# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jodele v. Commissioner > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_0400%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1987 - **Citation:** 480 U.S. 935 ## Text pus 5S! .ine tele adele +. bt thi himeetiii. tt ee ee EDITOR'S NOTE THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE WILL BE ISSUED. ae 4 8 Court, US. 86 1285 (ert | FEB & BRT JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNZTED STATES Jj UCTOBER TERM, 1986 JULTUS JONAS JODELE y, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WNINTH CIRCUIT SRIEF FOR PETITIONER wlaus Jones Jodeie 370 Altair Wev, #42 Sunnyvale, CA 949086 (908) 245-1606 PETITIONER PRO SE Guestions for Review I Can Petitioner's, Jodele's, fitth amend- ment right to be heard be satistied by Summary proceedings ‘without opportunity For oral argument) when Jodele 15 a Lithuanian national American with English as his second lanquege and is a layman who has not had any formal training in law so he does not know how to draft formal pDriets like lawyers can? Ir be vu) not Jodele's right to the courts beiung ) iD stricted by only allowing him to appear Q J written pleadings only? Itt not a judgement to pay attorneys' fees t ut 4a form of double taxation when the attor- neys are already on 3s salary paved by the people of the United States tnhrougn taxes? t Table of Contents Questions for Resiew Table of Citations Opinions Below Jurisdiction Questions for Review Statement of the Case and Facts Argument Reason for Granting Hrit Conclusion Certificate of Service Appendix axe re Cl Table of Citations pases FMti-Fascist Committee yv. MeGrath ..... 16 241 U.S. 2123 (1951) PPPS GR BM. FRRBE kc oh oo oe RD 5 380 U.S. 545 (1965) Brescie Const. Co. v. Welard Cost. Co. 12 246 N.Y.5. 862 Laren 5. tin: SOP ive iarare nk. 0.36 a ee a ov 7 6 Wall 35, 46 Doyle vy. Mitchell Bros. Co. .......... oS .? 247 U.S. 179 ae « WSR OU hs 2 ib RSA 8 231 Fed. Rep. 110 Siar Te oe a es koe ee ee 3 ava U.S. 189 12920) CROP WS a a Se ke a ak ea 15 S97 U.S. 254 (1970) MOSHOG ©... HOOT: Go ib eh eae ee week ae $04 U.S. 519 (1972) PRL ME LOOM Ws. TURP UPROE oink os hk eee 8 ee rs 4 Wheaton 3165 FURr ree. Ws GRO ok cic ko 6 os PaO ee 13 384 U.S. 436 (1766) Ge Oe .. CG es oe oh awe ke eres 3 eve U.S. S7 429203 Stratton's Independence vy. Howbert ..... 3 231 U.S. 399 Statutes £6 i329 .0. BOGE? oe ek oe ee Se ke ee 6 Le U.S. Se ae eae eS 2 ks core ee eee 10 26 U9 .4.. 2 Gl os 6 v8 8 ee eee 10 oe UB Oe ee i oi es we ee VE eee 6,10 46 UcS.G: 2 Gees 6 6 ek oe ee ee - op ceo GSS. Sore i as-is eee 5 £0 U.S.@7 | 9. Bae} si Os 6 eee 2 20 U. Sib. | Sette) 6 ccc ks eee 2 0 the Honorable William H. Rennquist, Chietr Justice, and associate Justices of +ne Supreme LCourt af the United States. = Julius Jones Jodele, Petitioner Pro Se, prays that this petition for certiorari is gantea to review the judgment of the Unit- ed States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered in the above entitled case on August 5, 1986 and denial of rehearing 2n bdenc entered on November 6, 1996 Opinions Below The per curiem atfirmed judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit whose judqment is herein sougnt to 5e reviewed and is unreported. The per curiam order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying Jodele‘s motion tor re- nearing ane rejecting the suqgestion for renearing @®n Sanc 15s printed in Appendix. w= = © \ i : _ - + od a eet. te Jurisdiction The Unitea States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed a4 Vissiax’aieauan an Rugust 5, 1996. Jodele timely ‘twithin 14 days pursuant to Federal Appellate Procedure Rule 40! filed 4 petition for renearing en banc an August 19, 1986. Jodele's petition for renearing was denied and 471s suggestion tor renearing en banc was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's Order Filed on November 6, 1986. This petition 1s timely Filed within 90 days of denial or cenearing en Danc persuant to Supreme Court Rule 20.2 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101 ‘cd. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 9.5.0. §$ 1254 (1) providing for review after rendition of judgment. a i, w earth Renal a5 dit rae Guestions for Review Pan Petitioner's, Jodele's, fifth amend- ment right to be heard be satisfied by summary proceedings (without opportunity for oral arqument) when Jodele 15 ay Lithuanian national American with English as his second language sand 1s a layman who has not had any formal training in law so he does not know how to dratt formal briets like lawyers can: Ir Is not Jodele's right to the courts being cestricted by only allowing him to appear by written pleadings only? Iit Is not a judgement to pay attorneys' fees a form of gdouble taxation wnen the attor- nevs are already on a salary payed by the people of the United States through taxes? ee a ee Statement of the Case and Facts Jodele received a notice of deficiency For the tax years 1980, 1981 and 1°82 from the Internal Revenue Service dated March 26, 1985. On the face of the notice was ~ stated that “If you want to contest this deficiency in court...., you have 70 days From the above mailing date of this letter to file a petition with the United ax Court for 4 redetermination of the de- Ficiency." On June 20, 1985, Jodele filed 4 peti- tion, a request for designation of trial v ul -+ ry C 5 Ly at Los Angeles, CA and a requ jury trial. On June 26, 1985, Jodele's request for designation of trial at Los Angeles, CLA was granted but never materialized. On July 2, 1985, Jodele's request for a jury trial was summarily denied. On Aug 12, 1985, of damages under upAaN which relief with memorandum in S 66 Comm1 support Motion for fae be 4 4 4 a be granted Objections to the Respondent' were due on September IJ O 1985 was a Monday. Court was closed that filed on September - = 2 “nt 2epteroer oo, motion to disml1 a] U on the types of Court can make. ections to Respondent ' Ln The Fir: L3G: day so Jodele 5 motions L7eu, the Jodele also filed a kK of jurisdiction determinations ssessmenrwt and Motion ssioner thereot motions September Mondays ul peciftic "“{Tihe' Tax Court shall nave jurisdic- | tion to redetermine the correct amount of the deficiency....and to determine whether any additional amount, or ad- dition to the tax should be assessed" And 26 U.S.C. $ 6211 specifically defines wheat constitutes 4 deficiency - “CT lhe term “deficiency" means the a- mount by which the tax imposed by sub- title Aor 68, or chepter 41, SZ, Sa; 44, or 45". Subtitle A is Income Taxes ana 26 U.5.C. § ©1 18 in chapter 1 of subtital A wnhach Quotes (Glross income means ali income from whatever source derived, including. the tollowaing items: (1) Compensation " ror services. Emphasis added to the word "from" because the word "by" was not used. Jodele's wage was the compensation for services and no income was derived form the compensation. Had the yord “by" been used where "from" 1s used in § oi, then there wovuid be no Question that the internal Revenue i_ode cansiders the DeaSsic campenseation as tax- able income. But as worded now, the basic wage must de converted into taxable Ts te Thi come . interpretation 15 consistent wi with 438 Am Jur 20 $8 & acquire oroperty ody labor. T riant to earn wages 1S just as much property and within the protection of tne due opracess clause af the Four- teenth Amendment to the Federal Con- stitution as earned wages.” But if the government nas the power to tax something, then the government has the power to gesrtroy oe AS was quoted in b? McCuilock v. Marvland and in Crandall v. > Nevada-'That the power to tax involves the power to destroy.“ Then, 1f the govenment can destroy Jodele's wages, then Jodele covidn't have aright to them; The gov- ernment would heave the right to Jodele's wages and then we would be «4 communistic country instead of a strong democracy we once had. And consistent with Edward e. Keith, 2351 Fed Rep 110 were wes quoted, "One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for then." This Court said in Shaffer -«. Carter that whet constitutes as taxable income “resolves tseif into 32 mere Question of detini- ta tions". A question that this Court an- swered very plainly in Eisner «. Macomber ; ‘{Wle find little to add to the suc- cinct definition adopted in two casses arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence -v-. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Deyle es. Mitchell’ Bros. Ce., 247 U.S. 179, 185)-"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” provided it be snderstoog to include profit gained througqn 4 sale or conversion of capi- tal assets, to which it wes applied in Dinettes the Doyle Case ‘pe. i183, 185) The Government, aithough dasing its argument upon the definition § as Quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word “gain,” which was extended to in- >lude 4 variety of meanings; while the ificance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived.- ‘Derived-from-capital":>-"“the gain- derived-from-capital ," etc. Here we nave the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capitsel, not a2 growth or increment of value in the investment: but @ gein, a profit, something of ex- changeadle valve proceeding from the property, severed from the capital SoOwever invested or employed, 3nd coming in, odeing “derived,"“ that 15, received or drawn by the recipient the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and daisposal;-that 15 income Jerived from property. Nothing else answers the description. v1thn Tn1ls understanding of income Jodele claims nis weges are not. 50 «€6the ui question in Tax Court becomes-Has Jodele' wages Deen converted into taxabdle income sna now?’ This question the Tax Court has no jurisdiction to answer The Tax Court can only redetermine the deficiency, or “ax, ON an estadlisned income and not an originel determination on whet 15 or : 4 i 4 eit “ ee Saag Jind soma tds as" = as oe f = le A 7s isa’ ed Eas err agit e a ee Wet? Bre sy hire cy pore a ee a a eee ee q APwerage: e ocr Sei geee ae sea C ae eS ee ea ee ech Ci. ee ay ai 2 EM ow Hs ie ceu," ig? Sega ; ie | | le - edd ee my hE eG f jal wy . Srepaeing! , ree . a _ i th Aaa S ea Td we _ WN : Fal ad al ery. rials Daas ee ares ee we ese eile , Wo + er Te abgeee eee sag er eae i om ane 2 TS ys SY Bes en ore. : a ae ee ne ee Gyhe- 2 er ip — a ee ee ae = . ~ - > a : pale r peek A ae oF tee eee ae eee, ey eee oe i Ce Tyke eee eT Since this case never went to trial, it 1s assumed that the Commissioner 15 vusina 3 Form W-2 as proot of income. But the Form W-2 has irrelevant intormation oan it for this case. What 15 on Form W-2 15 de- fined in 26 U.S.C. § 60351; “Receipts for employees oe | | eee a written statement showing the following: ‘ _— (3) the total amount of wages as detined in section 3401(a)," Since section 3401a) 15 in chapter 24 of suotitie ©, and the Tax Court can oniy make determinations in subtitle Aor B, or chepter $1, 42, 43, 44 or 45 per 26 U.S.C. § 6211, the Tax Court can not use the in- Formation on Form W-2Z2 to determine a defi- Slency because what 15 1Nn subtitle L, has i. Emphasis added to the word "wages" because the word "income" was not used. Again atfirming Jodele's contention that hls wages are not income. - 10 - ri SS = | ei as pris oP thas tS | i : > Vics 7% “4 _- Diet ie eee, a 7 eta L gtee at But there 15 a constitutional right to be heard, not to be read. And in Jodele's case, he was s0 severely handicapped in written proceedings thet his right to be heard can not have been complied with, without an oral presentation. Jodele pointed out to the Ninth Circuit, in his petition for rehearing en banc, that whatever the Commissioner claimes can not be presumed correct unless a minimal ePevlidenciary foundation 1s laid showing that Jodele's wages have been converted into income. Just because Jodele was walting to present his case to the court in Los Angeies, ‘4s has been granted by the Tax Court in Washingtons 15S no reason to impose sanctions against Jodele and summarily dismiss his case tor failure to state a claim upon which relief could be Qranted. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. var oo) re Pog =I * a aly ooo <> nA a = = A - i 2 a a oS — wy —, of ; - o a = Se i > _ os ms ee wy Pe T = Ar qument Jodele may not be able to artfully plead his case, But he has very substantial is- sues of law to settle and is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. If these proceedings keep getting summerily dis- missed, Jodeie will be condemned to suffer @ grievous loss; not for being proved wrong but for not being as skilled as a lawyer is in dratting formel pleadings. Reason for Granting Hrit This Court has from time to time took on the task of delineating, 1n meaningful language, the manner in which the constitutional rights of the individual could be protected. Probaly most recently against overzealous police practices in Miranda v. Arizona. Supreme Court Justice Wilizam O. Douglas once saic that our Bill of Raghts curb all three branches of gov- T ernment. it subjects ail departments oat _ 13 fate government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all pow- erful government. Gut todey, the |.R.$. hes usurped so mucn power that it has the lay public groveling at their feet. This Court should delineate similar guidelines For the I.R.S., 1m conjunction with the Tax Court, the manner in which the consti- tutional rights of the individual could be orotected from the overzealous I1.R.5. practices. Jodele understands that the I. R.S. needs power 1n order to perform 1ts Function, but to deprive individuals their rights as a4 normal course of buisness breeds contempt for the I.R.S. and its laws. The cnences of an individual comming in contact with the I.R.5. are much greater than one being confronted by 8 police otficer. ‘ a pe P 1 : = oeuy ie a a a lt al in ae aa a Sth ita Sa saab TRA I LN LE LEER SDE BS +4 4 5 Conclusion Jodele was denied an effective opportu- nity to defend By confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting h1s5 own argu- ments and evidence orally at 4 meaningful time and in a3 meaningful manner, and therefore, has been denied his constitu- tional right to due process of law. This Court should determine whether im posing attorneys' fees 15 3 form of double taxation when they are imposed on 6 pei~ vate citizen and the attorneys are employ- ees of the United States. The attorneys already draw a salary that 15 payed by the taxpayers, including Jodele. My Commission Expires: Wherefore, tne petitioner asks this Court tnat, for all the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari be granted. Respectfully subdmitted, juUuLius State of California County of Sante Clara Sworn and suoscribded to me this 2nd day of Februery, 1987, and before me personel- ly appeared Julius Jones Jodele to me well known ang known to me *o be the person wno executed this adocument. . el lle AN a LOM te as Pls aii ala te Na RTS le Pebsrat bho Certificate of Service 1s Nereby certified thet service of a true and correct cooyv of this petition hes been made on the Attorney for the Appellee Sy mailing 4 copy thereof on this ird dey 9f Febrvuery, 1987. in an envelope, with postege prepeid, properiy addressed to hin 6s follows: It Department of Justice Tax Division -.0.B80x 5d2 wWeshington, 0.C. 20044-4502 Jodcele State of Cal:ifornia County af Senta Clara Sworn ana suoscribed to me this 2nd day Or Feorvery, 1987, ana before me personal- ly appearea Julius Jones Jodele to me weil