of damages/evidence in the related § 6700 Suit (United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352)) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, WTP Organization, to involve others from the US Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, any actions to further, or seek, court enforcement of the action in question would seem to constitute

123

Subornation of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1622) because the efforts of furtherance would be in the context of knowingly, willingly and deliberately attempting to procure an enforcement action from the federal courts which should not continue to maintain jurisdiction, and, ultimately in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 4 Plaintiffs believe that it should be the Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 28 U.S.C. § 1343 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

163. In the context 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events like the November 27, 1773 Boston Tea Party, and/or Isaac Backus’ 1775 Resolution to the Massachusetts Assembly, Plaintiffs have been wronged:

Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75

"Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands us to stand fast in it."

164. Wherein-by after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any government to impose new legal duties on the People in the several states, such that We, The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on July 4, 1776, under the common law, and wherein-by the Declaration of Independence accepts the Creator as the

124

only power over the People and acknowledges that governments exist to secure our SelfEvident, God given, enumerated Rights such as Liberty, in accordance with its original intent with respect to the subject of taxation, and this complaint as a whole offers the “Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as American’s and this cause of action is “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent” and thereby subjecting us to tax slavery which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

165. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax, and making the form of
slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, and as Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller so eloquently put it the government does not have the right to apply a “direct tax”, except in “extraordinary exigencies”: i.e., And, that refers to a war in which there is Constitutional Declaration of War. Wherein-by after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any

government to impose new legal duties on the People in the several states, such that We, The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on July 4, 1776, under the common law, and wherein-by the Declaration of Independence accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that governments exist to secure our Self-Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as Liberty, in accordance with its original intent with respect to the subject of the right to 125

trial by jury, this complaint as a whole offers the “Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as American’s, and this cause of action is “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”, and thereby subjecting us not only to tax slavery (which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994) but to political slavery as well.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

166. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax, and making the form of slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, wherein the loss of their SelfEvident God given Right of Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of freedom chattel slavery, which is the subject of the Thirteenth Amendment, and in terms of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), this cause of action is for violating the Plaintiffs Right to Religious Freedom, where IRS actions are in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians, our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast:

126

…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:2327). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be' perpetrated ad infinitum."

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

167. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax and making the form of slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, wherein Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of their Self-Evident God given Right of Liberty in terms of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), as evidenced by the events surrounding the trial and crucifixion of Christ and very foundations of Liberty expressed by this country’s founders (which is set forth in part within paragraphs #165 through #173 of this complaint, with supporting referenced footnotes), such that freedom from tax slavery is an all but forgotten Right of Religious Freedom, and the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians,

127

our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast, and further, in the context of the Right of every American and Christian to withhold their money from government when that money would go towards activities which are not in compliance with the Laws of God, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have violated the natural Right of Men over their servant governments which is the cornerstone of our form of governance -- the fifth of the five Rights in the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed by the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the Right of the People … to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances", such that, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have violated the Plaintiffs Right to act in accordance with both their Right to Religious Freedom and in free exercise of the First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances in complete accordance with the Official Acts69 of the framers of our US Constitution and Bill of Rights, enabling us, We, the People, to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, by including the "Capstone Right."

“As a matter of litigation of WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), the remedy for the act(s) of fraud involving only silence in the face of the People who act to peaceably procure relief is set forth as having been defined long ago in Act passed unanimously by the Continental Congress. (See Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113.), and expounded upon by Thomas Jefferson as the People’s Right of “…intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights…” (See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.).

69

128

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

168. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have put forth the false presumption that debts were owed by the Plaintiffs and other Americans, using an artifice of fraud to escape the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax which must be “apportioned” and have refused to respond to all inquiries into said Constitutional deprivation and inquiries into actions of IRS agents who willfully and knowingly entered false and fraudulent information into IRS computer systems concerning alleged liability and alleged debts owed to the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment and intimidation, including threats of liens, threats of levies, threats of property seizures, notices of liens, notices of levies, interference with normal business transactions, including unlawful bank and payroll seizures, public humiliation, slander and other serious unwarranted abuses, have refused to respond to questions presented in lawful presentation by WTP Organization in terms of Plaintiffs’ exercise of our First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts, have refused to follow Supreme Court decisions quoted repeatedly within the context of said Petitions and supporting documentation, as well as individually by the Plaintiffs, deliberately committed acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, and committed acts of further harassment and intimidation by mailing the Plaintiffs their own

129

personal copy of the US District Court’s summary judgment to convey the IRS’s message that being affiliated with WTP Organization for the purpose of Petitioning Government for a Redress of Grievances and withholding what Plaintiffs believe to be their own property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits derived from the labor of others), the hard-earned fruits of their labor – would thereby expose themselves to criminal liability and other serious unwarranted abuses, including but not limited to the substantial financial difficulties of having been put out of work.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

169. While Plaintiffs were about the free exercise of rights under the First Amendment, the IRS did issue the Summons dated September 5, 2007, in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s Employer, therefore Plaintiff not only contend that this act constitutes a selective unconstitutional act but also that the Plaintiff was deprived of Due Process of Law, because the Summons in question was never sent to Plaintiff’s PO Box to allow the Plaintiff the ability to respond by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, and the only reason the Plaintiff has knowledge of the Summons in question is because the Plaintiff was notified of its existence by his Employer, who thereupon provided the Plaintiff with his only copy, and because, under these conditions, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to respond to the Summons by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, the IRS, through the authority given to

130

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff of his due process rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

170. While Plaintiffs were about the free exercise of rights under the First Amendment, the IRS did issue the Summons dated September 5, 2007, in the name of the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s Employer, therefore the Plaintiff not only contends that this act constitutes a selective unconstitutional act but also that the Plaintiff was deprived of Due Process of Law, because the Summons in question was never sent to Plaintiff’s PO Box to allow the Plaintiff the ability to respond by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, and the only reason the Plaintiff has knowledge of the Summons in question is because the Plaintiff was notified of its existence by her Employer, who thereupon provided the Plaintiff with her only copy, and because, under these conditions, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to respond to the Summons by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff of her due process rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1346 – MAIL FRAUD

171. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1346, defining Mail Fraud in terms of a "scheme or artifice to defraud" including a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services”, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers

131

and Revenue Officers, did knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately mail the Plaintiffs their own personal copy of the US District Court’s summary judgment against WTP Organization for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of the intangible right of the honest services that WTP Organization provided the Plaintiffs and other Americans, and, ultimately in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 4 Plaintiffs believe that it should be the Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

172. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated May 22, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter it is assumed that the IRS mailed a copy of the same to one of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s past employers, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to worry of public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

132

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

173. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated May 22, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff William M. Greene’s present employer notified him that they had received a copy of the same, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

174. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated August 14, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address,

133

and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to endless harassment and intimidation, including threats of levies, threats of property seizures, notices of levies, interference with normal business transactions, including unlawful bank and payroll seizures, public humiliation, slander and other serious unwarranted abuses, including but not limited to the substantial financial difficulties of having been put out of work.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

175. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 4, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer notified her that they had received a copy of the same, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

134

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

176. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to Plaintiff William M. Greene’s bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

177. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to both of the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank accounts at Transportation

135

Alliance Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

178. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed in the name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene with notice to attach funds deposited in Citizens Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

179. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system, containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-

136

A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box and addressed in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene with notice to attach funds deposited in Citizens Bank, a Bank in which the Plaintiff does not have an account but his son William M. Greene, Jr. does, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to intimidation and fear that the IRS was about to seize even the money in his son’s bank account, interfere with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

180. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, served on Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Bank account which he held jointly with Plaintiff Karen M. Greene at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, and seized property in the amount of $673.01, without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

181. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,

137

which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, served on Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank account which she held jointly with Plaintiff William M. Greene and seized property in the amount of $673.01, as well as Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank account which she held individually and seized property in the amount of $6.80, both bank accounts being seized at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

182. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s personal bank account at Citizens Bank, 1440 Central Ave., Albany NY, in the amount of $1,077.37 without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

183. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 4, 2007, which

138

is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $1,972.66 without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

184. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $1,475.00 without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

185. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued IRS Form 668-W(ICS) dated January 28, 2008, which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $352.30 without filling out

139

the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. 1344(2) – BANK FRAUD WILLFULLY EXECUTING AND ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES OF BANK FRAUD

186. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1344(2), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes and artifices to obtain money and funds under the custody and control of Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, which is a financial institution as defined in 26 U.S.C. 408(n), and did so by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations in the issuance of Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, served on Plaintiff William M. Greene’s bank business account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without attachment or execution under judicial process (a court order) as required by 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. 1344(2) – BANK FRAUD WILLFULLY EXECUTING AND ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES OF BANK FRAUD

187. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1344(2), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes and artifices to obtain money and funds under the custody and control of Transportation

140

Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, which is a financial institution as defined in 26 U.S.C. 408(n), and did so by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations in the issuance of Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, served on two of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank accounts (being both single and joint business accounts) at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without attachment or execution under judicial process (a court order) as required by 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION -18 U.S.C. § 2113-UNLAWFUL BANK DEPOSIT SEIZURES

188. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, deprive the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff William M. Greene and Plaintiff Karen M. Greene owned jointly in their business bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without a court order in violation of due process under 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION-18 U.S.C. § 2113-UNLAWFUL BANK DEPOSIT SEIZURES

189. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice

141

of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, in the name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, deprive the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene and Plaintiff William M. Greene owned and had in their joint Bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, as well as depriving the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene owned and had in her personal business Bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without a court order in violation of due process under 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION-18 U.S.C. § 2113-UNLAWFUL BANK DEPOSIT SEIZURES

190. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Citizens Bank, Lincoln, RI, in the name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, depriving the Plaintiff of funds in the amount of $1,077.37 that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene had in her personal bank account at Citizens Bank, Albany NY, without a court order in violation of due process under 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS PASSING FALSE INFORMATION TO STATE AND/OR COUNTY GOVERNMENTS

191. In the context of – 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

142

deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes and artifices of fraud by passing false information to State and/or County Governments as evidenced by the attached copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document Details whereby the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated April 18, 2007, with the Amount being $171,479.86 filed with Albany County.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS PASSING FALSE INFORMATION TO STATE AND/OR COUNTY GOVERNMENTS

192. In the context of – 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes and artifices of fraud by passing false information to State and/or County Governments as evidenced by the attached copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document Details whereby the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated August 14, 2007, with the Amount being $96,305.16 filed with Albany County.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF PROPERTY AND PROTECTIONS OF LAW

193. In the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to IRS Officials, Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, deprived Plaintiffs of the

143

protections of law, because IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) and 668-W(ICS) are the "Notice of Levy" forms which are materially false and fraudulent documents for such purposes and a lawful Levy can only be effected by Form 668-B. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) clearly shows that Levy may not be made on private individuals.

194. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have levied Plaintiffs in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6331(a), thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their own property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits “derived from” the labor of others), the hard-earned fruits of their labor, the IRS has caused undue hardship, including but not limited to the substantial financial difficulties of having been put out of work, and without moneys derived from the direct exchange for their labor, the IRS is responsible for the Plaintiffs inability to pay creditors, resulting in many of the Plaintiffs debts being unpaid and causing other abuses, credit problems and possible other legal actions and/or repossessions.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

195. In the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to IRS Officials, Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, deprived Plaintiffs of the protections of law. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C.

144

6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court order.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

196. Plaintiffs, as well as every American signed on to WTP Organization’s Petitions, have been exercising their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, which in significant part, have challenged underlying tax liability. Plaintiffs have also written numerous letters to the IRS challenging the underlying tax liability, and although 26 U.S.C. 6330(c)(2)(A) might be thought of as the authority requiring an investigation of challenges to underlying tax liability, 26 U.S.C. 3401(c) provides the definition of “employee” which is obviously misapplied, as including all employees in the United States and because these definitions limit the scope of application of the W-4 form to said defined “employees” in 26 U.S.C. 3401 and 26 U.S.C. 3406(h)(10), Plaintiffs allege that it was this kind of fraud which was originally perpetrated upon the Plaintiffs to unknowingly and wrongfully believe that they, as well as most Americans, were responsible for a direct tax without “apportionment” on their money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits derived from the labor of others), and although Plaintiffs are currently self-employed, again with earnings derived only through the hard-earned fruits of their labor, the only reason they originally started filing and paying taxes was because of the fraud placed upon them long ago, and then when they sought to find answers in the form of the questions presented in the Petition for Redress of Grievance and personal letters the IRS refused to respond with

145

even a single law which made them “liable for” a tax and the IRS retaliated against the Plaintiffs where the IRS Code was used to supersede the Plaintiffs’ natural Rights of Privacy, Property and Right to Trial by Jury, even though Plaintiffs questions were properly put forth in terms of the Plaintiffs First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and in this context, the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights must be recognized before we might be deprived of any of our Rights by any IRS administrative process, and for this reason, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately and under color of law, conspired against the Plaintiffs’ rights and have deprived them of the protections of law.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

197. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, has knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately and under color of law and regulations, deprived Plaintiff of Due Process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, concerning the collection of alleged debts and alleged liability for a direct tax without “apportionment”, thereby subjecting Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

146

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

198. After refusing to respond to Plaintiffs request for any reference of law requiring them to file, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, filled out or caused subordinates to fill out 1040 forms (subornation of perjury), under the name of Plaintiffs and other Americans, which is not authorized by regulations, calling it a “substitute return”. These bogus 1040 forms have then been used to falsely create an “assessment” on the Plaintiffs and other Americans.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS BY ENTERING FALSE INFORMATION INTO COMPUTER SYSTEMS

199. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for and owed a debt to the United States. The nature of said false information claimed that Plaintiffs were liable and owed an individual income tax, which is an un-apportioned direct tax and which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

147

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- DUE PROCESS VIOLATION BY ENTERING FALSE INFORMATION INTO COMPUTER SYSTEMS

200. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that 26 USC 6331 authorized levy and lien on the Plaintiffs, thus depriving the Plaintiffs of due process, and deliberately used forms which omitted any reference to 26 USC 6331, paragraph “a”, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS CONCERNING LIABILITY

201. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for and owed a debt to the United States. The nature of said false information claimed that the Plaintiffs were liable and owed an individual income tax, which is an un-apportioned direct tax and which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public

148

humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IMPLIMENTING REGULATIONS

202. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for an alleged tax that had no implementing regulation and statute in the laws of the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS CONCERNING STATUTES AT LARGE

203. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, haveknowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for an alleged tax that had no Statute At Large or implementing regulation for the collection of the alleged debts, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander,

149

and other serious unwarranted abuses, while at the same time refusing to respond to reasonable requests to provide any statute at large which authorizes collections on private citizens, working for private companies.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS CONCERNING 26 USC 6331(a)

204. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that 26 USC 6331 authorized levy and lien on the Plaintiffs, and deliberately used forms which omitted any reference to 26 USC 6331(a), thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS ACCEDING TO AND AIDING IN FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS

205. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately acceded to and aided the entering of false information into the Internal Revenue computer system by the Operations Managers, by refusal or failure to uphold the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens,

150

public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS CONSPIRING TO HARRASS PLAINTIFFS

206. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among themselves to intimidate, threaten, oppress, and harass the Plaintiffs by using devious and malicious methods of communication which include false, misleading, and threatening statements sent from multiple Automated Collections Service Centers. Such malicious methods included sending out unsigned letters in violation of Internal Revenue manual directives. Such malicious methods included the refusal to respond to correspondences regarding the simple question of what law made the Plaintiffs “liable for” the tax the IRS claimed the Plaintiffs owed. Such malicious methods also included refusal of further correspondences when Plaintiffs provided documentation showing the lack of liability, and even after being presented with the truth about the Plaintiffs lack of liability, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, continued to knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committ acts of extortion and willful oppression under “color of law.”

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS WILLFUL EXTORTION AND OPPRESSION UNDER COLOR OF LAW

151

207. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed acts of extortion and willful oppression of the Plaintiffs’ rights under “color of law”, wherein-by threatening letters were sent to Plaintiffs employer in the form of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) and 668-W(ICS), as well as serving IRS Forms 668A(ICS) on Plaintiffs banks, which are fraudulent documents for the purpose of Levies upon non-governmental employees and by omission of the statement of authority as shown in 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) avoided detection of otherwise incomplete statements of authority, which constitutes fraudulent statements to induce the employer and banks to surrender property or rights of the Plaintiffs, whereby, under illegal implicit or explicit threats stated within the context of the incomplete statement of “authority” for said “Notice of Levy(s)” to the employer and financial institutions constitutes fraudulent threats to Plaintiffs’ employer and banks that penalties would be laid on the employer or bank if the employer or bank did not comply with the Levy requirements, and the IRS was able to accomplish extortion from, and oppression of, the Plaintiffs, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS DEMANDING SUMS OTHER THAN OR GREATER THAN AUTHORIZED BY LAW

208. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

152

deliberately demanded sums not authorized by law and sums greater than those authorized by law, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and illness.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS UNLAWFUL SEIZURES

209. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately levied and seized private persons, who are not government employees and/or are not otherwise “liable for” the income tax under the 16th Amendment, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs and other Americans to slavery and/or peonage, which is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS WILLFULLY MAKING AND SIGNING FRADULENT STATEMENTS AND ENTRIES

210. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among themselves to make and sign fraudulent statements, e.g. fraudulent penalties, and other documents sent to the Plaintiffs without an actual lien or levy having been perfected, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation,

153

interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS WILLFULLY MAKING AND SIGNING FRADULENT STATEMENTS AND ENTRIES

211. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among themselves to make and sign fraudulent statements, e.g. fraudulent notices of lien and levy, and other documents sent to the Plaintiffs without an actual lien or levy having been perfected, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS WILLFUL FAILURE TO REPORT FRAUD AND VIOLATIONS OF LAW

212. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(8), the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately refused to properly address Plaintiffs reports of fraud and violations of the Internal Revenue laws by subordinates or other employees or agents of the IRS, even though the IRS Operations Managers were notified of these criminal actions in previous communications, and as evidenced by the letter from Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance Services dated January 11, 2008, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene was even

154

assessed a fine of $5,000.00 for her effort in writing her September 28, 2007 letter to inform the Commissioner and Executive Branch of the IRS’ Fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS TO DENY PLAINTIFFS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

213. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the War Powers Clauses (by the Iraq Resolution).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

214. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

155

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the privacy and due process clauses (by the U.S.A. Patriot Act).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

215. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

156

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the money and debt limiting clauses (by the Federal Reserve System) of the Constitution.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

216. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

217. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

157

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to the North American Union, Illegal Immigration.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

218. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

158

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to Gun Control.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

219. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to U.S Aid to Israel.

159

PLAINTIFFS’ DECLARATION

220. I respectfully declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: May 21, 2008

__________________________ William M. Greene, pro se PO Box 279 Voorheesville, NY 12186 Phone: (518) 209-2495 And/or Phone: (518) 209-3091

__________________________ Karen M. Greene, pro se PO Box 279 Voorheesville, NY 12186 Phone: (518) 209-2495 And/or Phone: (518) 209-3091

State of New York County of Albany On this the 21st day of May, 2008, before me, ______________________________ personally appeared William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the written instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein contained. In witness whereof hereunto set my hand. ______________________________

160

LISTING OF EXHIBITS

1

Exhibit 1: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue

Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, UNITED STATES’ ANSWER AND CLAIM), Page #2 – Exhibit 1, 2 of 6, paragraph 4, wherein both Betty Richardson, a United States Attorney and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax Division, “Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government ...”

2

Exhibit 2: Copy of Freedom Flyer to encourage other truck drivers to contact WTP

Organization for the purposes of developing a new Petition involving constitutional torts regularly experienced in the trucking industry.

3

Exhibit 3: Attached Exhibit is a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated

June 26, 1989, “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes."

4

Exhibit 4: David Cay Johnston’s September 17, 2003 The New York Times article,

(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/business/17IRS.html?ei=5007&en=404eaa7dc6bbc 4b5&ex=1379131200&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1135436874ed/3ACwLrxx7BS7aAkFRIQ);

161

5

Exhibit 5: Plaintiff William M. Greene’s 09/01/02 short statements asserting knowledge

of the IRS’ fraud, in response to IRS letter dated 08/19/2002 wherein Plaintiffs’ short response is written on form letter 2797 (CG) (Rev. )3-199);

6

Exhibit 6: William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004;

7

Exhibit 7: William M. Greene’s second letter dated January 31, 2005;

8

Exhibit 8: William M. Greene’s third letter dated July 27, 2005;

9

Exhibit 9: William M. Greene’s forth letter dated April 13, 2007;

10

Exhibit 10: William M. Greene’s fifth letter dated May 5, 2007;

11

Exhibit 11: William M. Greene’s sixth letter dated September 6, 2007 which was

Response letter to the IRS mailing of the 6700 suit;

12

Exhibit 12: The seventh letter dated September 28, 2007 by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene;

13

Exhibit 13: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter it is assumed that IRS mailed a copy of the same to one of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s past employers.

162

14

Exhibit 14: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff William M. Greene’s present employer notified him that they had received a copy of the same.

15

Exhibit 15: Copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document

Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated April 18, 2007, with the Amount being “$171,479.86” filed with Albany County.

16

Exhibit 16: Copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s search from the New York State

Secretary of State's Website, UCC information on Filing Data Reports, reporting “No Debtors found”.

17

Exhibit 17: Copy of letter signed by the Case Processing Clerk, United States District

Court, Northern District of New York, documenting that there is no record for proceedings filed against neither William M. Greene nor Karen Greene.

18

Exhibit 18: Copy of William M. Greene’s letter dated February 11, 2008, submitted as

an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

19

Exhibit 19: Copy of WTP Organization’s Black Folder;

163

20

Exhibit 20: Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated August 14, 2007, sent

to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk;

21

Exhibit 21: Copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document

Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c), dated August 14, 2007, with the Amount being “$96,305.16” filed with Albany County.

22

Exhibit 22: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 4, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer notified her that they had received a copy of the same;

23

Exhibit 23: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 4, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer, with copy of payroll statement showing the dollar amount of $1,972.66 paid out supposedly to the United States Treasury;

24

Exhibit 24: Copy of Summons in the Matter of William M. Greene sent to Plaintiff’s

Employer;

25

Exhibit 25: Copy of Summons in the Matter of Karen Greene sent to Plaintiff’s

Employer;

164

26

Exhibit 26: Copy of letter from Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance Services,

dated January 11, 2008.

27

Exhibit 27: Copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s search from the New York State

Secretary of State's Website, UCC information on Filing Data Reports, reporting “No Debtors found”.

28

Exhibit 28: Copy of Karen M. Greene’s letter dated February 11, 2008, submitted as

an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

29

Exhibit 29: Bank Copy mailed to Plaintiff; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, served on Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT;

30

Exhibit 30: Bank Copy mailed to Plaintiff; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, served on Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s both personal and joint Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT;

31

Exhibit 31: Plaintiff copy from IRS; IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank;

165

32

Exhibit 32: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to both of the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank;

33

Exhibit 33: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed in the name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene addressed to Citizens Bank;

34

Exhibit 34: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box and addressed in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene addressed to Citizens Bank;

35

Exhibit 35: Copy of letter, dated January 18, 2008, Citizens Bank notified Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene that the IRS served a Tax Levy against her account at RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. with funds being withheld in the amount of $1,077.37, and a pay out date of 2-8-2008. The letter from Citizens Bank also included a copy of Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007.

36

Exhibit 36: IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) -- Notice of Levy, dated January 3, 2008, mailed to

the Plaintiff’s PO Box.

37

Exhibit 37: IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, served upon

the Plaintiffs’ Employer, along with attached a letter notifying the employer that “This will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can 166

not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees.”

38

Exhibit 38: Copy of statement/invoice dated 01/22/08 showing $1,475.00 paid out to

Internal Revenue Services United.

39

Exhibit 39: Email from Plaintiffs employer notified them that they (the employer)

received another form, and attached IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008.

40

Exhibit 40: Plaintiffs email response to the employers’ email, explaining that it is the

Plaintiffs understanding that “IRS Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices of Levy(s)" that do not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court stamp.” Also stating that “Even then, a Levy is ONLY lawfully effected by Form 668-B, which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a), and even that only pertains to those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers, employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their "employer."”

41

Exhibit 41: Copy of IRS Forms 668-B, Levy.

167

42

Exhibit 42: Copy of employers’ email (2/22/08), providing the Plaintiffs with pages of

IRS Form 668-W(ICS) the employer had originally omitted. And, copy of payroll statement and check to IRS in the amount of $352.30.

43

Exhibit 43: Robert Bernhoft, quoted By Jon Dougherty © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com,

(www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24192);

168

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful