Appendix — In re Davis

ad

¢

en

ce, a 1:

oupreme Coun, IS

“.

88-260 FILED

> 10 1988

No.. AUG 10 198

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR,

CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA

October Term, i988

IN RE EUGENE H. DAVIS; PETITIONER

IN PROPRIA PERSONA

on a Writ of Prohibition to the United

States District Court of the District

of Arizona, Tucson,

Judge Alfredo C. Marquez presiding;

Ninth Circuit Judges, Kilkenny, Sneed

and O'Scannlain; Respondents

APPENDIX TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF ERROR

Eugene H. Davis

7447 N. Camino De Oeste

Tucson, County of Pima

ist Judicial District (1909)

Republic of Arizona

10.

11.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A

Minute Entry and Order

Four Pages

Appendix B

Memorandum and Order Ninth Circuit

Six Pages

Appendix C

Order rehearing Rejecting rehearing

Two Pages

Appendix D

Order rehearing Denied

One Page

Appendix E

Article III U.S. Constitution

One Page

Appendix F

Declaration of Independence

One Page

Appendix G

Appellant Brief Excerpts

Eignt Pages

Appendix H

Definition of De Novo

One page

Appendix I

Excerpts Trial Transcripts

Six Pages

Appendix J

Amendment Article V

One Page

Appendix K

UNITED STATES VidikiCl CUURI

VISItRIC! UF ARIZUNA

No. CK-GoO-2Z2U/-1UC-AUM

DEFENVANIT: EUGENE H. DAVIS

WITH CUUNSEL: Eugene H. Vavis, Pro Per

GUILTY: Counts 1-3

Detendant has been convicted as

charged ot the offenses of violating litie

26, United States Code, Section 7/7201,

attempt to evade and defeat tax, as

charged in Counts 1-3 of the Indictment

filed herein.

SENTENCE OR PROBATIUN ORDER:

The court asked whether detendant' had

anything to say why judgment should not be

pronounced. Because no sufficient cause

to the contrary was shown, or appeared to

the court, the court adjudged the

detendant guilty as charged and convicted

and ordered that: Ihe Vetendant 15 hereby

Appendix A page 1

committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his authorized representative

tor imprisonment tor a period of two years

on Count 1.

Imposition of the sentence is hereby

suspended and the detendant is placed on

probation tor a period of tive (5) years

on each ofr Counts Zz and 3. Probationary

terms imposed to run or be served

concurrently with each other and to

commence immediately.

SPECIAL CONDITIUNS UF PRUBATIUN:

It 1S FURTHER URDERED that a_ special

assessment otf $5U0.UU is hereby imposed on

Counts 1,2 & 3. Total Assessment:

$150. UU.

Additional conditions of probation 1s

tnat the defendant comply with all! the

filing requirements past and tuture of the

Internal kKevenue Service; special

condition of probation is that the

detendant investigate the possiblility of

Appendix A page z

going back to work tor the southern

Pacitic Raiiroad or with any other

empioyer and to compiete the proper

documents.

ADDITIUNAL CUNDITIUNS OF PROBATION:

in addition to the special conditions

of probation imposed above, it is hereby

ordered that the general conditions of

probation set out on the reverse side of

this judgment be imposed. The Court may

change the conditions of probation, reduce

or extend the period of probation, and at

any time during the probation period or

within a@ maximum probation period of tive

years permitted by law, may issue a

Warrant and revoke probation tor 3

violation occurring during the probation

period.

CUMMILTMENIT RECUMMENDAT IUN:

ihe court orders commitment to the

custody of the Attorney General and

recommends, that the sentence imposed is

Appendix A page <

stayed pending the outcome ot any appeal

in this case. Vetendant is to be

supervised by probation ofticer pending

and appeal and to obey ail requirements of

the probation officer in this case.

SIGNED BY:A.C. Marquez

U.S. District Judge

Appendix A page 4

eg,

ee SS ee, ee

NUT FUR PUBLIVCAILIUN

UNITED STATES CUURT UF APFEALS

FUR THE NINTH CIRCUII

UNITED SIATES UF AMERICA, )

Plaintift - Apppellee, ) C.A.NoO.8/-1056

Vv. )

EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) D.C. No. 86-

Defendant - Appellant. ) 207-TUC-ACM

) MEMORANDUM *

—— oe er i Oe re OO OO rr OO Oe Om eH eH er er re

Appeal trom the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona,

Honorable Alfredo C. Marquis, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 19687 #*

Betore: KILKENNY, SNEED and U'SCANNLAIN,

Circuit Judges.

Davis appeals pro se his’ conviction

under 26 U.S.C. Section 7201 ot three

counts of income tax evasion. We attfirm.

Davis first contends that the district

court lacked personal jurisdiction over

Appendix B page 1

yp eer age ae

him because (1) he is a sovereign

individual by birth; (2) the tourteenth

amendment is unconstitutional; and (3) the

district court failed to meet its burden

of showing that it had jurisdiction over

him. We review de novo. Federal Deposit

Ins. Corp. v. British-American Ins. Oss

828 F.2d 1439, 1441 (CAY 1987).

ee eee eee eee a ee a ae ea eae ree er OO HO OO Om Kr er er Kr er wm Or em wm wr Ke

* This disposition is not appropriate for

publication and may not be cited to or by

the courts of this Circuit except as

provided by CAS Rule 36-34.

*» The panel unanimously agrees that this

case is appropriate for submission without

Oral argument per FRAP 34(a) and CAQ Rule

34-4,

A “sovereign individual" is subject to the

provisions of the Interna! Revenue Code.

See United States Ve Studley, 783 F.2d

934, 93/7 (CAQ 1986). Moreover, Davis's

contention that the tourteenth amendment

to the Constitution of the United States

1s unconstitutional is ludicrous) on its

face. Finally, tederal district courts

have original and exclusive jurisdiction

Appendix B page 2

over "all ottenses against the laws of the

United Statest,jJ" 16 U.S.C. Section 3231;

this includes violations ot the Internal

Revenue Code. Studley, 783 F2d at ¥3/7.

Davis also argues that the prosecutor

lied to the grand jury by falsely stating

that Davis was a "taxpayer" and not a

"sovereign individual by birth.” We

review : de novo allegations of

prosecutorial misconduct before a_- grand

jury. United States v. De Kosa, 783 F.2d

1401, 1404 (CAS), cert. denied, U.S.

» 106 S.Ct. 3282 (1986).

Davis's argument is frivo!ous.

Because Davis is subject to the provisions

ot the Internal Revenue Code, see Studley,

‘83 F2d at ¥3Y, the prosecutor's remarks

were correct.

The appellee has asked tor two things

on this appeal: that part otf Davis's

opening brief be stricken as scurrilous;

and that sanctions be imposed tor tiling a

Appendix B page 3

trivolous appeal.

The argument beginning at the bottom

ot page 13 of Vavis’'’s opening brief and

continuing through to the top of page zl

is not only rambling and irrelevant to the

legal issues raised in the first half of

his brief, but its extremely radical

theories with respect to religion also are

entirely inappropriate in a torma!

pleading.

As to the request for sanctions, we do

not tind this to be an appropriate case

for the imposition oft damages for filing a

trivolous appeal.

Accordingly, appellee's motion to

strike that portion of Vavis's opening

briet beginning at the bottom ot page 13

and continuing through to the top ot page

21 is GRANTED. The request for sanctions

is DENIED. The judgment of conviction is

AFFIRMED.

Appendix B page 4

a.

(s) NUT SIGNED

--a

UNITED STATES CUURT UF APPEALS

For the Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES UF AMERICA, ?

Plaintitf-Appelee, ) CA NU.8/7-1056

Vv. IDE NU. CR-Sb

EUGENE H. DAVIS, )

bDetendant-Appel lant. )

APPEAL tom the United States District

Court for the District ot Arizona

(lucson).

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the

Transcript ot the kKecord trem the United

Sstses Vistrict Court tor the District of

Arizona, and was duly submitted.

Appendix B page 5

UN CUNDSIVERAILIUN WHEREUF, it as now

here ordered and adjudged by this Court,

that the judgment of the said vistrict

Court in this Cause be, and hereby is

atfirmed.

Filed and entered February 1VU, 1986

Appendix B&B page 6

UNITED SIATES UF AMERILA

FUR IHE NINIM CIRCUIT

UNITED STAIES UF AMERICA, )?)

Apppel lee, ) &.A.NO.8/-1056

Vv. )

EUGENE H. DAVIS, ») D.C. No. 86-

Appellant. » 20/-TUC-ACM

) URDER

Betore: KILKENNY, SNEED and U'SCANNLAIN,

Circuit Judges.

The panel as constituted in the above

case has voted to deny the petition tor

rehearing. Judge U'Scanniain has voted to

reject the suggestion tor rehearing in

banc, and Judges Kilkenny and Sneed have

recommended rejection oft tne suggestion

tor rehearing in banc.

The full court has been advised of the

Suggestion for in banc rehearing, and no

judge of the court has requested a vote on

the suggestion tor rehearing in banc.

Appendix C page 1

The petition for rehearing 1s denied

and the suggestion tor rehearing i1n_- banc

is rejected.

Appendix C page 2

UNITED SIATES CUURT UF APPEALS

FUR THE NINIH CIRCUIT

UNITED SI!ATES UF AMERICA, )

Apppellee, ») C.A.NO.87-1056

Vv. )

EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) D.C. No. 86-

Appellant. ») 207-TUC-ACM

) URDER

Before: KILKENNY, SNEED and U'SUANNLAIN,

Circuit Judges.

This matter is now betore the Court on

the appellant's petition for rehearing "to

be reopened" with suggestion tor rehearing

in banc, as well as a motion to recall

and/or stay the mandate.

The petition tor rehearing and

Suggestion tor rehearing in banc have

already been denied and rejected by

previous Urder of this Court tiled April

18, 1988. The motion to recall! and/or

Stay the mandate is DENIED.

Appendix D page 1

la

J. BS « CONS Ti rut i UN

ARTICLE I11

Section 1.

the Judicial Power of the Ubited

States, shall be vested in one supreme

Court, and in such inferior Courts as the

Congress may from time to time ordain and

establish. The Judges, both ot the

supreme and intericr Courts, shall hold

their Offices during good Behaviour, and

shall, at stated limes, receive tor their

Services, a Compensation, which shall not

be diminished during their Continuance in

Office.

section dz.

The judicial Power shal! extend to al!

Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under

this Constitution, the Laws of the United

States, and lreaties made, or which shall

be made, under their Authority;--to all

Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public

Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of

admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to

Controversies to which the United States

shai} be a Party3--to Controversies

between two or more States;--between a

state and Citizens ot another

State;--between Citizens ot ditterent

Sstates;--between Citizens of the same

State claiming Lands under Grants ot

ditterent States, and between a btate, or

the Citizens or Subjects.

Appendix E page 1

THR VDUECLARAT IUN Wk

INDEPENDENCE

SECUND PARAGRAPH

Sentences 1 and 2

we hold these truths to be

seit-evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their

Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Lite, Liberty and the

Pursuit of Happiness. [hat to secure these

rights, Governments are instituted among

Men, deriving their just powers trom the

consent of the governed.

Appendix - page l

United States Court of Appeals

For the Ninth circuit

EUGENE H. DAVIS, )

In Propria Persona, )

Accused/Appe! lant, )

Vv. ) No.&/-1U056

United States of America, )

By the American Bar Assoc., ?)

Accuser/Appel lee. )

IN THE UNITED SIATES DISTRIC CUURT

FUR THE DISTRICT UF AKIZUNA TUCSUN

--—— — eH Om nm mm Mm mn Hm er wr wr rer Hr HO Oe HO er Or er Or er em ew

-—— ww ww Mw e— wm Ow Ow er Mm wr nw ere OO wm Oe er Kr ewe wer we

EUGENE H. DAVIS

IN PRUPRIA FERSUNA

/44/ No. Camino de VUeste

fucson, Arizona 85/41

Appendix G page 1

1. The United states wovernment and

the tower Court taiied to prove that a

NEXUS (juriasdiction’ did exist between its

seit and tugene HH. UVavis, a Sovereign

Inhabitant by Birth of this great nation.

2. The IRS and the U. bs. Attorney did

illegaily lie and entrap the Accused

before the Grand Jury.

Un or about 11/24/86 the United States

court for the district of Arizona at

Tucson did illegaily assume jurisdiction

by arraignment of the Accused.

Un or about 1/6/8/ the United States

court tor the district of Arizona at

Tucson did assume jurisdiction and the

court did proceed with a trial.

i. The Accused did present to the

United States both tne Justice and the IRS

a statutory waiver pursuant to the United

States Uniform Commerciai code at Section

l1-10/ delivered according to Section

1-2U1(14). pursuant to <6 Am Jur dd.

Appendix & pagea

Section 1oy. (See Attacnment (1)) An

inhabitant by birth Elector/Legislator,

not subject to government's NEXUS.

No one is bound to obey an

unconstitutional law, and no Courts are

bound to enforce it. The 14th Amendment

breached the Sovereign wWights of the

People of the United States ot America, a

Kepublic, and by its very existance,

voided the Constitution in part or in

whole removing the Feopie trom their

Original and Superior Jurisdiction of the

Keal Froperty Law otf Nature to citizens

subject to the jurisdiction thereotr. (the

14th Amendment)

rhe Accused did Lhallenge the

government (IRS) and the tower Court

twenty two (422) times at six (6) nearings

(see the toilowing transcripts);

Nov. lJ, lydo, before Magistrate

Kaymond 71. Terlizzi:

Page 1 line 11 thru 13 and tine 16

Appendix G page 3

thru 19

Page

thru 24

rage

Nov. 14,

Marquez:

Page

Nov. 24,

Marquez:

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

bec. 22,

Marquez:

Page

Page

Page

rage

2 Line 11 thru 14 and

3

Line

196,

/ thru 1

U

3 Line & thru 12

1986,

NS

8

Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

1986,

Appendix G

Line

Line

Line

Line

ig thru Zs

1

2 thru 25

i; taru 16

iz thru 24

23 thru 25

i Haru <@

betore

so tnfu. 20

1 thru i5

24 thu 25

: tAntyu 3

page

4

line 22

betore Judge Altredo LU.

betore Judge Alfredo C.

Judge Altredo LU.

- we

= seed

Page 10 Line 4 thru &

Jan. 6, 1Y8/7,

Marquez:

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page

Feb. 23,

Marquez:

Page

Page

Page

Page

Page 6 Line

Page

Page

Page

in all of

the lower Court

ey)

8

1

3

4

4

S

Line 6 thru Z5

Line 1 thru 25

Line 1 thru 5

Line 22 thru Zb

Line 1 thru Z5

Line 1 thru 13

Line /” thru 19

berore Judge Alfredo

C.

98/, before Judge Alfredo C.

Line 17

line 1 thru 6

Line 15 thru 1Y

thru z5

Line 1 thru 6

10 Line 1 thru

ai Line 1 thru

19 Line 1Z thru 19Y

the above

Appendix G

> thru i5

Die

Zo

(

instant challenges

continued

page

to

Sc

assume

an

illegal jurisdiction wrthout any-— given

authority but I got it. This Accused did

intorm the lower Court each time that it

could not proceed without proof otf a

NEXUS, and that as a servants court it

could never have jurisdiction over the

Sovereignty of this great country.

This Court, in United States Vv.

Studley, did not entertain the material

which is being presented in this brief.

6

Appendix G page

United States Court of Appeals

For the Ninth Circuit

EUGENE H. DAVIS, )

In Propria Fersona, )

Accused/Appei lant, )

Vv. ) No.&7-1056

Unitea States of America, )

By the American Bar Assoc., )?

Accuser/Appel lee. )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT UF ARIZONA TUCSUN

ACCUSED/APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF

EUGENE H. DAVIS

IN PRUPRIA PERSONA

7447 No. Camino de Ueste

Tucson, Arizona 65/41

Appendix G page 7

1. The United States Government and

the lower Court failed to prove that a

NEXUS (jurisdiction) did exist between its

selt and Eugene H. Davis, a Sovereign

Inhabitant by Birth of this great nation.

2. The IRS and the U. 5S. Attorney did

illegally lie and entrap the hnalaaael

before the Grand Jury.

On or about 11/24/86 the United States

court for the district of Arizona at

Tucson did illegally assume jurisdiction

by arraignment of the Accused.

On or about 1/6/87 the United States

court tor the district of Arizona at

lucson did assume jurisdiction andthe

court did proceed with a trial.

1. The Accused did present to the

United States both the Justice and the IkKS

a statutory waiver pursuant to the United

States Unitorm Commercial code at section

1-1U0/ delivered according to section

1-201(14), pursuant to 26 Am Jur 2d.

Appendix G pageg

BLACK’ S LAW

bMicliuUuUNARY

FikrirH e&bDi1i')T1ON

HEARING NUVU:

Generally, a new hearing or a hearing

tor the second time, contemplating an

entire trial in same manner in which

matter was originally heard and a review

of previous hearing. Un hearing "de novo”

court hears matter as court of original

and not appellate jurisdiction. Colier &

Wallis v. Astor, Y Cal.zd 2U2Z, ‘Oo F.2d

4171, 173.

Appendix H page i

TRIiAL %‘TrTRANSCR i &'l

February 1V, 1ys¢

Betore Judge Aitredo

ct. Marquez

No. CR-86-20/-1UC-ALCM

THE CUURT: This is the time set tor

the trial in United States versus Eugene

H. Davis.

Mr. Davis would you come torward and

take a seat at the defense counsel's

table.

MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, | am present in

the courtroom today because as a condition

to remaining tree instead of being caged

the Court compelled me to sign a _ promise

to appear at each scheduled appearance. |

nave kept that promise taithtfully tor the

sole purpose of challenging the in persona

Appendix | page 1

arene eee

jurisdiction of the Court because I am

convinced that my status as a preamble

citizen rather that a 14th Amendment

citizen prevents my person from being

subjected to the laws and jurisdiction of

the maritime, law of nations, kKoman civil

law court unless my accuser can _- provide

proot that a required relationship nexus

when the allegation oft itself implies a

charge of failed specific pertormance

necessitating a initial agreement to s0

perform in return tor receipt of certain

privileges or franchises.

] have asked repeately for the

prosecution to provide this proor.

I have asked repeatedly for the Court

to assert and prove jurisdiction on the

record by showing wherein tne authority

lies for even Congress to create a

relationship from a non-retationsnip

through acts of legisiation without” my

knowing and willing consent.

Appendix !| page 2

These requests have gone unanswered,

Your Honor. Indeed the record clearly

shows that the question of status, which

torms the basis of the jurisdictional

challenge, has been resolutely avoided in

past proceedings.

Today, this court, of its own

admission, intends to - proceed to sr ial.

This act will completely negate my

jurisdictional chalienge for the remainder

ot the proceedings before this court and

compel me to endure the rigors of a trial

and possible incarceration, and to be

branded as a criminal pending a lengthy

appeal process to resolve the very

question which should have been answered

in this court.

een eees|6 UR CAN SCR IPT

February 23, 198/

Ketore Judge Alfredo

C. Marquez

Appendix 1! page 3

No. Ck-8#6-20/7-TUC-ACM

PFROCE ED ING S

THE DEFENDANT: ] have written up some

of my objections here. Can you hear me

all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

THE DEFENDANT: Un page 1, under

citizenship, the defendant was born a

citizen of Arizona and therefore is a

preamble citizen of the United States by

virtue of inheritance of his birthright as

a member of posterity, and not one whose

rights emanate trom or through the

Fourteenth Amendment.

1 believe, you know, just putting down

U.S. citizen, is not quite claritying

enough.

And on the matter of the social

security number, Your Honor, the detendant

has revoked and resicinded his social

Appendix ! page 4

ARN Pocus e aaa RE

security number contract and number

because of constructive traud used against

him. This is based upon but not limited

to violation ot my rights as shown in the

case Tyler v. Stcretary of State and the

El Paso Natural Gas Company v. Kaiser

Insurance Company.

Un the matter of piea, Your honor, the

defendant did not refuse to plead, but

told the Court it did not have personam

(ph) jurisdiction to ask tor a plea. The

Court then entered a plea of not guilty

over the defendant's objection.

Now, if you will turn to page 3, Your

Honor, on paragraph 1, the detendant does

deny his role in the instant ottrense as

enumerated by the |.R.5. report as shown

in the letter to Judge Marquez and the

evidence at trial.

Page 5, Your Honor, On paragraph 1,

the same applies here as appiies to the

first paragraph of page 4.

Appendix ! page »&

Paragraph <z, 1 oboject to the term

"tinancial Obligation to the Internal

Revenue Service". The detendant maintains

thatt he has no obligations, as evidenced

by this 24-page affidavit, which I hereby

make a part of these proceedings, that the

U.S. Attorney has had since January of

1986, proof of which is attached here _ for

the Court.

Appendix | page 6

AMENDMENT ARTICLE V

No person shali be heid to answer tor

a capitol, or otherwise infamous crime,

unless on a presentment or indictment of a

Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval torces, or in the Militia,

when in actual service in time of War or

public danger; no shall any person be

subject tor the same offence to be twice

put in jeopardy of iite or limb; nor shail

be compelled in any criminal case to be a

witness against himseif, nor be deprived

of ltife, liberty, or property, without due

process of iaw; nor shall private porperty

be taken for public use without just

compensation.

Appendix J page 1

VUCKET NU &/-1U056

UNI1ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINIH CIRUCUII

EUGENE H. DAVIS,

Vetendant - Appellant,

Vv.

United States of America, b.c. No. 8o6-

Plaintiff - Appellees. 207-TUC-ACM

L.A. No.O/-105b6

See

PETITION OF EUGENE H. DAVIS FOR REHEARING

TO BE REOPENED WITH SUGGESTIUN

FOR REHEARING EN BANC

-- 000 --

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

CUURT

FUR IHE DISTRICT UF ARIZUNA

o2= @UWO °*-=-

Honorable ALFREDO C. MARQUEZ, District

Judge

-- @U0G --

APPEARANCE:

For Plaintift/Appellant: EUGENE H. DAVIS

7447 N. Camino

de Weste

Tucson, Az. 85/41

Appendix K page 1

Appellant contends that atter a

reasonable and studied judgment, a

rehearing @m banc is warranted in

order to secure and maintain unitormity of

decision in this Court.

The Decision rendered by the panel on

10th February, 1988 in the instant case,

was contrary to existing law within this

Circuit and contrary toa decisions of the

United States Supreme Court.

Additionally, the panel over!lcoked the

meritorious issues presented involving

questions of exceptional importance which

would affect future cases within this

Circuit.

Specitically, Appellant contends on

appeal that he was denied Lue process of

law and that was held over in this Court

by the decisions otf the pane}.

lhe grounds on which this petition are

Drought are as follows:

FIRST: This Court's statement and

Appendix K page 2

analysis of the questions presented on

appeal as retlected in tne MEMURANVUMN of

10th February, 1988, overiooked the

questions presented tor review which were

raised by Appellant's RRIEF and

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF;

SECOND: This Courc's tailure to rule

on the question of whether or not

Appellant had a_ constitutional! right to

waive the 14th amendment and the

government’s right to enforce the same

against the Appellant has deprived

Appellant of appellate due process;

THIRD: The panel' decision is in

contlict with other decisions oft this

Court;

FUURTH: The panel's decision is in

contlict with decisions of the United

States Supreme Court;

FIFTH: The pane! did not fulfil! its

obligation to examine the entire record of

the trial court to determine whether

Appendix K page @

ET we a ee a: ee ee on ee Te ee ee

ie ail,

Appellant was unconstitutionally narmed by

the denial ot ie ae jurisdictional

challenges and the dismissal! of all paper

piaced betore the trial court.

SIXTH: The Internal Revenue Service,

the United States Attorney, the Grand Jury

and this Court have one and all ignored

and violated Title 26 USC, sections 6303,

6155, 6156, 6203, 6213, 6215, and 6331.

(See Exhibit "A"). These sections of

Title 26 USC all have one thane in common,

that a NOTICE AND DEMAND must be made

betore any action can be made against a

person the IRS assumes a "NEXUS" over.

This was not done betore the

Detendant-Appelliant was brought to a

Ciiminal trial and has not been to this

date. Therefore, you have all committed a

grave error because in the reply briet

page 10, third para. and page 11, first

para. this Court was told ot the

non-compliance to the above sections of

Appendix k pageg

wwnudniRatal PeeWee GAas cae BS PLN, pin Se SAI BIN, et cart Ant pe ae tie Ete Sa telat

the [kS Code. there must be a “Notice of

Assessment” a US wovernment torm and

within 60 days trom the date of “Notice of

Assessment” a "Notice and Demand" a US

Government form must be in the hands of

the accused person.

The Panel did not address the

contentions and issues which were

presented dealing with Appellant's right

to waive any part of the U.S. Constitution

and its uses against him. They also did

not address where they and the court below

assumed they could have jurisdiction over

‘hie. He knows that the IRS assumes’ that

he had a bank account and that the

signature card he may signed is the proot

ot jurisdiction in the court. rhis is in

error tor the government could not produce

said signature card. Such rulings by the

Panel denigrates the right tor any tair

and just decisions.

Mr. Justice Frankturter, in Johnson Vv.

Appendix K page 5

re

United States, 318 U.S. 184, 202, 63 5.Ct.

549, 555, 87 L.Ed. /04 (1943) stated: "In

reviewing criminal cases it is

particularly important tor appellate

courts to relive the whole trial

imaginatively and not to extract from

epsodes in isolation abstract questions of

evidence and procedure.”

The “plain error" standard should have

been applied by the Panel in determining

the issues presented on appeal. The Panel

was empowered to notice "plain errors’. or

detects" affecting Appellant's substantial

rights even if they were not brought to

the attention of the Court. Federal Rules

oft Criminal Procedure, Rule 52(b)5

Braswell v. United States 200 F.2d 597

(Sth Cir. 19052).

The "plain error" rule implies an

exceptional Situation involving serious

deficiencies which affect the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of the

Appendix K pageé

judicial proceedings or which constitute

obvious error. This strict standard is

necessary in order to promote efficient

judicial administration.

The tundamenta!l demands of due process

will frequently prove to be an

inconvenience to trial courts and to trial

counsel. Our Founding Fathers rejected

efficiency as the polestar tor our

nation's criminal tuatios system.

Instead, “due process” is the halimark we

have inherited and must preserve for

criminal trials. buvue process demands that

Appellant not be relegated to the role of

an unnecessary bystander to a critical

point in his’ criminal trial. "While a

Criminal trial is not a gawe in which the

participants are expected to enter the

ring with a near match in skills, neither

is it a sacrifice of unarmed prisoners to

gliadiators.” United States ex rel

Williams v. Twomey, 51U F.2d 634, 640 (7th

Appendix K page 7

Gif. 19/75) certiorari denied sub nom

Sielaff v. Wiiliams, 423 U.S. uB/b, 460

L.-8d@. 2a 108, YG S.Lt. 1480 (198973)

4. [he Panel's Statement And Analysis

Ot The Questions Presented Un

Appeal Uverlooked The Questions

Raised By Appellant's Supplemental

Reply Brief

The panel's analysis of Appellant's

waiver of the fourteenth amendment

overlooked the main critical point. In

determining that the case of United States

Vv. Studley which was a corporate entity

case involving a_ subdject to citizen

pursuant to the fourteenth amendment,

could have any bearing on a non-corporate

entity who had by statute waived the said

amendment (14th) is downright treason

against the Appellant.

Appendix K page @