Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jackson v. Rubin

Supreme Court brief1996

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. ioe

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1995

RAYMOND JACKSON AND

ROGERS MAE JACKSON,

Petitioners,

Vv.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL,

Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Raymond Jackson

Counsel of Record

Rogers Mae Jackson

225 Conrad Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36110

(334) 265-8801

Counsel for Petitioners

March 25, 1996

QUESTIONS PRESENT E% FOR REVIEW

ON 1/10/94, PETITIONERS FILED A MOTION TO

AMI ND THE COMPLAINT AS AUTHORIZED BY FRCP

17(a) (SEE DOCKET ENTRY 9, APPENDIX 56). THE U-

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KNOWINGLY, ARBI-

TRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY FAILED TO GRANT OR

DENY THE TIMELY MOTION TO AMEND THE COM-

PLAINT. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WAS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR U.S. DISTRICT

COURT TO NOT GRANT OR DENY PETITIONERS’ MO-

TION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT? ARE ANY OF THE

ORDERS ISSUED BY U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH

OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? iF SO, DID

U.S. DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION? IF SO,

WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM U.S. SUPREME

COURT?

IL.

ON 8/17/94, PETITIONERS FILED A NOTICE OF AP-

PEAL (SEE DOCKET ENTRY 19, APPENDIX 58) WITH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH

CIRCUIT. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE 11TH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED (SEE APPENDIX 10) U.S.

DIS fRICT COURT’S DECISION. (SEE APPENDICES 5 AND

6). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: WAS IT UNCONSTI-

TUTIONAL FOR U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH

CIRCUIT TO NOT GRANT OR DENY PET!TIONERS’

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (SEE 4PPENDIX

1, DOCKET ENTRY 9)? ARE ANY ORDERS ISSUED IN

THIS CASE BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT’ UN-

CONSTITUTIONAL? IF SO, DID U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION? WERE

PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

VIOLATED? IF SO, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING

FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

Ill.

ON 2/17/90, PETITIONERS FILED A CHAPTER 13

BANKRUPTCY PETITION (APPENDICES 41 TO 4). RE-

SPONDENTS AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, THE

CREDITOR, ENTITY OR GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, AR-

BITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, FRAUDULENTLY, WILL-

FULLY, KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY AND INTENTION-

ALLY FILED A FALSE, ILLEGAL AND ORIGINAL PROOF

OF CLAIM, $21,760.06, ON 6/14/90 (APPENDICES 38 TO 41),

AND FILED AN UNTIMELY, FALSE, ILLEGAL AMENDED

PROOF OF CLAIM, $56,500.02, ON 7/26/90, IN VIOLATION

OF FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) AND THE AUTO-

MATIC STAY, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6). RESPON-

DENTS WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ON 6/14/90 (SEE

11 U.S.C. § 106(a) AND (b). THE QUESTION PRESENTED

IS:

WHETHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN

AT U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

AND U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH

CIRCUIT IN VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1), FRBP

3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) AND THE AUTOMATIC

STAY 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6) ARE UNCONSTITU-

TIONAL AND INEFFECTIVE? IF SO, DID U.S. BANK-

RUPTCY COURT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

11TH CIRCUIT AND U.S. DISTRICT COURT ABUSE THEIR

DISCRETION? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH OR 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF SO, WHAT REM-

EDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

iii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

IV.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING DISTRICT COURT’S JURISDIC-

TION, CONGRESS ENACTED 28 US.C. § 1346(a)(1),

WHICH STATES THAT “THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL

HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, CONCURRENT WITH

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS, OF:

(1) ANY CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX

ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLE-

GALLY 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 COL-

LECTED UNDER THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS”,

GRANTS DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION AS PRO-

VIDED IN 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1) AND WHICH VIOLATE 11

U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND(a)(6), 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2)

AND (a)(7). RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENT UNITS RECK-

LESS AND INTENTIONALLY FILED AND COLLECTED

UNTIMELY, FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL, ORIGINAL

AND AMENDED PROOFS OF CLAIM DURING CHAPTER

13 PENDENCY, FROM 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94. THE QUESTION

PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED

DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION SET FORTH IN 28

US.C. § 1346(a)(1), 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), 11

U.S.C. § 106 (a) and (b), 26 U.S.C.S. 6501(a) and 6502, 26

U.S.C. § 7422(b) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1334 WERE VIOLATED

BY U.S. DISTRICT COURT FAILURE TO ACCEPT JURIS-

DICTION OF PETITIONERS’ CASE, WHERE RESPON-

DENTS, DURING PETITIONERS’ TITLE 11, CHAPTER 13

PROCEEDING, 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94, FILED (7/26/90) AND

COLLECTED (7/26/90 TO 11/7/94), AP

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

PROXIMATELY $14,250 OF THE UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL,

FALSE, UNAUTHORIZED AND FRAUDULENT AMENDED

PROOF OF CLAIM, FOR $56,500.02, WHICH WAS ILLE-

GALLY FILED 36 DAYS AFTER THE BAR DATE (6/20/90)

EXPIRED, WHOSE DISTRICT COURT CASE WAS FILED

11/1/93 OR AFTER MORE THAN 3 YEARS, 3 MONTHS AND

6 DAYS (LE. FROM 7/26/90 TO 11/2/93) OF ILLEGAL,

UNTIMELY, WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND FRAUDULENT

COLLECTION; AND IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD

JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF 18 U.S.C. § 3231, 11 U.S.C.

§ 362(h), 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), 11 U.S.C. § 106; 28 U.S.C.

§1346(a)(1), 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1340, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1), (a)(2) AND

(a4), FOR VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 11 U.S.C. §

362(a\(1) AND (aX(6); 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a)

and 6502; 18 U.S.C. § 2; 18 U.S.C. §3; 18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 U.S.C.

§ 5; 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), 1986 AND 1994:

18 U.S.C. § 402, 1961(D), 1962(a), 1962(b), 1962(c), 1962(d)

AND 241? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH, OR 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF IT WAS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT U.S. SUPREME COURT’S

REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING?

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING FRAUD AND FALSE STATE-

MENTS, CONGRESS ENACTED 18 U.S.C. § 1001, WHICH

STATES THAT “WHOEVER, IN ANY MATTER WITHIN

THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY

OF THE UNITED STATES KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY

FALSIFIES, CONCEALS OR COVERS UP BY ANY TRICK,

SCHEME, OR DEVICE A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKES

TT aT rien e Tom

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

ANY FALSE, FICTITIOUS OR FRAUDULENT STATE-

MENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS, OR MAKES OR USES

ANY FALSE WRITING OR DOCUMENT KNOWING THE

SAME TO CONTAIN ANY FALSE, FICTITIOUS OR FRAUD-

ULENT STATEMENT OR ENTRY, SHALL BE FINED

UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN

FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH”. RESPONDENTS AND RESPON-

DENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS RECKLESSLY

AND INTENTIONALLY COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY

$14,250 IN VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6),

AUTOMATIC STAY. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED

PROHIBITION ON FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS SET

FORTH IN 18 U.S.C. § 1001 WERE VIOLATED AND PERPE-

TRATED AGAINST PETITIONERS DURING THEIR TITLE

11, CHAPTER 13 PENDENCY, 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94, BY RE-

SPONDENTS’ FILING (7/26/90) AND COLLECTING (7/26/90

TO 11/7/94) OF THE UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL, FALSE,

UNAUTHORIZED AND FRAUDULENT AMENDED PROOF

OF CLAIM, FOR $56,500.02, WHICH WAS ILLEGALLY

FILED 36 DAYS AFTER THE BAR DATE (6/20/90) EXPIRED

AND IF THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF

18 U.S.C. § 3231, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) and

(b), 18 U.S.C. § 3237, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(h),

26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) AND 42 U.S.C. § 1988 FOR VIOLATIONS

OF 18 U.S.C. § 1001, FRBP 3002(c), 26 U.S.C.§ 7214(a)(1), 18

U.S.C. § 245; 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), 26 US 7214(a)(7), 28

U.S.C. § 245; 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND

(a\(6), 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h), 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502, 18

U.S.C. § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 3, 18 US.C. § 4, 18 US.C. § 5, 18

U.S.C. § 402, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §

1985(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1986, 42 U.S.C. §

1994, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(D), 18 U.S.C. §

1962(a), 18 U.S.C. §

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

1962(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), 18 U.S.C. §

242 AND 18 U.S.C. § 241? WERE PETITIONERS’ IST, 5TH,

OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF IT WAS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOM-

ING FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

V1.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING FALSE OATHS AND CLAIMS,

CONGRESS ENACTED 18 U.S.C. § 152. 18 U.S.C. § 152(2)

STATES THAT “A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY AND

FRAUDULENTLY MAKES A FALSE OR ACCOUNT IN OR

IN RELATION TO ANY CASE UNDER TITLE 11 SHALL BE

FINED NOT MORE THAN $5000, IMPRISONED NOT MORE

THAN 5 YEARS, OR BOTH”; 18 U.S.C. § 152(3) STATES

THAT A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY AND FRAUDU-

LENTLY MAKES A FALSE DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE,

VERIFICATION, OR STATEMENT UNDER PENALTY OF

PERJURY AS PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 1746 OF

TITLE 28, IN OR IN RELATION TO ANY CASE UNDER

TITLE 11 SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5000,

IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN 5 YEARS, OR BOTH”, 18

U.S.C. § 152(4) STATES THAT “A PERSON WHO KNOW-

INGLY AND FRAUDULENTLY PRESENTS ANY FALSE

CLAIM FOR PROOF AGAINST THE ESTATE OF A

DEBTOR, OR USES ANY SUCH CLAIM IN ANY CASE

UNDER TITLE 11, IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY OR AS OR

THROUGH AN AGENT, PROXY, OR ATTORNEY SHALL

BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5000, IMPRISONED NOT

MORE THAN 5 YEARS OR BOTH” AND 18 U.S.C. § 152(5)

STATES THAT “KNOWINGLY AND FRAUDULENTLY

RECEIVES ANY MATERIAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY

dren

vii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

FROM A DEBTOR AFTER THE FILING OF A CASE UNDER

TITLE 11, WITH INTENT TO DEFEAT THE PROVISIONS

OF TITLE 11, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5000,

IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN 5 YEARS, OR BOTH”. RE-

SPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS WILLFULLY,

FRAUDULENTLY, KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY, IN-

TENTIONALLY, ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY

COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $14,250, IN VIOLATION

OF 18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4) AND (5); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a)

and 6502, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED

PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN 18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4)

AND (5) WERE VIOLATED AND PERPETRATED AGAIN ST

PETITIONERS DURING THEIR TITLE 11, CHAPTER 13

PENDENCY, 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94, BY RESPONDENTS’ FILING

(7/26/90) AND COLLECTING (7/26/90 TO 11/7/94) OF THE

UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL, FALSE, UNAUTHORIZED AND

FRAUDULENT AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM, WHICH

WAS FILED 36 DAYS AFTER THE BAR DATE (6/20/90)

EXPIRED, FOR $56,500.02, BY RESPONDENTS, AND IF

THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF 18 U.S.C.

§ 3231, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) AND (b), 26

U.S.C. § 7422(b), 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), AND FOR VIOLA-

TIONS OF 18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4), AND (5); 11 U.S.C. §

362 (a1); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 2; 18 U.S.C. § 3;

18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C. § 1961(D); 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502;

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42

U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), 42

U.S.C. § 1986; 42 U.S.C. § 1994; 18 U.S.C. § 242; 26 U.S.C. §

7214(a)(1), (a2) AND (a)(7)? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST,

5TH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF IT

viii

QUESTIONS PRESENT=D FOR REVIEW - Continued

WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTH-

COMING FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

VIL.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION TO

CREDITORS AND EQUITY INTEREST HOLDERS; PLANS,

CONGRESS ENACTED RULE 3002(C) OF FEDERAL RULES

OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE, WHICH PROHIBITS A

PROOF OF CLAIM, IN A CHAPTER 13 INDIVIDUAL’S

DEBT ADJUSTMENT CASE, FROM BEING FILED MORE

THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE FIRST DATE SET FOR THE

MEETING OF CREDITORS CALLED PURSUANT TO 11

U.S.C. § 341. RESPONDENTS’ GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE

ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. §

106(a) AND (b)). RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS’

AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS RECKLESSLY,

FRAUDULENTLY, KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY,

CAPRICIOUSLY AND WILLFULLY AMENDED PROOF OF

CLAIM 36 DAYS AFTER THE CLAIM BAR DATE (6/20/90).

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: WHETHER THE CON-

GRESSIONALLY MANDATED BAR AND PROHIBITION

ON UNTIMELY FILING OF A PROOF OF CLAIM MORE

THAN 90 DAYS AS SET FORTH IN RULE 3002(c) OF

FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE WERE

NOT ONLY VIOLATED AND PERPETRATED UPON

PETITIONERS BY RESPONDENTS FILING AN UNTIMELY,

ILLEGAL, FALSE, UNAUTHORIZED AND FRAUDULENT

AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM, ON 7/26/90, 36 DAYS

AFTER THE BAR DATE EXPIRED (6/20/90), FOR

$56,500.02, BUT, KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY,

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

BLATANTLY, FLAGRANTLY, INTENTIONALLY, RECK-

LESSLY, MALICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY, AND CAPRI-

CIOUSLY COLLECTED AT LEAST $13,000 OF THF UN-

TIMELY, FALSE, ILLEGAL, UNAUTHORIZED AND

FRAUDULENT AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM, FROM

1/26/90 TO 11/7/94, MORE THAN FOUR (4) YEARS AND

IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. §

7214(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a(7); 26

U.S.C. § 6503(h); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502; 18 U.S.C. §

152(2); 18 U.S.C. § 152(3); 18 U.S.C. § 152(4); 18 U.S.C. §

152(5); 18 U.S.C. § 245; 18 U.S.C. § 1001; FRBP 3002(c); 11

U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 2;18

U.S.C. § 3; 18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 U.S.C. § 5; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42

U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); 42

U.S.C. § 1986; 18 U.S.C. § 402; 42 U.S.C. § 1994; 18 U.S.C. §

1961(D); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b); 18 U.S.C. §

1962(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); 18 U.S.C. § 241 AND 18 U.S.C.

§ 2427 DID U.S. DISTRICT HAVE JURISDICTION BY

VIRTUE OF 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) AND (b),

26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) AND 26 U.S.C. §

7433(a)? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH, OR 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF IT WAS UNCON-

STITUTIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM

U.S. SUPREME COURT?

Vill.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING CASE ADMINISTRATION IN A

TITLE, CHAPTER 13 PROCEEDING, CONGRESS ENACTED

11 U.S.C. § 362, WHICH FOR A PETITION FILED UNDER 11

U.S.C. § 301, VOLUNTARY CASES AND, 11 U.S.C. § 302,

JOINT CASES, PROHIBITS OR OPERATES AS A STAY,

APPLICABLE TO ALL ENTITIES OF 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1),

WHICH STATES THAT “THE COMMENCEMENT OR

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

CONTINUATION, INCLUDING THE ISSUANCE OR EM-

PLOYMENT OF PROCESS, OF A JUDICIAL, ADMINISTRA-

TIVE, OR OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING AGAINST

THE DEBTOR THAT WAS OR COULD HAVE BEEN

COMMENCED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE

CASE UNDER THIS TITLE, OR TO RECOVER A CLAIM

AGAINST THE DEBTOR THAT AROSE BEFORE THE

COMMENCEMENT OF THIS CASE UNDER THIS TITLE”

AND OF 11 US.C. § 362 (a6), WHICH STATES THAT

“ANY ACT TO COLLECT, ASSESS, OR RECOVER A CLAIM

AGAINST THE DEBTOR THAT AROSE BEFORE THE

COMMENCEMENT OF THE CASE UNDER THIS TITLE”.

RESPONDENTS WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ON

6/14/90 UPON FILING THE ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM

(SEE 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) AND (b). RESPONDENTS AND

RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

RECKLESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, AR-

BITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, WILLFULLY, AND FRAUD-

ULENTLY COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $14,250

DURING 11 U.S.C. § 362 AUTOMATIC STAY. THE QUES-

TION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED

BAR AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSESSMENT, COL-

LECTION AND RECOVERY OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

SET FORTH IN 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND 11 U.S.C. §

362(a\(6) , 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) AND 6502, WERE VIOLATED

AND PERPETRATED AGAINST PETITIONERS DURING

THEIR TITLE 11, CHAPTER 13 PENDENCY, 2/7/90 TO

11/7/94, AND THE FILING (7/26/90) AND THE COLLECT-

ING (7/26/90 TO 11/7/94) AT LEAST $13,000 OF THE UN-

TIMELY, FALSE, ILLEGAL, UNAUTHORIZED AND

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

#RAUDULENT AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM, WHICH

WAS FILED 36 DAYS AFTER THE BAR DATE EXPIRED

(6/20/90), FOR $56,500.02, BY RESPONDENTS, IN VIOLA-

TION OF 26 U:S.C. § 7214(a ‘1); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2); 26

U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7); 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a)

and 6502: 18 U.S.C. § 152(2); 18 U.S.C. § 152(3) ; 18 U.S.C. §

152(4); 18 U.S.C. § 152(5); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; FRBP 3002(c); 11

U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 2; 18

U.S.C. § 3; 18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 U.S.C. § 5; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42

U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3); 42

US.C. § 1986; 18 U.S.C. § 402; 42 U.S.C. § 1994; 11 U.S.C. §

726(a)91); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 245; 18 U.S.C.

§ 1961(D); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b); 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), 18 U.S.C. § 241 AND 18 U.S.C.

§ 242? WHETHER U.S. DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDIC-

TION BY VIRTUE OF 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1)

AND (b); AND 11 U.S.C. § 362(h)? WERE PETITIONERS’

1ST, STH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF

IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS

FORTHCOMING FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

IX.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING PROCEEDINGS BY TAXPAYERS

CIVIL ACTION FOR REFUND FILED UNDER PROTEST OR

DURESS, CONGRESS ENACTED 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b),

WHICH STATES THAT “SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING

MAY BE MAINTAINED WHETHER OR NOT SUCH TAX,

PENALTY, OR SUM HAS BEEN PAID UNDER PROTEST

OR DURESS”. RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE

ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. §

106(a) AND (b)). PETITIONERS FILED CIVIL ACTION ON

11/1/93. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

xil

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

WHETHER THE CONGR: SSIONALLY-MANDATED

COURT JURISDICTION SET FOKTH IN 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b)

WAS IMPROPERLY, ILLEGALLY, ARBITRARILY OR

CAPRICIOUSLY DENIED WHEN U.S. DISTRICT COURT

REFUSED TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION OF PETITIONERS’

CASE, IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b); 26 U.S.C.

§7214(aX(1); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7); 26

U.S.C. § 6503(h); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) AND 6502; 18 U.S.C. §

152(2); 18 U.S.C. § 152(3) ;18 U.S.C. § 152(4); 18 U.S.C. §

152(5); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; FRBP 3002(c); 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1);

11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 2; 18 U.S.C. § 3; 18 U.S.C.

§ 4; 18 U.S.C. § 5; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42

U.S.C. § 1985(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3); 42 U.S.C. § 1986; 18

U.S.C. § 402; 42 U.S.C. § 1994; 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962(d), 18 U.S.C. § 241 AND 18 U.S.C. § 242? WHETHER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE

OF 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 11 U.S.C. § 106 (a) AND (b), 11 U.S.C.

§ 362(h) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1334? DID U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS FOR 11TH CIRCUIT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION

BY AFFIRMING U.S. DISTRICT COURT’S DISMISSAL DE-

CISION ON 1/4/96 (APP 10)? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST,

5TH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF IT

WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTH-

COMING FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING CIVIL DAMAGES FOR CERTAIN

UNAUTHORIZED INCOME TAX COLLECTION ACTIONS,

CONGRESS ENACTED 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), WHICH STATES

THAT “IF, INCONNECTION WITH ANY COLLECTION OF

FEDERAL TAX WITH RESPECT TO A TAXPAYER, ANY

xiii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE RECKLESSLY OR INTENTIONALLY DISRE

GARD ANY PROVISION OF THIS TITLE, OR ANY REGU-

LATION PROMULGATED UNDER THIS TITLE, SUCH

TAXPAYER MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES

AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN A DISTRICT COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 26

U.S.C. § 7432, SUCH CIVIL ACTION SHALL BE THE

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR RECOVERING DAMAGES

RESULTING FROM SUCH ACTIONS”. RESPONDENTS-

GOVERNMENTAL UNITS RECKLESSLY AND INTEN-

TIONALLY DISREGARDED AND VIOLATED 26 U.S.C. §

6501(a) and 6502; 26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(1); 26 U.S.C. §

7214(a)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7); 18 U.S.C. § 2, 3, 4 AND 5;

18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 245; 18 U.S.C. §

3057: 18 U.S.C. § 152(2); 18 U.S.C. § 152(3), 18 U.S.C. §

152(4); 18 U.S.C. § 152(5); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 26 U.S.C. §

6503(h); 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a); 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), AND 11

U.S.C. § 106(a) AND (b). RESPONDENTS AND RESPON-

DENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS RECKLESSLY

AND INTENTIONALLY DISREGARDED 11 U.S.C. § 362

AND COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $14,250 FROM

PETITIONERS DURING 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1) AND (a)(6)

AUTOMATIC STAY. RESPONDENTS WAIVED

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE ORIGINAL

PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) AND

(b)). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED

AUTHORITY TO THE TAXPAYER TO SUE FOR CIVIL

DAMAGES FOR CERTAIN UNAUTHORIZED INCOME TAX

COLLECTION ACTIONS SET FORTH IN 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a)

WERE VIOLATED AND PRECLUDED BY VIRTUE OF U.S.

DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF JURISDICTION (APPEN-

DICES 5 AND 6), IN VIOLATION OF FRBP 3002(c); 11

XiV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 2; 18

U.S.C. § 3; 18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 U.S.C. § 5; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42

U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); 42

U.S.C. § 1986; 18 U.S.C. § 402; 42 U.S.C. § 1994; 18 U.S.C. §

1961(D); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b); 18 U.S.C. §

1962(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502; 18

U.S.C. § 245; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1); 28

U.S.C. § 1343(aX(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4); 28 U.S.C. §

1346(a(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1988; 28 U.S.C. § 1340; 11 U.S.C. §

502(bX(1); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a\1) AND (b); 11 U.S.C. §

726(a\(1); 18 U.S.C. § 241, 287 AND 3057? WHETHER U.S.

DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF 28

U.S.C. § 1334, 11 U.S.C. § 106 (a) AND (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(h)

AND 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b)? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH,

OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF IT IS UN-

CONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING

FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT?

XI.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING PROCEEDINGS BY TAXPAYER-

CIVIL ACTIONS FOR REFUND FILED UNDER NO SUIT

PRIOR TO FILING CLAIM FOR REFUND, CONGRESS

ENACTED 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), WHICH STATES THAT “NO

SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ANY

COURT FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL REVE-

NUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR

ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED, OR OF ANY

PENALTY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED

WITHOUT AUTHORITY, OR OF ANY SUM ALLEGED TO

HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE OR IN ANY MANNER WRONG-

FULLY COLLECTED, UNTIL A CLAIM FOR REFUND OR

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

CREDIT HAS BEEN DULY FILED WITH THE SECRETARY,

ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THAT

REGARD, AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY

ESTABLISHED IN PURSUANCE THEREOF”.

RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WAIVED

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE ORIGINAL

PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) AND

(b)). RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS AR-

BITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, WILLFULLY, RECKLESSLY,

INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY AND FRAUDULENTLY

COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $14,250 DURING 11 U.S.C.

§ 362 (a)(1) AND (a)(6) AUTOMATIC STAY. THE QUES-

TION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED

BAR AND PROHIBITION ON NO SUIT PRIOR TO FILING

CLAIM FOR REFUND SET FORTH IN 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a)

PRECLUDES U.S. DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION FOR

1983 TAX YEAR, WHERE THE CLAIM ALLEGES DUE

ONLY INTEREST TO DATE OF PETITION AND PURSU-

ANT TO THAT EXCEPTION TO 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), WERE

PETITIONERS WERE IMPROPERLY AND ILLEGALLY

DENIED JURISDICTION IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. §

7214(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7); 26

U'S.C. § 6503(h); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) AND 6502; 18 U.S.C. §

152(2); 18 U.S.C. § 152(3) ; 18 U.S.C. § 152(4); 18 U.S.C. §

152(5); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; FRBP 3002(c); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1);

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 245; 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1);

11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) AND (b); 11 US.C. § 726(a)(1); 18

U.S.C. § 2; 18 U.S.C. § 3; 18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 US.C. § 5; 42

USS.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985 (3); 42 U.S.C. § 1986; 18 U.S.C. § 402; 42 USC. §

1994: 18 U.S.C. § 1961(D); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a); 18 U.S.C.

§1962(b); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), 18 U.S.C.

§ 241; 18 U.S.C. § 242 AND 18 U.S.C. § 30577 WHETHER

Xvi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

U.S. DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE

OF 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), 11 U.S.C. § 106 (a)

AND (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 26 U.S.C. §

7422(a)? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH, OR 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF UNCONSTITU-

TIONAL, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM US.

SUPREME COURT?

XII.

PETITIONERS TIMELY FILED THEIR PETITION FOR

REHEARING, WITH UNITED STATES COURT OF AP-

PEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT ON 2/16/96. THE REHEAR-

ING PETITION CONSISTS OF THE BRIEF (13-1/2 PAGES,

FRAP 40(B) ALLOWS 15 PAGES) AND THE APPENDIX.

THE APPENDIX CONSISTS OF 24 EXHIBITS (SEE APPEN-

DIX TABLE OF CONTENTS AT APPENDICES 59 TO 61).

THE PETITION HAS BEEN RETURNED TO PETITIONERS

TWICE SINCE THE 2/16/96 FILING. GROUNDS CITED FOR

FIRST RETURN WAS THAT THE PETITION EXCEEDED

THE 15 PAGE LIMIT AND FOR THE SECOND RETURN

THAT THE PETITION EXCEEDED THE 15 PAGE LIMIT, TO

NOT ATTACH ANY EXHIBITS, ADDENDA OR ANY

OTHER MATERIALS TO PETITIONERS’ REHEARING

PETITION AND ORDERED THAT THE REHEARING

PETITION BE FILED WITHOUT ANY APPENDIX. THE

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR PETITIONERS’ REHEARING

PETITION IS AT APPENDICES 59 TO 61. EXHIBITS 11, 17,

18, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23 OF APPENDICES 60 TO 61 FULLY

DOCUMENTS CIVIL OFFENSES AND CRIMINAL OF-

FENSES PERPETRATED AGAINST PETITIONERS, AS

WELL AS IDENTIFIED THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AND OFFICERS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, WHO PERPE

xvii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

TRATED THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

CLEARLY, REMOVAL OF EXHIBITS 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

22 AND 23 WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY ORDERED TO PRO-

TECT RESPONDENTS’ PERPETRATORS-GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS (i.e. GOVERNMENTAL

UNITS) FROM THE CON SEQUENCES OF THEIR CRIMES.

RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WAIVED

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE ORIGINAL

PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) AND

(b)). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

11TH CIRCUIT’S ORDER AT APPENDIX 9 WHICH: 1)

ORDERS A 13-1/2 PAGE PETITION TO BE REDUCED TO

LESS THAN 15 PAGES; 2) ORDERS REMOVAL OF ALL

EXHIBITS, ADDENDA OR OTHER MATERIALS, INCLUD-

ING EXHIBITS #11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23, WHICH

ARE EVIDENCE OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OFFENSES

PERPETRATED AND 3) ORDERED PETITIONERS TO FILE

REHEARING PETITION WITHOUT ANY APPENDIX, BY

3/26/96, AGAINST PETITIONERS IS WITHOUT OR IN

EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION; ILLEGAL; ILLEGALLY

SUPPRESSES EVIDENCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS; PERPETRATES AN ILLE-

GAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST PETITIONERS; VIOLATES

PROVISIONS OF 18 U.S.C. § 2, 3 AND 4; PERPETRATES

ILLEGALLY RACKETEERING ACTIVITY; IT IS UNCON-

STITUTIONAL; VIOLATES PETITIONERS 1ST AMEND-

MENT RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS; VIOLATES

PETITIONER’S 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO NOT BE

DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS;

VIOLATES PETITIONERS’ 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; THE COURT

ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AND OFFICERS ARE ABOVE THE LAWS OF THE UNITED

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

STATES; IT IS ESSENTIALLY IRREGULAR OR PREJUDI-

CIAL AND MATERIALLY HARMFUL TO THE PETITION-

ERS? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH, OR 14TH AMEND-

MENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? WHAT RELIEF OR REMEDY

IS FORTHCOMING FROM THE UNITED STATES SU-

PREME COURT?

XII.

ON 2/7/90, PETITIONERS FILED A CHAPTER 13

PETITION (LE. 90-00472-RRS-13) IN U.S. BANKRUPTCY

COURT FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA (APPENDI-

CES 41 TO 45), FOR PERIOD 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94. INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE (IRS)-A CREDITOR, ENTITY OR

GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, FILED WITH U.S. BANKRUPTCY

COURT, AN IMPROPER, ILLEGAL, FALSE AND FRAUDU-

LENT, ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM, $21,760.06, ON 6/1/90,

AND AN IMPROPER, ILLEGAL, FALSE, FRAUDULENT,

UNTIMELY AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM, $56,500.02, ON

7/26/90, IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502, 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a(1) AND (b), FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. §

726(aX1), 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 245, THE AUTO-

MATIC STAY, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a\(1) AND (a)(6).

RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WAIVED

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE ORIGINAL

PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) AND

(b)). THE ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM WAS WILLFULLY,

ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, KNOWINGLY, RECK-

LESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND FRAUDULENTLY COL-

LECTED THROUGH U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT AND U.S.

BANKRUPTCY COURT CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE FROM

3/7/90 TO 7/25/90 AND THE AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM

WAS ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, KNOWINGLY,

S tei nan irre ret we :

A a eee a eee

XIX

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

RECKLESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, FRAUDULENTLY AND

MALICIOUSLY COLLECTED, APPROXIMATELY $13,000,

FROM 7/26/90 TO 11/7/94. ON 11/1/93, PETITIONERS FILED

CASE #93-H-1318-N FOR 11 U.S.C. § 362, 26 U.S.C. § 6503,

18 U.S.C. § 152, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 AND 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1)

VIOLATIONS WITH U.S. DISTRICT COURT. U.S. DISTRICT

COURT PRETEXTUALLY DISMISSED THE CASE, 3/18/94

(APPENDICES 5, 6 AND 11). ON 5/16/94, PETITIONERS

OBJECTED TO THE ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM AND

AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM. IT IS CLEAR THAT

RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, INCLUDING

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS), RESPONDENTS’

ATTORNEYS, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, U.S. BANK-

RUPTCY CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

AND U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT,

ARE FULLY AWARE OF PROVISIONS OF 11 U.S.C. § 362

(a(1) AND (a)(6) AND THE ILLEGALITY OF COLLECTING

. RESPONDENTS

LATION OF 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502

WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE

ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. §

106(a) AND (b)). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE COLLECTION OF FEDERAL INCOME

TAXES, IN VIOLATION OF THE 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(1) AND

(a6) AUTOMATIC STAY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? WILL

FUNDS ILLEGALLY, FRAUDULENTLY, IMPROPERLY,

WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND UNTIMELY COLLECTED BE

RETURNED TO PETITIONER? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST,

STH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? DO

THE ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT COLLECTION DIS-

CHARGE 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 AND 1988 TAX

YEARS? IF SO, WAS IT A CONSPIRACY, ABUSE OF

DISCRETION, UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION, OR CON

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

STITUTIONAL RIGHT VIOLATIONS? IF SO, WHAT

REMEDIES ARE FORTH COMING FROM U.S. SUPREME

COURT?

XIV

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING ANY VIOLATIONS UNDER BANK-

RUPTCY, CONGRESS ENACTED 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a),

WHICH STATES THAT “ANY JUDGE, RECEIVER OR

TRUSTEE HAVING REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BE-

LIEVING THAT ANY VIOLATION UNDER CHAPTER 9

(BANKRUPTCY, 18 U.S.C. § 152, 18 U.S.C. § 1001) OF THIS

TITLE OR OTHER LAWS (LE. 26 U.S.C. § 7214) OF THE

UNITED STATES RELATING TO INSOLVENT DEBTORS,

RECEIVERSHIP OR REORGANIZATION PLAN HAS BEEN

COMMITTED, OR THAT AN INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE

HAD IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL REPORT TO

THE APPROPRIATE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ALL

THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE

NAMES OF THE WITNESSES AND THE OFFENSE OR OF-

FENSES BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

WHERE ONE OF SUCH OFFICERS HAS MADE SUCH

REPORT THE OTHERS NEED NOT DO SO”. RESPON-

DENTS WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING

THE ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11

U.S.C. § 106(a) AND (b)). RESPONDENTS AND RESPON-

DENTS AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS ARBITRARILY,

CAPRICIOUSLY, RECKLESSLY, INTENTIONALLY,

KNOWINGLY, FRAUDULENTLY AND WILLFULLY COL-

LECTED APPROXIMATELY $14,250 FOR FEDERAL

INCOME TAXES DURING THE AUTOMATIC STAY (LE.

2/7/90 TO 11/7/94) OF PETITIONERS’ CHAPTER 13 BANK

xxi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

RUPTCY PENDENCY, IN VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C. §

726(a)(1), FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1), 26 U.S.C. §

6501(a) and 6502 AND (b), 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(1) AND (a)(6). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGES, U.S.

DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE 11TH CIRCUIT JUDGES AND U.S. BANKRUPTCY

COURT CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEES’ DECISIONS TO NOT

REPORT THE 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502; 11 U.S.C. § 362

(a)(1) AND (a)(6) OFFENSES (IE. RESPONDENTS AND

RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

COLLECTION OF APPROXIMATELY $16,000 IN FEDERAL

INCOME TAXES FROM PETITIONERS DURING AUTO-

MATIC STAY, FROM 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94) TO THE APPRO-

PRIATE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION, CONSTI-

TUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER, AN ABUSE OF DISCRE-

TION, A CONSPIRACY AGAINST PETITIONERS’ CON-

STITUTIONAL, CIVIL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS, DENIED

PETITIONERS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW,

DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE

PROCESS OF LAW, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PETI-

TIONERS ON BASIS OF RACE (BLACK) AND SEX (MALE,

FEMALE), VIOLATED THE CONGRESSIONALLY MAN-

DATED REQUIREMENTS OF 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a), IS ILLE-

GAL OR IS ESSENTIALLY IRREGULAR OR PREJUDICIAL

AND MATERIALLY HARMFUL TO THE PETITIONERS,

HAD NO JURISDICTION, OR HAVING JURISDICTION,

ABUSED IT OR ACTED IN EXCESS THEREOF? WERE PE-

TITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

VIOLATED? IF SO, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING

FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

xxii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

XV.

AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY

SCHEME REGARDING ANY VIOLATIONS UNDER BANK-

RUPTCY, CONGRESS ENACTED 18 U.S.C. § 3057(b),

WHICH STATES THAT “THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

THEREUPON SHALL INQUIRE INTO THE FACTS AND

REPORT THEREON TO THE REFEREE, AND IF IT AP-

PEARS PROBABLE THAT ANY SUCH OFFENSE HAS BEEN

COMMITTED, SHALL WITHOUT DELAY, PRESENT THE

MATTER TO THE GRAND JURY, UNLESS UPON INQUIRY

AND EXAMINATION HE DECIDES THAT THE ENDS OF

PUBLIC JUSTICE DO NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OR

PROSECUTION, IN WHICH CASE HE SHALL REPORT THE

FACTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HIS DIREC-

TION”. | RESPONDENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON FILING THE

ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM ON 6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. §

106(a) AND (b)). THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE RECEIVED A COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT FILED

IN U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT CASE #90-00472-RRS-13

AND U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE #93-CV-1318. THERE-

FORE, HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT

RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS-GOV-

ERNMENTAL UNITS ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY,

KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, FRAUD-

ULENTLY, AND WILLFULLY COLLECTED APPROXI-

MATELY $14,250 FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES DURING

THE AUTOMATIC STAY (LE. 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94) OF PETI-

TIONERS’ CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY PENDENCY, IN

VIOLATION OF FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 726(a(1) AND (b),

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 152, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 26

xxiii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

U.S.C. § 7214; 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502; 11 U.S.C. § 362

(a)(1) AND (a)(6). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S DECISION

TO NOT PRESENT THE FRBP 3002(c); 18 U.S.C. § 152 and

1001: 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502 AND 7214(a)(1), (a)(2),

(a(7); 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a) AND (6); 11

U.S.C. § 502(b)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6) OF-

FENSES (LE. RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS’

AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS ARBITRARY, CAP-

RICIOUS, KNOWINGLY, RECKLESS, INTENTIONAL,

FRAUDULENT AND WILLFUL COLLECTION OF AP-

PROXIMATELY $14,250 IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

FROM PETITIONERS DURING AUTOMATIC STAY, 2/7/90

TO 11/7/94) TO THE REFEREE (LE. JUDGE) AND THE

GRAND JURY FOR PROSECUTION, CONSTITUTE AN

ABUSE OF POWER, ABUSE OF DISCRETION, A CONSPIR-

ACY AGAINST PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL

AND STATUTORY RIGHTS, DENIED PETITIONERS

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, DEPRIVED PE-

TITIONERS OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF

LAW, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PETITIONERS ON

BASIS OF RACE (BLACK) AND SEX (MALE, FEMALE),

VIOLATED THE CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED RE-

QUIREMENTS OF 18 U.S.C. § 3057(b), IS ILLEGAL OR IS

ESSENTIALLY IRREGULAR OR PREJUDICIAL AND

MATERIALLY HARMFUL TO THE PETITION ERS? WERE

PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

VIOLATED? IF SO, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTH COMING

FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

XVI.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY

TRUSTEE ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY FAILED

TO OBJECT (SEE APPENDICES 38 TO 41) TO THE IM-

PROPER, ILLEGAL, FALSE AND FRAUDULENT ORIGINAL

XXIV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

PROOF OF CLAIM AND AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM

(SEE APPENDICES 36 TO 38). THE DATES THAT THE

CLAIMS FOR THE 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 AND 1988

TAX YEARS, WHICH ARE INCLUDED ON THE ORIGINAL

AND AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM, AROSE OR WERE IN-

CURRED PRIOR TO FILING THE CHAPTER 13 PETITION

(SEE 11 U.S.C. § 547(a)(4)) ON 2/7/90. RESPONDENTS-

GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMU-

NITY UPON FILING THE ORIGINAL PROOF OF CLAIM ON

6/14/90 (SEE 11 U.S.C. 106(a) AND (b)). THE QUESTION

PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER U.S. BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPROPER, ILLEGAL,

FALSE AND FRAUDULENT ORIGINAL AND AMENDED

PROOF OF CLAIM AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF PETITION-

ERS’ FUNDS TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FROM

2/7/90 TO 11/7/94, APPROXIMATELY $14,250, CONSTI-

TUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER, AN ABUSE OF DISCRE-

TION, A CONSPIRACY AGAINST PETITIONERS’ CON-

STITUTIONAL, CIVIL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS, DENIED

PETITIONERS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW,

DEPRIVED PETITIONERS OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE

PROCESS OF LAW, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PETITION

ERS ON BASIS OF RACE (BLACK) AND SEX (MALE,

FEMALE), VIOLATED THE CONGRESSIONALLY MAN-

DATED REQUIREMENTS OF 11 U.S.C. § 726 (a)(1), 11

U.S.C. § 704(5) AND 11 U.S.C. 1106 (a)(4)(A), IS ILLEGAL

OR IS ESSENTIALLY IRREGULAR OR PREJUDICIAL AND

MATERIALLY HARMFUL TO THE PETITIONERS? WILL

ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY DISTRIBUTED PETI-

TIONERS’ FUNDS BE RECOVERED? WERE PETITIONERS’

xxv

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

1ST, STH, OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF

SO, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM UNITED

STATES SUPREME COURT?

XVII

PETITIONERS FILED A CHAPTER 13 PETITION ON

2/7/90 (SEE APPENDICES 41 TO 45, FOR THE PERIOD

2/7/90 TO 11/7/94. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FILED

TWO (2) IMPROPER, UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL AND FRAUD-

ULENT PREPETITION CLAIMS (I.E. ORIGINAL PROOF OF

CLAIM, $21,760.06, FOR 1982, 1983, 1985 AND 1986 TAX

YEARS ON 6/14/90, AND AN AMENDED PROOF OF

CLAIM, $56,500.02, FOR 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 AND

1988, ON 7/26/90). THE CLAIMS FOR ALL THE TAX YEARS

AROSE OR WAS INCURRED PRIOR TO 2/7/90 (SEE 11

U.S.C. § 547(a)(4)). THEREFORE, CLAIMS FOR TAX YEARS

1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 AND 1988 ARE UNTIMELY,

ILLEGAL, IMPROPER AND FRAUDULENT PREPETITION

. RESPONDENTS-

GOVERNMENTAL UNITS ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY,

RECKLESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, ILLE-

GALLY, FRAUDULENTLY AND KNOWINGLY COL-

LECTED APPROXIMATELY $14,250 ON THE PRE-

PETITION CLAIMS, FROM 3/7/90 TO 11/7/94. 11 U.S.C. §

1305(a)(1) STATES THAT “A PROOF OF CLAIM MAY BE

FILED BY ANY ENTITY THAT HOLDS A CLAIM AGAINST

THE DEBTOR-FOR TAXES THAT BECOME PAYABLE TO

A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT WHILE THE CASE IS PEND-

ING“. THE CLAIMS FOR THE CITED TAX YEARS BE-

CAME PAYABLE OR WERE INCURRED (11 US.C.

547(aX4)) AS INDICATED (LE. 1982, 4/15/83; 1983, 4/15/84;

1985, 4/15/86; 1986, 4/15/87; 1987, 4/15/88 AND 1988, 4/15/89)

AND BEFORE THIS CASE WAS PENDING, ON 2/7/90. THE

QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

—

XXVi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

WHETHER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TREASURY

DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S.

BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE AND UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY DECISIONS TO FILE AND COLLECT

THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PROOFS OF CLAIM

FROM 3/7/90 TO 11/7/94, CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF

THE CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENTS

OF 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502; 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) AND (b) AND 11 U.S.C. § 547(a)(4), AN

ABUSE OF POWER, ABUSE OF DISCRETION, A CON-

SPIRACY AGAINST PETITIONERS 1ST, 5TH AND 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS, DENIED PETITIONERS’ EQUAL

PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, DEPRIVED PETITION-

ERS OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW,

DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PETITIONERS ON BASIS OF

RACE (BLACK) AND SEX (MALE, FEMALE) VIOLATED 18

U.S.C. § 1001, FRBP 3002(c), 18 U.S.C. § 152(4), 18 U.S.C. §

152(5), 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1346(a)(1), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6), 26 U.S.C. §

6501(a) and 6502, 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2), (a3) AND

(a)(7), IS FRAUDULENT, FALSE, ILLEGAL OR IS ES-

SENTIALLY IRREGULAR OR PREJUDICIAL AND IS

MATERIALLY HARMFUL TO the PETITIONERS? IS THE

ALLOWANCE AND COLLECTION OF THE PETITION

CLAIMS DURING A CHAPTER 13 PENDENCY, 2/7/90 TO

11/7/94, UNCONSTITUTIONAL? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST,

5TH OR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? IF SO,

WHAT REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM UNITED

STATES SUPREME COURT?

XXVIil

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

XVIII

PETITIONERS FILED THEIR 1982 TAX RETURN ON

3/24/83. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION (LE. 26 U.S.C. §

6501(a)) EXPIRED 3/24/86. PETITIONERS DID NOT SIGN A

WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION. ON 4/30/86,

36 DAYS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION EX-

PIRED, AND ON 5/26/86, 62 DAYS AFTER THE STATUTE

OF LIMITATION EXPIRED, RESPONDENTS AND RESPON-

DENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, FRAUD-

ULENTLY, RECKLESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, KNOW-

INGLY, ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY EXTENDED

THE ASSESSMENT STATUTE EXPIRATION DATES TO

9/12/86 AND 5/26/86, RESPECTIVELY (SEE CODES 560,

APPENDICES 62 TO 67), CONTRARY TO PROVISIONS OF

26 U.S.C. § 6501(a). ON 5/26/86, 62 DAYS AFTER THE

STATUE OF LIMITATION EXPIRED, RESPONDENTS AND

RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS AR-

BITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY ASSESSED PETITION-

ERS’ 1982 TAX RETURN (SEE APPENDICES 36 AND 41).

RESPONDENTS AND RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS-GOV-

ERNMENTAL UNITS, WILLFULLY, RECKLESSLY, INTEN-

TIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, MALICIOUSLY, FRAUDU-

LENTLY, ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY COL-

LECTED $11,614.72 FROM PETITIONERS, FROM 4/1/88 TO

9/21/93 FOR 1982 TAX RETURN, WHOSE STATUTE OF

LIMITATION HAD BEEN EXPIRED 2 YEARS AND 7 DAYS

ON 4/1/88 AND 7 YEARS, 5 MONTHS AND 8 DAYS ON

9/21/93 (SEE CODES 760, APPENDICES 62 AND 67), WHICH

IS CONTRARY TO 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a). THE QUESTION

PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER RESPONDENTS’ DECISION TO ASSESS

AND COLLECT PETITIONERS’ 1982 TAX RETURN, AFTER

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION EXPIRED ON 3/24/86; U.S.

BANKRUPTCY COURT’S DECISION TO ALLOW THE

XXVili

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

CLAIM FOR 1982 TAX YEARS (APPENDICES 68 AND 70)

ON 9/30/94; U.S. DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION TO NOT

ASSUME JURISDICTION OF THE CASE ON 3/18/94 AND

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT’S

DECISION TO AFFIRM U.S. DISTRICT COURT’S DIS-

MISSAL ON 1/4/96, CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF POWER,

ABUSE OF DISCRETION, A CONSPIRACY AGAINST

PETITIONERS’ CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL AND STATU-

TORY RIGHTS, DENIED PETITIONERS EQUAL PROTEC-

TION UNDER THE LAW, DEPRIVED PETITIONERS OF

PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, CONTRARY TO

PUBLIC POLICY AND INTEREST, UNCONSTITUTIONAL

ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION, DISCRIMINATED

AGAINST PETITIONERS ON BASIS OF RACE (BLACK)

AND SEX (MALE, FEMALE) VIOLATED THE CONGRES-

SIONALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENTS OF 26 U.S.C. §

6501(a) AND (c(4), 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a) 18 U.S.C. § 152 AND

1001, AND 26 U.S.C. § 7214, COLLECTED AN UNEN-

FORCEABLE AND FRAUDULENT CLAIM, IS ILLEGAL OR

ESSENTIALLY IRREGULAR OR PREJUDICIAL AND

MATERIALLY HARMFUL TO PETITIONERS? WILL THE

$11,615.72 COLLECTED ON THE UNENFORCEABLE AND

FRAUDULENT 1982 TAX YEAR BE RETURNED TO

PETITIONERS? WERE PETITIONERS’ 1ST, STH AND 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? WILL ALL FUNDS

COLLECTED ON THE FRAUDULENT ORIGINAL AND A-

MENDED PROOFS OF CLAIM BE RECOVERED? WHAT

REMEDY IS FORTHCOMING FROM U.S. SUPREME

COURT?

ES a ANE be rt Met tle ME RS IE cs Bes

Sh sae Palade a arin ath

xxix

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

XIX

RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS-GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

FILED (7/26/90) AND COLLECTED (FROM 7/26/90 TO

11/7/94), AT LEAST $13,000 ON THE PREPETITION,

UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT AMENDED

PROOF OF CLAIM FOR 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 AND

1988, WHICH OCCURRED DURING PETITIONERS’ CHAP-

TER 13 PENDENCY, 2/7/90 TO 11/7/94. RESPONDENTS’

AGENTS APPLIED $745,225 TO 1987 TAX YEAR (SEE APP.

70-72). U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER (APP. 68 - 70)

DISALLOWED 1987 AND 1988 TAX YEARS ON 9/30/94,

BUT STATED “ORDERED THAT THE IRS AMENDMENT IS

STRICKEN, SINCE NO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON

IT” (SEE APP. 70). THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS:

WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONALLY AND CON-

GRESSIONALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENTS SET

FORTH IN 18 US.C. § 152(2), (3), (4), AND (5); FRBP

(3002(c); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a), 6502(a),

7214(a(1), (a2), (a\(3), (a7) and (a)(8); 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1:

18 U.S.C. § 1001; 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)6); 28 U.S.C. §

1331; 18 U.S.C. § 2(a)( and (b), (3) and (4); 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

1982, 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), 1986, 1987 and 1994; 18 U.S.C.

§ 1961(D), 1951, 1962(a), (b) and (c); 28 U.S.C. § 1343; 11

U.S.C. § 502(b)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a)

and (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)1); 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1); 18 U.S.C.

§ 1961(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5); 18 U.S.C. § 1341; 18 U.S.C. §

242: 18 U.S.C. § 241; 11 U.S.C. § 704(5); 11 U.S.C. §

1106(a)4)(A); IST, STH and 14TH AMENDMENTS WERE

VIOLATED BY RESPONDENTS’ AGENTS FILING AND

COLLECTING ANY TAX YEAR CLAIM INCLUDED IN THE

AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM? IS ANY PART OF AN

UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT AMENDED

PROOF OF CLAIM UNCOLLECTIBLE, UNENFORCEABLE

OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL? WAS A CONSPIRACY PER

XXX

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW - Continued

PETRATED AGAINST PETITIONERS? WERE PETITION-

ERS CIVIL, STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

VIOLATED? ARE THE TAX YEARS INCLUDED ON RE-

SPONDENTS’ AGENTS UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL AND

FRAUDULENT AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM DIS-

CHARGED? WILL ALL PETITIONERS’ FUNDS DISBURSED

TO THE ILLEGAL, UNTIMELY AND FRAUDULENT

AMENDED PROOF OF CLAIM BE RECOVERED BY

PETITIONERS? DID U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, U.S.

DISTRICT COURT AND U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

11TH CIRCUIT FAILURE TO DISALLOW $21,760.06 OF

THE UNTIMELY, ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT PROOF OF

CLAIM, CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF THEIR DISCRETION?

IF SO, WHAT REMEDY IS FORTH COMING FROM U.S.

SUPREME COURT?

Xxx

LIST OF PARTIES PURSUANT TO

RULES 14.1(b) AND 29.1

Petitioners, Raymond Jackson and Rogers Mae Jackson,

filed suit on their own behalf and on behalf of their children,

Stephanie Rogeres Jackson and Peter Nickalus Jackson, and

their grandson, Dwight Allen Love. The Secretary of Treasury,

Robert E. Rubin; Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service,

Margaret Milner Richardson; United States Attorney, Charles

Redding Pitt; Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee, Curtis C.

Reding; and the United States of America are respondents. The

respondents waived sovereign immunity upon filing the original

proof of claim, $21,760.06, on 6/14/90 (see 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)

and (b)), in violation of FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1),

11 US.C. § 502(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 152, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 26

U.S.C. § 7214, 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 6502(a); 11 U.S.C. §

1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(6).

XXxii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented for Review ...................... i

List of Parties Pursuant to Rules 14.1(b) and 29.1 ...... XXxxi

IO add Ov Wien 8 hea Peek se ee XXXili

CS a iss cover rl Cou beeads cuoene ]

a et ER eee PA ee |

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .......... |

UN ko ee ic he ee eee es cea weeny vs l

The Background and Origin .................... 4

SR ee ED oo aye cates eee 4

ie ee I a os eee ea 5

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) .......... 6

Be I ak od kk 6 oN bee's 8

PEs EE on os ESSA 9

De ee oo ha oie ic kwh’ cere 11

18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4) and (5) ....... 11

pe ai Viiede tae kkeens 14

IDO obs bots ce eden eee wn) 14

ee tT aaa wenun visa yeas 15

Pe ores hacen vs eae eeles 15

By eee ES 9% e.g dn xd ee eeas 16

OS Reet ERE bo cso hove rk Peres 16

26 U.S.C.A. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(7),

ree a gu 17

BE Rite BORED (obs ec dceuvkcees 18

Reasons for Granting the Petition .................... 18

I se nee es ad yr a er ae 30

Te es eee ee

XXXx<ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

American Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Sampsell, Cal. 1946, 66 S. Ct.

§71, 327 U.S. 269, 90 L. Ed. 663 ........----- serene 16

Anderson v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., C.A. 4 (S.C.) 1999,

GAS POEL IO 26S Bi BOO EF ee eee res 25

Bailey v. Campbell, Okla. 1991, 862 p. 2d 461. 43 C.JS.

Nr eae) Oilers Sh ae lee a oe me nme ine aay =: 7

Bertz v. El Reno State Bank, 177 p. 362, 363, 71 Oki. 283

a ees We Od eave ates ese ears eerers et re 7

Bryant, Bkrtcy. D. Kan. 1990, 116 B.R. BN scp eae ealces 5

Buffelen Lumber and Mfg Co., 201 p. 2d 194, 196, 32 Wash,

ee |. te dade ee nla Pee eh bee) Deb errerrenee 8

City of New York v. Rassner, C.C.A.N.Y. 1942, 127 F.2d 703,

49 Am. Bankr. Rep. N.S.219 ........---- eee ee eeee 16

Clarke v. United States, (1933, Ed pa) 5 Supp 292, 13 AFTR

104, Affd (CA3 Pa) 69 F2d 748, 13 AFTR 787, 94 ALR 975,

Cert den 293 US 564, 79 L Ed 664, 55S.Ct.75.......... 9

Continental Airlines, Inc., D. Del. 1993, 152. B.R. 420..... 7

XXXIV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Crooker, Bkricy. E.D. Ky. 1993, 159 B.R. 790 .......... 17

Datain Systems Corp., Bkricy. N.D. Ill. 1983, 37 B.R. 690

Edelstein v. U.S., C.C.A. Minn. 1906, 149 F. 636, 17 Am.

Bankr. Rep. 649, Certiorari denied 27 S. Ct. 791, 205 U.S. 543,

Sit, BR GR i oe ee ee a ee eee 12, 22

Elder, D.C. Nev. 1870 Fed. Cas. No. 4326 ........... 3, 15

Fla.-Gotshall v. Taylor, App., 196 So. 2d 479, 481 ........ 7

Gray, Bkricy. E.D. Ky. 1994, 174 B.R. 228 ............. 17

Grayson v. United States, (1921, CA 6 Tenn) 272 F 553, Cert

den (1921) 257 US 637, 66 Led 409, 42S Ct49......... 14

Gretsch v. U.S., N.J. 1916, 231 F 57, 145C.C.A. 245 .... 13

Hackett v. Hackett, Ohio, Com. Pl., 146 N.E. 2d 477, 479

1 0d via'b'd «ole we'd wee Ce € oleae Galwiea eee a aenael 8

Howard v. United States, (1942, CA 5 La) 125 F2d 986, 42-1

UB TC IOTSG, BE: A ame POS oc ccc vccekstuntencs 10, 26

Kell-Strom Tool Co. v. United States, (1962, DC Conn) 205 F

Supp 190, 62-USTC//9541, 10 AFTR 2d 5237 .......... 10

Kowoloff v. U.S., C.C.A. Ill. 1912, 202 F. 475, Certiorari

denied 33 S. Ct. 217, 226 U.S. 609, 57 L.Ed. 380 ..... 12, 22

XXXV

Lincoln-Income Life Ins. Co. v. Kraus, 132 S.W. 2d 318, 321,

Are ok. ee ee 1]

Malmart Mortg. Co., Inc., Bkricy. D. Mass. 1989, 109 B.R. 1

Fe d,s ED Ne Oe Cy Sap ee es eo 6, 25

Monseau v. United States, (1943< ED Mich) 52 F Supp 395,

43-2 USTCI/9S45, 31 AFTR ... 1... ccc cece cc eecee: 10

Osborne, Bkrtcy. C.d. Cal. 1993, 159 B.R. 570, affirmed 167

Ff Seen ne erie me i eer ie eee See 17

Price, Bkrtcy. N.D. Ill. 1989, 103 B.R. 989, affirmed 130 B.R.

ON a 0d de 2 vines pede ri nedieereewes 5

Price, N.D. Ill. 1991, 130 B.R. 259 .......---- eee 6, 25

Pullin v. United States (1939, CA 5 Ga) 104 F 2d 57 Cert den

(1930) 30 8 US 552, 841 L Ed 464, 60S. Ct.97) ........ 14

Roseboro, Bkricy. W.D.N.C. 1987, 77 B.R. 38 .......--. 18

Rucker v. Miller, (1980, ED Mo) 498 F Supp 1032, 46 AFTR

ie I NS COR Ee pa ew R ore 66 we esse ea 10

Sparks v. U.S., D.C. Ut., 153 F. Supp. 909, 911... .-..-- 8

State Bd. of Tax Com'rs v. Chicago, M., St. P. and P.R. Co.,

96 NE. 2d 279, 282, 121 Ind. App. 302 ..........-.----. 8

Tracy v. Ginzberg (1907) 205 US 170, 51L Ed 755, 27 S. Ct.

et ee rk Se Ee hh Gale Se ke e:4 20

XXXVI

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Tucker, Bkricy. N.D. Ill. 1994, 174 B.R. 732............. 17

U.S. v. Abraham, C.A. Ill, 7965, 347 F.2d395 ........... 12

U.S. v. Greenstein, C.C.A.N.Y. 1946, 153 F.2d 550...... 13

U.S. v. Schireson, C.C.A. Pa. 1940, 116 F.2d 881, 132 A.L.R.

1157, 45 AM. Bankr. Rep. N.S. 201 .................. 13

U.S. v. Weiser, C.A. N.Y. 1969, 428 F. 2d 932, Certiorari

denied 91 S. Ct. 1606, 402 U.S. 949, 29L. Ed. 2d 119 .... 18

United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn. (1967) 389 US

217, 19 L Ed 2d 426, 88 S. Ct. 353, 42 Ohio Ops 2d 394, 66

BNA LRRM 2627, 56 CHHLC//12314 ................ 20

United States v. Bammon, (1984, CA 4 VA) 737 F2d 413, 15

Fed Rules Evid Serv 2037, Cert Den (1985) 469 US 1110, 83

SG ee es ee a PO es Sick 6 oN C0S weer ries 6x: 15

United States v. Brainstein (1978, DC NJ) 474 F Supp 1

LWW CER CRSA EE CREAT ERD: CHRO a eae 13

United States v. Culoso (1987, SD NY) 461 F Supp 128, affd

without OP (CA 2 NY) 607 f2d 999).................. 13

United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co., (1915) 237

US 28, 59 Led 825, 35 S. Ct. 499,3 AFTR 2920 ......... 9

United States v. Mulvey, C.C.A.N.Y., 232 F. 513,519 ..... 7

XXXVIi

United States v. Rowland, (1986, CA 5 Miss) 789 F2d 1169,

Cert den 479 US 964, 93 L Ed 2d 409, 107S. Ct. 464 .... 13

United States v. Schireson, (1940, CA3 Pa) 116 F2d 881, 132

BET GIGTD occ ccece caudececserteertnconper: 15, 19

Webber v. Spencer, 27 N.W. 2d 824, 830, 148 Neb. 481 .... 8

FEDERAL STATUTES

11 U.S.C. 1106 (aX4XA) ..---- ere xxv, App. 40

eR. Fd 0. See cee 4,5, 28, App. 32

hii Cole | Sapper er ae iv, 5, App. 15

11 US.C. § 106(a) ... ii, ili, viii, x, Xii-xiv, XVi-xXxi, XXxill, Xv,

xxx, 2

11 U.S.C. § 106(ay1) ...... Vv, viii, ix, xi, 4, 7, 11, 14, 24, 28

Ee ede S| RMR On oC a alld 5

11 U.S.C. § 106(b) ... ii, ml, v, viii-xiv, XVi-xXxi, XXIII, XXV, XX,

2, 7, 11, 14, 24, 28

PO ae ame er ce Cee 5

11 U.S.C. § 1106(aX{4(A) 2.0000 6

Sh OE Ins ia Saeco ee BUN Rae eee 5

OE Aen Perea 28, App. 31

aE MEM do ou depo ne re vedaar ena eea: 5

XXXVili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

SD TESS. SINGS: Fi fee ceeenceecee eects App. 31

Rts 11d Bh are rrr ay 5, 28, App. 32

fate fo oleae ere et Pek ress rs 5

SE ULB. BT Fike costs eve te cecdens 28, App. 32

OS NG EE 6c bd ceed beds wevwasatswaneedebene 5

phil ' od o> Serre rrerr ry: 2 op re 4,5

11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) ..... ii, xi, xiv, xvi, xix, xxi, xxiii, xxvi,

xxvii, xxx, 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18-21, 23-26, 28,

App. 24

ED: EER. 6 TGF vals 0 bc vide ovacd ede eavaneerriess 5

AS URE BER ods cece vc asscvseeeee 28, App. 21

ak Ee eae ae are i x, 1, App. 25

LS Te De ener Ae or yc x, 1, App. 26

BERRI I oon oats code nds peek weters dameauwes Vili

BE TG BIGIS. o cbc cc cidvsebeertcvesseaes App. 20

OS ils es oa vo ccceeveskeenensonn X, xiii, xix, 5, 14

11 U.S.C. § 362(a){1) .. . ii-v, vii-xiv, xvi, xix-xxiVv, xxvii, Xxx,

2-9, 11, 14, 19-22, 24-26, 28, App. 16

XXxix

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) .. . ii-v, vii-xiv, xvi, xix-xxiv, XXvii, XXX,

2-9, 11, 14, 19-22, 24-26, 28, App. 17

11 U.S.C. § 362(h) ... iii-v, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvii, 2, 3, 8, 12, 19,

22, 26

VOis (oe | Saupe eee OER EEE a eee kee, 5

11 U.S.C. § SO2QGS) «0. eee c ccc creccrreres: App. 25

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) .. xiv, xvi, xix, xxi, xxiii, xxvii, xxx, 16,

21, 23, 24, 28, App. 25

Thiet ce |) ee ae 24

Gi e Tot |. . See ce ic 5, 28, App. 35

BL US.C. §S4UG) .. 2. occ ence cece rnceccces App. 33

SRE OE onc cbc esac see ce rons eR tee ne dt eed es 5

11 U.S.C. § 547(af(4) ....--- eee eee xxv-xxvii, App. 30

11 U.S.C. § 704(5) ....--- eee eee eres xxv, 6, App. 40

ROE Bisco s Fes 5 oo ven ees cet he reese trae ss 5

11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1) ...-.- ii, xi, xiv, xvi, xix, xxi, Xxili, Xv,

xxvii, xxx, 16, 24, 28, App. 31

11 U.S.C. §1305(b) ... xiv, xvi, xix, xxi, xxiii, xxvii, XxX, . i 3

§-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-21, 24-26, 28, App. 24

15 U.S.C. § 78eee(a(3)...--- 0 eee reece eee App. 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

18 U.S.C. §1001..... iv, V, 1X, Xi-xili, XVI, XX, XXi, XXili, XXvii,

xxix, xxx, 2-4, 11-13, 15, 21-26, 28, 29, App. 18

Se MPa BD, o's vt boc cca nuap vee ce bub eee 2

PGCE DETR Ci bac ee vevvevirencnereeeeues App. 36

Pee ee I 5 ino 6 Nag oe ew cae 28, App. 34

4 Lt bo) Sar err reer re es App. 34

Rs RES chkcacchcxaces bate eee App. 34

SU REM PRE bcc chad ss sleet ver areas aaee 28, App. 34

Be SP Be CUOED 0. 05-6 cine cee red cewek nae eee 28

18 U.S.C. § 152... vi, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxix, xxx, 2-4, 15, 19, 20,

23-25, 29, App. 19

18 U.S.C. § 152(2) ... vi-ix, xi-xill, xvi, 2, 11, 12, 19, 26, 28,

App. 18

18 U.S.C. § 152(3) ... vi-ix, xi-xili, xvi, 2, 11, 12, 19, 26, 28,

App. 18

18 U.S.C. § 152(4) . vii-ix, xi-xiii, xvi, xxvii, 2, 11, 12, 19, 26,

28, App. 19

18 U.S.C. § 152(5) . vii-ix, xi-xiii, xvi, xxvii, 2, 11, 12, 19, 26,

28, App. 19

xli

NOE Ta See v, 28, App. 34

1I8U.S.C. § 1961(1) 0.0... 00ers App. 34

18 U.S.C. § I9G1(1MA)...-. reer: 28

18 U.S.C. § 1961(1MB) ... 6. eee eres 28

18 U.S.C. § 1961(1MD)..... 66. cere teers: 28

BRUT B BUMONE) ccc ccc cre reece sere ceecees App. 34

18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) ....-.- eee e cere eters: App. 34

18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) .....--- ere eee e eee eeees App. 34

18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) .....---- eee rere rere App. 34

18 U.S.C. § 1961(D) ......------ iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xiv, xvi, 2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) ......-----+-- iv, V, Vili, ix, xiv, xvi, 2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) .......----- iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xiv, xvi, 2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ......... iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) .. iv, v, viii, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, App. 38

‘GE oe & Gee iv, V, viii, ix, xi-xiv, xvi, xvili, 28, App. 33

SR sia e cece tee cc ccee cece ees ee es 2

ME Na vy ecercc esses ss crcceccesecee: 2

| En fo & |) iv, V, Vili, ix, xi-xiv, xvi, 2, 3, App. 38

xlii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

18 U.S.C. §242.... Vi, Vill, ix, xi-xiv, xvi, 2, 3, App. 37

18 U.S.C. §245............ Vv, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, xvi, xix, 3, 28

SD UDikn OCR vb n'din a > ook ae daceeureebiewes 2

ES U.S TEE oN oes ne'eue ea on eee 2

BS UB OO occce sys iV, V, Vili, ix, Xi-xiv, xvi, xviii, 2, 4, 28,

App. 33

gts foe) ear eee een | Kiet}! >. 6 xili, XiV, XVi

5G U.S.C. SOSA) .. occ ccces. xxi, xxii, 2, 6, 28, App. 19

Pais Fog > | RP xxii, xxiv, 2, 6, 28, App. 20

18 U.S.C. § 3231... iv, v, vii, 2, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 26, App. 22

USC 600.5... v, 2, 13, 14, 19, 22, 26, App. 39

US CI ce ee 13

USC COS 655 Se Eee 3

URC: ASD ao ee 3,4

MUSC SHS... ee 3,4

WULC SIMI oe. ii RES 4

ISUSC S90MDED os ko a 3

18 U.S.C. § 35597) .. wc cece cece cere eeees 3

1tk Cole 6) eee ene Ce App. 23

gk Soe | ee iv, V, Vili, ix, xi-xiv, xvi, xviii, 2, 4, 28,

App. 35

ges fod tee iv, V, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, 3, App. 22

RE as nc sec cpecvceeeterees iv, V, ix, Xi-xiv, Xvi

26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) ... iv, V, ix, xi-xill, xvi, XXvii-xxix, 2, 11,

eS | ee ne xxviii, xxix

SMS oi a suuene yer ek ees ee een: xx

26 U.S.C. § 6503(h) .. iv, v, ix, xi-xiii, xvi, 2, 11, 26, App. 24

ie ee |.) er eee xxi, xxiii, xxix, xx, 15, 23

26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1) .._ iii, v, viii, ix, xi-xiil, xvi, xxiii, XXVii,

2, 3, 11, 15, 17, 24, 26, 28, App. 23

26 U.S.C. § 7214(a\(2) .._ iii, v, viii, ix, xi-xiii, xvi, xxiii, xxvii,

2-3, 11, 15, 17, 24, 26, 28, App. 23

26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(3) .....------ xxvii, 3, 15, 17, App. 23

26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(7) ... iii, v, viii, ix, xi-xiii, xvi, x0xiii, xxvii,

2, 3, 11, 15, 17, 24, 26, 28, App. 23

Oe gs cc cses resleses turbo 17

xliv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

y Dik Rom bh (| Pie ee oe xv-xvii, App. 20

26 U.S.C. § 7422(b) ... ili-v, viii, ix, xii-xiv, xvii, 2, 9, 26, 28,

App. 17

MUSC. ONS... oe xiii, App. 21

26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) ... iii-v, viii, ix, xiii, xiv, xvi, 2, 9, 12, 15,

24, 26, 28, App. 21

SO U.S.C. PES coc vvcesevesceess ee eee 2

y: Bie tom By.) |) reese rr tA gee l

oe Ws GORE sks ve ceca iv, v, xiv, 8, App. 40

Fe UR. Oot cs tere ili, V, Vili, ix, Xi, xli, Xiv, XVi

y Bik Sot Bs: | ee ee eet 2, 28, App. 22

yr Bis toe Bs | rere eer 2, 28, App. 22

yo GOR oe eS Peer ree ree reyes ee iv, xiv, 2, App. 21

ae UBS. 9 TFA ook cca ve cy dviense eee eee 2

oe U.S.C. S TSGRED aco a ss ead ercte eee iv, xiv, 28

26 USK. 3 SOUR 6 in ok as eee ee iv, xiv, 28

2USC. § 190000) 4... Gee 14

OMIM BUGMIGMG .,... 0-02-22 - seco cee: iv, xiv, 28

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) .. iii, iv, xiv, xx, xxvii, 2, 9, 10, 15, 24,

26, 29, App. 2, App. 17

Lk a Ey errr rere eee vi

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d(2M(A) ....--- eee eee App. 15

4 i ity) iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, 28,

App. 26

0 ek 8. a ere 2, 28, App. 26

05 tod SS iv, V, Viii, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, 28,

App. 27

42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) ..... iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, 28,

App. 27

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) ..... iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, 28,

App. 27

he Tt | ee iv, V, Vili, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, 2, 28,

App. 29

ee 28, App. 30

MEE 5 pve crccecees iv, v, xiv, 2, 14, 28, App. 35

Ck i | er iv, V, Vili, ix, xi; xii, xiv, xvi, 2

11 U.S.C. 1106 (aM4MA) .......----- eee xxxii, App. 40

eee eee 5, 31, App. 32

xIvi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

BD Oh EG eres oe neaes ue V, Vi, ix, xii, xiv, 5, App. 15

11 U.S.C. § 106(a) .... ii, iv, x, xili, xv-xxii, 0, XxxVvi, xxvii,

XXIX, XxXxi, xxxvi, 3

11 U.S.C. § 106(a(1) ...............0-e. 5, 8, 15, 18, 31

SI BS soi boc ah then ce 5

11 U.S.C. § 106(b) .... ii, iv, x, xiii, xv-xxii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii,

XxIX, Xxxi, xxxvi, 3, 8, 15, 18, 31

eS Ey Seppe on pe nan P Me An Ae vot 5

Ee Bee: 55... CR eee 7

TES foe 1 Sao Pieeda er ic Geemerrie oh, C" 5

WEA BD bcos cade cose 31

ES OIE 35 oe OS ie SE 5

Pet Tog 0. mem ee, te App. 31

SN a oi os bvetec nce terns 5, 31, App. 32

is ghee Se 5

5 ORR I ogo osc 31, App. 32

(ES 0 See ee ee 5

Rte Loe >. RRR Oe St eRIeR ORE Meera eee 4,5

11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) . xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, 2, 3, 6, 8-11, 15,

16, 18-21, 23, 26-28, 31, 32, App. 24

SO UEBE. BOOT ic ie cca es a eee Fees 5

SU UEC BERD 60 6 bocce tavenekeu eens 31, App. 21

FR Toe Se errr erie ys eee y oo xii, 1, App. 25

ir Ce > Re errr sree ee xii, 1, App. 26

{gid Cok > Sere rrer rer tee rere: ry ake Tt}. x

SEs Se hte eT ek App. 20

igh ta brea ee ix, xii, xiii, xvii, xxv, 5, 6, 18

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) ._ ii-vii, ix, x, xii, xiv, xvi, xvili, xx, Xxiv-

XXxvii, xxx, xxxiv, xxxvi, 2, 4, 6-11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23,

24, 26-28, 31, 32, App. 16

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) .. ii-vii, ix, x, xii-xiv, xvi, xvili, xx, xxiv-

XXvii, xxx, xxxiv, xxxvi, 2, 4, 6-11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23,

24, 26-28, 31, 32, App. 17

11 U.S.C. § 362(h) ... iv-vii, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xix, xxi, 3, 4, 10,

15, 20, 24, 28

ME BME. ois cect eee 5

ET ee aeRenR ere arr as | 31, App. 25

MO A ee 31, App. 25

xl viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Sey EE bb ct a0 ches ke Vee anl 5, 31, App. 35

EP OA OED cccccesstevaevarenumenenae App. 33

BE UE BOGE ctcccvccsvuneveescvesdntesn ae 5

11 U.S.C. § 547(a)(4) .......... Xxxi, Xxxili, xxiv, App. 30

Ee apis OPTED co ccessecadverdvsneun xxxii, 7, App. 40

BE We B FEO se ccc ccciviececdesew ees teucenleome 5

SEUNG. B TAS 600 0k 0 kcecebccetese trend 31

11 U.S.C. §1305(b) xxxvi, 2, 3, 6, 8-11, 15, 16, 18-21, 23, 26-

28, 31, 32, App. 24

be Ua OB FOCIIMLED ¢ 60-00 ordvccseusteseane App. 17

18U.S.C.§ 1001....... V-Vil, xii, XIV, XVI, XVii, XX, XXV, XXVi,

xxxiv, 2, 4, 14-17, 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, App. 18

WUSBL. 6 159M: «506.50 uke eats eee 3

UBC. $196)... 5c ccc cceccccdveieveeens App. 36

18 U.S.C. § 1503.0... cece e eee 31, App. 34

UBC. GIS1O... 6. accccccvanievevcentuas App. 34

USC: 6 1519... 6.000 ociescvceetes App. 34

SoMa: OF BPG + 00.60. 0.0:¥0-2 cis eel lee kun 31, 32, App. 34

xlix

DEE © BOE odie ves vii, xxv, xxvi, 2, 4, 19, 20, 33, App. 19

18 U.S.C. § 152(2) . vii, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, 2, 14-16, 28,

31, App. 18

18 U.S.C. § 152(3) . viii, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, 2, 14-16, 28,

31, App. 18

18 U.S.C. § 152(4) . viii, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxiv, 2, 14-

16, 28, 31, App. 19

18 U.S.C. § 152(5) . viii, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, »0cxiv, 2, 14-

16, 28, 31, App. 19

Se See Oe PU ae dics cctvesecencwecess vii, 31, App. 34

Pe es Oe REED hao cc dicedeevcecveseesas App. 34

Rik oa eo}. : Reese 31

SELES, OTN cc viccc cents ecceccvcccsveaces 31

RUE, BI oo cc cvceceavacccsressnaves 64 31

oid Taf . A ee te App. 34

PU ee EE bo veer cen icvewvesewceenes App. 34

SE EE fb do ceencecesocaeeseuses'cc App. 34

ED vc ccescveececvedivecesees App. 34

asf foe yo Fe V, Vii, x, xii, xiv, xvili, xxi, 2

SB ULB. © PUGEE Ni cee bec cecens V, Vii, x, xii, Xvili, xxi, 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

OS U.S. © IGG... woo ces V, Vil, X, Xii, xiv, xviii, xxi, 2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ....... V, Vii, X, Xii, XIV, XVi, Xvili, xxi, 2

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ...... V, Vil, X, Xi, Xiv, xvi, xviii, xxi, 2,

App. 38

18U.S.C.§2 .... V, vii, x, xii, xiv, xvi-xviii, xx, »o<ii, 20, 31,

App. 33

rd ss leis we ee Ou Deak e eed ew 2

ea i a oe Glen eeu eee eee eens Seen 2

ON Se ee ame OE ella ee 5 ix

18 U.S.C. § 241... v, vii, x, xii, xiv, xvi-xviii, xxi, 2, 4, App. 38

18 U.S.C. § 242... vii, x, xii, xiv, xvi-xviii, xxi, 2, 4, App. 37

AS i Sebi as 9 o'n'o cea Ges Pee et cet eS 4

Se eas IEE gk occ nos dwelcb ceeiseuaceeuens 2

Pe se ED nb 5 59 5 6 ooo nds vvesicd bn tous 2

18U.S.C.§3 ... Vv, vii, x, xii, xiv, xvi-xvili, xx, xxiii, 2, 4, 20,

31, App. 33

Pe es Id a Uh ces nv cancun ewes xvii, xviii, xxi

18 U.S.C. §3057(a) ......... xxvi, xxviii, 2, 7, 31, App. 19

ISULE.C. SOTHO) . 2s ree ees: xxix, xxx, 2, 7, 31, App. 20

18 U.S.C. § 3231... v, vi, ix, 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 28, App. 22

GL ES adit >: ) AAS vii, 3, 17-20, 24, 28, App. 39

PRTC CERI once ccc cece ences cesincscreses 16

18 U.S.C. § 35S9(aX1) 1... eee teens 4

18 U.S.C. § 3559(aX3) . 1... eee eee tees 4

18 U.S.C. § 3559(aN4) 2... eee tee eens 4

18 U.S.C. $ B5SS(ANS) .. 6... eee cece reece eerie 4

18 U.S.C. § 3SSHANG) .. 1... rece cere cece renee 4

18 U.S.C. $ 3SSHaN7) . 1. cece ce eee ence eee 4

PRE ee EE 0k kr chen tae verses reeds .. App. 23

RT Me & i nn eee ee xviii

18US.C.§4 ... v, vii, x, xii, xiv, xvi-xviii, xx, xxiii, 2, 4, 20,

31, App. 35

18 U.S.C. § 402... . . v, vii, xii, xiv, xvi, xviii, xxi, 2, 4, App. 22

Oe © ESE a aoe eee V, Vii, xii, xiv, xvi-xviii, 20

26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) .... v, Vii, xi, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, 2, 15, 28

DET OG is bis cha Wave ks eee rien dee cons XXV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

26 U.S.C. § 6503(h) .... v, vii, xi, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, 2, 1:, 28,

SEUNS. 6 U0T8.... |. «oss xscsacuusac dea xxvi

26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(1) .. iv, vii, x, xi, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, x0xxiV,

2, 4, 15

26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(2) .. iv, vii, x, xi, XIV, xvi, xvii, x, xxxIV,

26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(3) .........0 0. xxxiv, 4, 19, App. 23

26 U.S.C. § 7214(aX(7) .. iv, vii, x, xi, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, XxxiV,

2, 4, 15, 19, 28, 31, App. 23

Be Ts 0 FUE is oivtuedecewaneveeann xix-xxi, App. 20

26 U.S.C. § 7422(b) .. iv, v, vii, ix, xii, xv-xvii, xix, xx, 3, 11,

28, 31, App. 17

WUE 6908 a He xvii, App. 21

26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) .. iv, v, vii, ix, xii, xvi-xviii, 3, 11, 15, 19,

28, 31, App. 21

26 USC. ROO 545 ot shi a eee 3

WUSe CO. So NES: 1

MUSE 4H... V, vii, xviii, 10, App. 40

lii

28 U.S.C. § 1334........... iv, vi, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xviii, xxi

Pt ee ee 3, 31, App. 22

et) Se aan 3, 31, App. 22

i ok eae v, xviii, 3, App. 21

LD ES a mee eRe 3

28 U.S.C. § 1343(aM1) «0.00. eee eee eee v, xviii, 32

28 U.S.C. § 1343(aN2) ... 02. e cee eee eee: v, xviii, 32

Pe ee re 18

20 USC. § 1340GNO ........- 0500000000. v, xviii, 32

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) ... iii-v, xviii, xxv, xxxiv, 2, 3, 11, 13,

26, 28, 33, App. 2, App. 17

kT a Es a Ae ae rare rere a Viii

Rae, © URED fed Soke dre es cd sees App. 15

ait to 2 | V, Vii, X, Xii, xiv, Xvi, xvili, xx, 2, 31,

App. 26

ee I oo hin Ge vin Sede desea eas 2, 31, App. 26

U3. $1563 ....... V, Vii, X, Xii, Xiv, xvi, xvili, xx, 2, 31,

App. 27

42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) .... v, vii, x, xii, xiv, xvi, xviii, xx, 2, 31,

App. 27

liv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) .... v, vil, x, xil, xiv, xvi, xvili, xx, 2, 31,

App. 27

42 U.S.C. § 1986....... V, Vii, X, Xil, XIV, Xvi, xviii, xx, 2, 31,

App. 29

Lt oD. > A rares atts Aen Se 31, App. 30

ey Or Oe Os kos eee V, vii, xvili, 3, 18, 31, App. 35

gts Ce | ree V, Vii, X, Xii, XiV, XVi, Xvili, xxi, 2

FEDERAL RULES

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002(c) . . ii, v, viii, ix,

xi, xii, XIV, Xvi, Xix, Xxi, xxiii, xxvii, xxx, 2, 3, 5-9, 12, 14-

17, 19-21, 23-25, 28, App. 20

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 ............... 29

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31(b)............. 28

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32 ............... 29

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)............. 28

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 40 ............ 28, 29

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 40(B) ........ xvii, 28

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 17 .................. 19

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 17(a) .... 19, 20, 22, 23, 26

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002(c) .... vii, x-xii,

xiv, xvi, xviii, xx, 2, 8, 31, App. 20

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31(b)............. 32

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 40 ............ 32-34

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 ............ 33, 34

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure32 ............ 33, 34

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)............. 32

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 40(B) ........ xxi, 32

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 17 ............ 20, 23, 26

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 17(a) . 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29

lvi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

App No. Appendix Description Authority

1,2 The United States Court of Rule 14.1(i)(ii)

Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed

January 4, 1996

ae The United States Court of Rule 14. 1(i)(ii)

Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed

January 4, 1996

3,4 The United States Court of Rule 14.1(i)(ii)

Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed March

12, 1996

4,5 The United States Court of Rule 14.1(i)(ii)

Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed June 2,

1995

5, 6 The United States District Rule 14.1(i)(ii)

Court’s Order, filed March

18, 1994

6,7 The United States District Rule 14.1(i)(ii)

Court’s Order, filed April 8,

1994

8,9

10, 11

11,12

12, 13

lvii

Appendix Description

The United States District

Court’s Order, filed June 9,

1994

The United States District

Court’s Order, filed August

1, 1994

The United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed March

12, 1996

The United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit’s Judgment, filed

January 4, 1996 and Issued

as Mandate, April 8, 1996

11 U.S.C. § 106

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and

(a)(6)

26 U.S.C. §7422(b)

28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1)

18 U.S.C. §1001

18 U.S.C. §152(2)

18 U.S.C. §152(3)

18 U.S.C. § 152(4)

Authority

Rule 14. 1(i)(ii)

Rule 14.1(i)(ii)

Rule 14.1(i)(iii)

Rule 14.1(i)(iv)

Rule 14.1(i)(v)

viii

App No. Appendix Description Authority

14 18 U.S.C. § 152(5) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

14 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

14, 15 18 U.S.C. § 3057(b) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

15 Rule 3002(c) of Federal Rules Rule 14.1(i)(v)

of Bankruptcy Procedure

15 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

15 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

15, 16 28 U.S.C. § 1340 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

16 11 U.S.C. § 1327 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

16 18 U.S.C. §3231 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

16 28 U.S.C. §1334(a) and (b) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

16 18 U.S.C. §402 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

16, 17 26 U.S.C. §7214(a)(1), (a)(3) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

and (a)(7)

17 11 U.S.C. §1305(a)(1) and Rule 14.1(i)(v)

(b)

18 26 U.S.C. §6503(h) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

18 11 U.S.C. §502(a) and (b)(1) Rule 14.1(i)(v)

18 11 U.S.C. §301 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

18, 19 11 U.S.C. §302 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

19 42 U.S.C. §1981 Rule 14.1(i)(v)

App. No

19, 20

20, 21

21, 22

22, 23

23, 24

24, 25

25, 26

lix

Appendix Description

42 U.S.C. §1982

42 U.S.C. §1983

42 U.S.C. §1985(2)

42 U.S.C. §1985(3)

42 U.S.C. §1986

42 U.S.C. §1987

11 U.S.C. §547(a)(4)

11 U.S.C. §726(a)(1)

11 U.S.C. §1141(a) and

1142(a)

11 U.S.C. §1143

11 U.S.C. §1205(b)(4)

11 U.S.C. §105

11 U.S.C. §541(a)

18 U.S.C. §2(a) and (b)

18 U.S.C. §3

18 U.S.C. §1961(1), (2), (3),

(4), and (5)

18 U.S.C. §4

11 U.S.C. §525

42 U.S.C. §1988

Authority

Rule 14.1(i)(v)

App. No.

26, 27

27, 28

28, 29

29, 30

38-41

36-41

Appendix Description

18 U.S.C. §1341

18 U.S.C. §242

18 U.S.C. §241

18 U.S.C. §1962(d)

18 U.S.C. §3237

28 U.S.C. §1331

11 U.S.C. §704(5)

11 U.S.C. §1106(a)(4)(A)

lst Amendment U.S.

Constitution

5th Amendment US.

Constitution

14th Amendment U.S.

Constitution

26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and

(c)(4)

26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)

Original Proof of Claim for

Internal Revenue Service,

$21,760.06, filed 6/14/90

Amended Proof of Claim for

Internal Revenue Service,

$56,500.02, filed 7/26/90

Authority

Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14. 1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions of the Court of Appeals is reported as

appears in Appendices | to 11, and 62, to this Petition. The

unpublished written opinions of the District Court for the Middle

District of Alabama appear in Appendices 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to

this Petition. U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s opinion is at appendicies

68 to 70.

JURISDICTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit issued its opinions on January 4, 1996, June 2, 1995 and

March 12, 1996. The petitioners timely filed a Petition for

Rehearing on February 16, 1996. The United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arbitrarily and capriciously

refused to hear the Petition for Rehearing and issued its

supplemental opinion on the Petition for Rehearing on March 12,

1996. The Court issued its mandate on April 8, 1996. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The U.S. Constitutional Amendments and statutes

underlying this case are included in the Statement and at

appendices 11 through 30.

STATEMENT

The petitioners file a title 11 Chapter 13 petition, Ap-

pendices 41 to 43, under 11 U.S.C. § 301 and 11 U.S.C. § 302, on

2/7/90, whose period was 2/7/90 to 11/7/94, at United States

Bankruptcy Court, Montgomery, Alabama, as case number 90-

00472-RRS-13. On 6/14/90 respondents filed an original proof

of claim, for $21,760.06, appendices 39 to 41, which included tax

years 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. On 7/26/90 or 36 days after the

claims bar date, 6/20/90, expired, respondents filed the untimely,

illegal, unauthorized, prohibited and fraudulent amended proof of

claim for $56,500.02, appendices 36 to 38, which included tax

years 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 and

1988. Respondents replaced the original proof of claim with the

amended proof of claim on 7/26/90, after collecting $1,250.

Respondents collected on the original proof of claim from 3/7/90

to 7/25/90. Respondents collected on the untimely, illegal, :

unauthorized, prohibited and fraudulent amended proof of claim, |

from 7/26/90 to 11/7/94, approximately $13,000. Under duress,

petitioners filed civil action CV-93-H-1318-N, appendices 31 to

35, to protest violations of Rule 3002(c) of Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedures (FRBP); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 18 U.S.C. § tf

152(2); 18 U.S.C. § 152(3); 18 U.S.C. § 152(4); 18 U.S.C. § |

152(5); 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § |

245(b)(4)(A); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b); 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(1); 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(6); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2)

and (a)(7); 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h); 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) and (b); 26

U.S.C. § 6501(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3; 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1982, 1983,

1985(2), 1985(3), 1986 and 1994; 18 U.S.C. § 402, 1961(D),

1962(a), 1962(b), 1962(c), 3057(a) and (b), 4, 1962(d) and 241.

Petitioners pleaded, on their complaint, that U.S. District Court

had jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § |

152 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. United States District Court has |

jurisdiction of Title 18 offenses by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and |

18 U.S.C. § 3237. United States District Court has jurisdiction

of Title 11 offenses by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), 11 U.S.C. §

106(a) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b) and 28 U.S.C. §

1334(a), (b), and (d), lines 8 through 13. United States District

Court has jurisdiction of Title 42 offenses by virtue of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. United States District Court has

jurisdiction of Title 26 offenses by virtue of 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a);

26 U.S.C. § 7422(b) and 26 U.S.C. § 7433(b). United States

District Court has jurisdiction of Title 28 offenses by virtue of 28

U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1340.

On 5/16/94, petitioners, unable to acquire adequate legal

representation, filed an objection to respondents’ untimely,

illegal, unauthorized, prohibited and fraudulent amended proof of

claim for $56,500.02, in U.S. Bankruptcy court. On 9/30/94 or 37

days before scheduled termination of petitioners’ chapter 13

petition on | 1/7/94, and after more than four (4) years and three

(3) months of untimely, illegal, unauthorized, prohibited and

fraudulent collections of respondents’ untimely, illegal,

unauthorized, prohibited and fraudulent amended proof of claim,

United States Bankruptcy Court disallowed tax years 1987 and

1988 for $34,739.96, but failed to act upon the FRBP 3002(c), 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6)

violations and fraud violations cited above and below to disallow

the entire fraudulent amended proof of claim. Case law plainly

states that “If a creditor, in proving his claim, has illegally in-

creased the amount of it, or if a portion of the consideration is

good and a portion illegal, he will not be allowed, on the

detection of fraud, to separate the good from the bad and amend

his proof. or to have it allowed for the valid portion only, for his

fraud taints the whole”. See In re Elder, D.C. Nev. 1870 Fed. Cas.

No. 4326.

The 18 U.S.C. § 152 and 1001 violations are Class D

felonies (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4)). The 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)

and (a)(6) violations relief is at 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), which states

that “an individual injured by any willful violation of a stay

provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including

costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may

recover punitive damages.

The 18 U.S.C. § 402 violations are Class B misdemeanors

(see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(7)). The 18 U.S.C. § 241 violations are

Class C felonies (18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3)). The 18 U.S.C. § 242

violations may be a Class A misdemeanor (see 18 U.S.C. §

3559(a)(6)), a Class C felony (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3)) ora

Class A felony (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 245 may

be a Class A misdemeanor (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(6)), a Class

C felony (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3)) or a Class A felony (see 18

U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1)). 26 U.S.C. § 7214(1), (2), (3) and (7)

violations are Class D felonies (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4)). The

18 U.S.C. § 3 violations are Class C felonies (see 18 U.S.C. §

3559(a)(3)). 18 U.S.C. § 4 violations are Class E felonies (see 18

U.S.C. § 3559(a)(5)). 18 U.S.C. § 152 and 1001, 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(1) and (a)(6), and 11 U.S.C. § 1305 violations are Class D

felonies (see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4)). Petitioners were trying to

put their financial affairs in order when the felonies and mis-

demeanors were perpetrated in retaliation for exercising their

constitutional rights to participate in a Chapter 13 proceeding.

Respondents and respondents’ agents willfully and knowingly

denied petitioners the relief sought under the Chapter 13 pro-

ceedings, 2/7/90 to 11/7/94.

A. The background and origin of statutory provisions,

under which petitioners seek enforcement of their constitutional

rights, civil rights and statutory rights, which were infringed

upon, perpetrated and violated by governmental units-United

States of America, Secretary of Treasury, Internal Revenue

Service, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Trustee, U.S.

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, U.S. Court of

Appeals for 11th Circuit, respondents’ agents is United States of

America Constitution. The crimes range from misdemeanor,

conspiracy to felonies, including institutional corruption, anarchy,

discrimination on basis of race (Black) and sex (male, female),

fraud, reckless abuse of power and discretion, and perpetration of

miscarriage of justice, as cited at appendices 60 and 61, and

below:

l. ll) USC. § 106(a\(1). Waiver of sovereign

immunity: Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity,

sovereign immunity is ABROGATED as to the governmental

units (i.e. United States of America, Secretary of Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Bankruptcy

Chapter 13 Trustee), who is either a creditor, entity, or

governmental unit, to the extent set forth in this section respect to

11 U.S.C. § 105, 106, 108, 362, 502, 525, 547, 726, 1141, 1142,

1143, 1205, 1227, 1305 and 1327.

2. 11 U S.C. § 106(a)(2). The court may hear and

determine any issue arising with respect to the application of | |

U.S.C. § 105, 106, 108, 362, 502, 525, 547, 726, 1141, 1142,

1143, 1205, 1227, 1305 and 1327, to governmental units. U.S.

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and U.S. District Court

abused its discretion by refusing to hear and determine the issue

arising with respect to 11 U.S.C. § 362 violations (see complaint,

issue 9, appendix 32). That is contrary to case law, which states

that “as a result of Internal Revenue Service filing timely proof of

claim against debtors’ estate, IRS effectively waived sovereign

immunity as to debtors’ claims for damages arising from willful

violation of automatic stay by IRS” (see In re price, Bkrtcy. N.D.

ILL. 1989, 103 B.R. 989, affirmed 130 B.R. 259). Internal

Revenue Service, the creditor, entity and governmental unit, filed

the illegal and fraudulent original proof of claim, 6/14/90 and

illegal, fraudulent and untimely filed the amended proof of claim

(see Appendices 36 to 38), in debtors’ Chapter 13 case, on

7/26/90, both violated FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and

(b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6). Secondly, case law states

that “doctrine of sovereign immunity did not protect United

States from sanctions for violating discharge injunction, where

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had filed proof of claim in

debtors’ Chapter 13 case” (see In re Bryant, Bkrtcy. D. Kan.

1990, 116 B.R. 272). Thirdly, case law states that “Government

is deemed to have waived its sovereign immunity where Internal

Revenue Service seeks to enforce claim against debtors’ corporate

officers for debtors’ unpaid taxes, has filed proof of claim for

those taxes in debtors’ estates and enforcement jeopardizes the

debtors’ ability to reorganize (see In re Datain Systems Corp.,

Bkrtcy. N.D. Ill. 1983, 37 B.R. 690) and fourthly, case law states

that “Waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to claims a-

gainst the United States applies when claim against United States

is property of estate, and when claim against United States arises

out of same transaction or occurrence giving rise to United States’

claim” (see In re Malmart Mortg. Co., Inc., Bkrtcy. D. Mass.

1989, 109 B.R. 1). The United States Treasury Department is an

agency of the United States of America. Internal Revenue Service

and its agents are part of Treasury Department’s organization.

U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Trustee failed to discharge his duties

under 11 U.S.C. § 704(5) and 1106(a)(4)(A). U.S. Attorney failed

to discharge his duties under 18 U.S.C. § 3057(b). The United

States Courts abused their discretion by failing to comply with 18

U.S.C. § 3057(a). Therefore, United States on 6/14/90, illegally

and fraudulently filed an original proof of claim, for $21,760.02,

and on 7/26/90, untimely, illegally and fraudulently filed an

amended proof of claim, for $56,500.06.

3. LLUS.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6): Internal Revenue

Service, a creditor, entity and governmental unit and agent of

United States of America and United States Treasury Department,

during petitioners’ Chapter 13 proceeding, from 2/7/90 to

11/7/94, fraudulently, knowingly, willfully filed (6/14/90) and

collected (from 3/7/90 to 7/25/90) an illegal and fraudulent

original proof of claim, $21,760.06, and filed (7/26/90) and

collected (from 7/26/90 to 11/7/94) an untimely and illegal

amended proof of claim, $56,500.02. collecting approximately

$14,250. Case law states that “Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by

filing proof of claim in Chapter 13 proceeding, was deemed to

have waived its sovereign immunity with respect to that claim,

and thus could be held liable for willful violation of stay arising

out of its postpetition collection attempt, even though debtors

claim for damages arose after confirmation of plan for discharge

of their debts” (see Re Price, N.D. Ill. 1991, 130 B.R. 259).

Respondents and their agents violated FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C.

§ 1305(a)(1) and (b) and the 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6).

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, by its order (App. 68) of 9/30/94 (after

petitioners objected to the amended proof of claim on 5/16/94)

disallowed $34,739.96 of the $56,500.02, but abused its

discretion and refused to disallow the rest (i.e. $21,760.06) of the

untimely and illegally amended proof of claim, clearly violating

Ist, Sth. and 14th amendments, 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b),

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6), Rule 3002(c) of Federal Rules

of Bankruptcy Procedure, as well as Congressional public policy

and Congressional Intent. Each governmental unit waived

sovereign immunity by virtue of 11 U.S.C. §106(a)(1) and (b) on

6/14/90.

Secondly, case law states that “automatic stay is designed

to relieve debtor of financial pressures that drove it into

bankruptcy, to protect the estate from being whittled away by

creditors’ lawsuits, and to implement system where all creditors

will be treated equally. (see In Re Continental Airlines, Inc., D.

Del. 1993, 152. B.R. 420).

Thirdly, case law states that “automatic stay applies to all

entities including governmental units (see In Re Tronscon Lines,

Bkrtcy. C.D. Cal. 1992, 147 B.R. 770). Respondents and defend-

ants, including Internal Revenue Service is a creditor, entity or

governmental unit in petitioners’ chapter 13 case. Therefore, the

automatic stay applies to them.

Fourthly, case law states that “judicial proceedings

undertaken in violation of the automatic stay are ineffective (see

Bailey v. Campbell, Okla. 1991, 862 p. 2d 461. 43 C.J.S.). Case

law defines ineffective in terms of ineffectual-i.e. vain, fruitless,

unavailing futile, useless (see Fla.-Gotshall v. Taylor, App., 196

So. 2d 479, 481); inefficient, ineffective, not producing the proper

or usual effect, without effect (see Webster New Int. D.).

Fifthly, the collection of the original proof of claim,

$21,760.06, filed 6/14/90, and the amended proof of claim,

$56,500.02, untimely filed 7/26/90, approximately $14,250

violated the 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)

and (a)(6) automatic stay. Therefore, the collection is not only

illegal and contrary to the law (see U.S. v. Mulvey C.C.A.N.Y.,

232 F. 513, 519; Bertz v. El Reno State Bank, 177 p. 362, 363, 71

Okl. 283), but it is arbitrary or capricious action (see State Bd. of

Tax Com’rs v. Chicago, M., St. P. and P.R. Co., 96 N.E. 2d 279,

282, 121 Ind. App. 302; In re Buffelen Lumber and Mfg Co., 201

p. 2d 194, 196, 32 Wash, 2d 205) and is absolutely void-to make

to be of no validity or effect (see Sparks v. U.S., D.C. Ut., 153 F.

Supp. 909, 911); empty, having no legal force, ineffectual,

nonenforceable (see Hackett v. Hackett, Ohio, Com. PI., 146 N.E.

2d 477, 479) and without legal effect, nonenforceable, incapable

of ratification (see Webber v. Spencer, 27 N.W. 2d 824, 830, 148

Neb. 481).

28 U.S.C. § 133] Federal Question: On 2/7/90, petitioners |

filed a Chapter 13 petition (90-00472-RRS-13) for period 2/7/90

to 11/7/94. By virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6),

automatic stay, respondents, including Internal Revenue Service,

the creditor, entity and governmental unit, is prohibited from

collecting any federal income taxes during the period 2/7/90 to

11/7/94, as well as any prepetition taxes (11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1)

and (b)). Respondents’ and Internal Revenue Service’s agents

filed (6/14/90) and collected (3/7/90 to 7/25/90) and original

proof of claim for $21,760.06 and untimely filed (7/26/90), 36

days after bar date (6/20/90) expired, an amended proof of claim

for $56,500.02, approximately $14,250 in violation of FRBP

3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)

and (a)(6). Petitioners filed civil action (93-H-1318-N) on

11/1/93. U.S. District Court dismissed 93-H-1318-N on 3/18/94.

The U.S. District Court had jurisdiction not only by virtue of 11

U.S.C. § 362(h), but also by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (i.e. The

District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States). Petitioners’ First Amendment right to petition the Gov-

ernment for a redress of grievances was denied. Fifth Amendment

right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law and 14th amendment right of equal protection

under the law.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1): On 2/7/90, petitioners filed a

Chapter 13 petition (90-00472-RRS-13), for period 2/7/90 to

11/7/94. By virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b); 11 U.S.C.

§ 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) automatic stay, respondents, including

Internal Revenue Service-the creditor, entity, and governmental

unit, was prohibited from collecting or recovering any federal

income taxes during period 2/7/90 to 11/7/94, including untimely

and fraudulent prepetition claims. Respondents’ and Internal

Revenue Service’s agents filed (6/14/90) and collected (3/7/90 to

7/25/90) an original proof of claim for $21,760.06, and untimely

filed (7/26/90), 36 days after bar date (6/20/90) expired and col-

lected (7/26/90 to 11/7/94) an amended proof of claim for

$56,500.02, approximately $14,250, in violation of 11 U.S.C. §

1305(a)(1) and (b); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6). Under

duress and in protest of FRBP 3002(c). 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1)

and (b); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) violations and

unauthorized collections, petitioners filed (11/1/93) civil action

93-H-1318-N, as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b) and 7433(2).

U.S. District Court abused its discretion by arbitrarily arid

capriciously dismissing case 93-H-1318-N on 3/18/94. U.S. Court

of Appeals for the 1 1th Circuit abused its discretion by arbitrarily

and capriciously affirming U.S. District Court's dismissal on

1/4/96. U.S. District Court’s jurisdiction is well-established by

virtue of case law cited below:

a. Suit to recover internal revenue taxes paid under

protest was founded on revenue law and district court had

jurisdiction. United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co.

(1915) 237 US 28, 59 Led 825, 35 S.Ct. 499, 3 AFTR 2920.

b. District Court had jurisdiction of action to recover

tax paid under protest. Clarke v. United States (1933, Ed pa) 5

Supp 292, 13 AFTR 104, Affd (CA3 Pa) 69 F2d 748, 13 AFTR

787, 94 ALR 975, Cert den 293 US 564, 79 L Ed 664, 55 5. Ct.

y > ¥

é. Federal District Court had jurisdiction of actions

to recover internal revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously

or illegally assessed and collected. Monseau v. United States

(1943) ED Mich) 52 F Supp 395, 43-2 USTC//9545, 31 AFTR.

d. By statutes authorizing suits for tax refunds,

United States waived its sovereign immunity from suit and did

away with necessity of payment under protest in all actions for

the recovery of taxes, but no statute enlarged collectors common-

law liability to suit; taxpayer had common-law right recognized

by statute to sue collector in Court of United States for recovery

of taxes wrongfully collected. Howard v. United States (1942, CA

5 La) 125 F2d 986, 42-1 USTC// 10134, 28 AFTR 1198.

e. On 3/18/94, U.S. District Court abused its

discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously dismissing petitioners’

case, without granting or denying petitioner’s 1/10/94 motion to

amend the complaint, by adding United States of America as

defendant in Case #93-H-1318-N, while using as ground for

dismissal that the wrong party is being sued. Case law states that

“United States must be substituted for Secretary of Treasury as

defendant in complaint seeking recovery of erroneously collected

internal revenue taxes under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) (see Rucker

v. Miller (1980, ED Mo) 498 F Supp 1032, 46 AFTR 2d 80-5646.

Additionally, it is clear that U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit arbitrarily and capriciously abused its discretion by af-

firming U.S. District Court’s dismissal on 1/4/96.

f. Respondents’ original proof of claim, filed

6/14/90, for $21,760.06, and the amended proof of claim,

untimely filed 7/26/90, 36 days after the bar date (6/20/90)

expired, for $56,500.02, included a 1983 tax year claim for tax

assessed, $.00 and interest, $448.19. Case law states that

“taxpayer can maintain income tax refund suit in federal district

court after paying all tax assessed, but before paying interest

thereon”. (see Kell-Strom Tool Co. v. United States (1962, DC

Conn) 205 F Supp 190, 62-USTC//9541, 10 AFTR 2d 5237.

Therefore, it is clear that U.S. District Court abused its discretion

by arbitrarily and capriciously dismissing petitioners’ case on

3/18/94 and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit abused its

discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously affirming U.S. District

Court’s dismissal on 1/4/96.

On 2/7/90, petitioners filed a Chapter 13 petition, as case number

90-00472-RRS-13, for time frame 2/7/90 to 11/7/94. By virtue of

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6), the automatic stay, acts to

collect, assess or recover claims were stayed from 2/7/90 to

11/7/94. Respondents’ and Internal Revenue Service's agents

falsely, conspiratorially, fraudulently, maliciously, knowingly and

willfully filed (6/14/90) and collected (3/7/90 to 7/25/90) a false

and fraudulent original proof of claim, for $21,760.06, and

falsely, fraudulently, knowingly, willfully, maliciously,

conspiratorially and untimely filed (7/26/90), 36 days after the bar

date (6/20/90) expired, and collected (7/26/90 to 11/7/94) a false

and fraudulent amended proof of claim for $56,500.02.

Respondents and Internal Revenue Service’s agents perpetrated

“fraud in law” upon petitioners. Case law states that “fraud in

law” is an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of

inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable

thing belonging to him, or to surrender a legal right; a false

representation of a matter of fact which deceives and is intended

to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal-injury”

(see Lincoln- Income Life Ins. Co. v. Kraus, 132 S.W. 2d 318,

321, 279 Ky 842). The original and amended proof of claim in-

duced petitioners to surrender their legal rights under provisions

of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)

and (a)(6); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b); 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a):

18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4) and (5) and 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1),

(a)(2) and (a)(7). Additionally, the fraud and misrepresentations

induced petitioners to pay IRS approximately $14,250 (see

Appendix 61) on the original and amended proof of claim, from

2/7/90 to 11/7/94. United States of America and all governmental

units, who perpetrated the willful, fraudulent, knowingly,

recklessly and illegal collection, waived its sovereign immunity

by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) and (b). Therefore, U.S.

District Court had jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, 26

U.S.C. § 7433(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 362(h). U.S. District Court had

jurisdiction, abused its discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously

dismissing petitioner’s case on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for

the 11th Circuit abused its discretion by arbitrarily and

capriciously affirming U.S. District Court dismissal on 1/4/96.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “knowingly

and fraudulently making a false oath or account in, or in relation

to, any proceeding in bankruptcy, constitutes a punishable offense

under former section 52 of Title 11. (see Kowoloff v. U.S.,

C.C.A. Ill. 1912, 202 F. 475, Certiorari denied 33 S. Ct. 217, 226

U.S. 609, 57 L.Ed. 380 and Edelstein v. U.S., C.C.A. Minn. 1906,

149 F. 636, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 649, Certiorari denied 27S. Ct.

791, 205 U.S. 543, 51L. Ed. 922). Respondents and respondents’

agents perpetrated both false oath and false claims in the original

and amended proof of claim. The evidence of respondents and

respondents’ agents having filed a false, fraudulent, and untimely

prepetition claim under oath is the original proof of claim for

$21,760.06 filed 6/14/90, and the amended proof of claim for

$56,500.02, untimely filed 7/26/90. Case law states that

“Evidence sustained conviction for filing false claim under oath

in bankruptcy proceeding. (see U.S. v. Abraham, C.A. III, 7965,

347 F.2d395). The FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and

(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4) and (5)

violations were perpetrated at U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

Montgomery, Alabama by respondents’ Birmingham, Alabama

agents filing the original and amended proofs of claim. U.S.

District Court had jurisdiction not only by virtue of 18 U.S.C. §

3231 and 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b), but by case law (see US. v.

Greenstein, C.C.A.N.Y. 1946, 153 F. 2d 550; U.S. v. Schireson,

C.C.A. Pa. 1940, 116 F.2d 881, 132 A.L.R. 1157, 45 AM. Bankr.

Rep. N.S. 201; Gretsch v. U.S., N.J. 1916, 231 F 57, 145 C.C.A.

245). Therefore, U.S. District Court had jurisdiction, erred and

abused its discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously dismissing

petitioners’ case on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit erred and abused its discretion by arbitrarily and

capriciously affirming U.S. District Court dismissal of

petitioners’ case on 1/4/96.

Lastly, case law states that “Internal Revenue Service is

an “agency” within meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (see United

States v. Brainstein (1978, DC NJ) 474 F Supp 1). The U.S.

Supreme Court has held that “Bankruptcy Court is a department

of the United States within intendment of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 since

“department or agency”, as used in 1001, was intended to

describe executive, legislative and judicial branches of

government; thus, filing false performance bond in defendant’s

personal and corporate bankruptcy proceedings constituted

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001” (see United States v. Rowland

(1986, CA 5 Miss) 789 F2d 1169, Cert den 479 US 964, 93 L Ed

2d 409,_107 S. Ct. 464). Thus, it is clear that respondents and

respondents’ agents filing false original and untimely amended

proofs of claims constituted violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Case

law states that “under 18 U.S.C. § 3237, alleged violations of 18

U.S.C. § 1001 may be prosecuted in either district in which false

statement was prepared and mailed, or in district which offense

was completed, that is, where federal agency receives and acts

upon statement” (see United States v. Culoso (1987, SD NY) 461

F Supp 128, affd without OP (CA 2 NY) 607 f2d 999). Again, it

is clear that U.S. District Court had jurisdiction and abused its

discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously dismissing petitioners’

case on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit a-

bused its discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously affirming U.S.

District Court’s dismissal of petitioners’ case on 1/4/96.

18 U.S.C. § 3237: Respondents, including Secretary of

Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, U.S.

Attorney, and U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Trustee perpetrated a

conspiracy upon petitioners by collecting (from 3/7/90 to 11/7/94) . ».

approximately $14,250 in violation of FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S: _ .

§ 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a){1) and (a)(6), automatic ;

stay, of an original proof of claim, filed 6/14/90 for $21,760.06

and an amended proof of claim untimely filed 7/26/90, 36 days

after the 6/20/90 bar date expired for $56,500.02. By virtue of 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362 violations and | 1

U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) and (b) the entities United States of America,

Secretary of Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Service, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Trustee-

governmental entities waived sovereign immunity. Therefore,

U.S. District Court had jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §

1343(a)(1), (2), (3) and (4); 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Additionally, U.S.

Supreme Court has held that “prosecution for conspiracy could be

maintained either in district in which conspiracy was entered into

or in any district in which act was done to effectuate object of

conspiracy” (see Grayson v. United States (1921, CA 6 Tenn) 272

F 553, Cert den (1921) 257 US 637, 66 Led 409. 42S Ct 49 and

Pullin v. United States (1939. CA 5 Ga) 104 F 2d 57 Cert den

(1930) 30 8 US 552, 841 L Ed 464, 60 S. Ct. 97). U.S. District

Court also had jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 3237. U.S.

District Court abused its discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously

dismissing petitioners’ case on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for

the 11th Circuit abused its discretion by arbitrarily and ca-

priciously affirming U.S. District Court’s dismissal on 1/4/96.

18 U.S.C. § 3231: Respondents, including Secretary of

Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S.

Attorney and U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Trustee-governmental

units intentionally and recklessly and disregarded and violated

FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 26 U.S.C. §

7214(1), (2), (3) and (7). U.S. District Court had jurisdiction by

virtue of 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a). U.S. Supreme Court has held that

“Under language of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, District Court has

i neeeitcmtana i aiaieiiiaiiaaiieil

jurisdiction over offenses under U.S.C. Title 26. United States v.

Bammon (1984, CA 4 VA) 737 F2d 413, 15 Fed Rules Evid Serv

2037, Cert Den (1985) 469 US 1110, 83 Led 2d 783, 105 S. Ct.

789).

18 U.S.C. § 152: Case law states that “U.S. District Court

in district where bankruptcy was filed is Court with jurisdiction

for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 152, thus it is not necessary to

bring 18 U.S.C. § 152 action at location of actual concealment

(see United States v. Schireson (1940, CA3 Pa) 116 F2d 881, 132

ALR 1157).

ERBP_3002(c); Respondent and respondent’s agents

knowinglv, willfully and fraudulently filed an original proof of

claim for $21,760.02, on 6/14/90; illegally increased and

untimely filed an amended proof of claim for $56,500.02, on

7/26/90: in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), FRBP 3002(c),

18 U.S.C. § 152 and 1001, 26 U.S.C. § 7214 and 11 U.S.C. §

1305(a)(1). Approximately $14,250 were arbitrarily, capriciously,

knowingly, willfully and fraudulently collected during pendency

of the Chapter 13 proceeding, 2/7/90 to 11/7/94. Petitioners

objected to the claims on 5/14/94. U.S. Bankruptcy Court

disallowed $34,739.96 of the untimely and fraudulent proof of

claim on 9/30/94, but failed to disallow $21,760.06 of the

untimely and fraudulent claim. That decision is contrary to case

law which states that “if a creditor, in proving his claim, has

illegally increased the amount of it, or if a portion of the

consideration is good and a portion illegal, he will not be allowed,

on the detection of the fraud, to separate the good from the bad

and amend his proof, or to have it allowed for the valid portion

only, for his fraud taints the whole”. see In re Elder, D.C. Nev.

1870 Fed Cas. NO. 4326. Therefore, this petition should be

granted to determine whether the 11th Circuit’s decision is

without or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal or is essentially

irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to petitioners and

to provide relief.

LLULS.C. § 726(a)(1): Respondents’ (governmental units)

original proof of claim, $21,760.06, filed 6/14/90, and amended

proof of claim, $56,500.02, filed 7/26/90, are illegal, fraudulent,

untimely, barred by statutes of fraud, barred by FRBP 3092(c),

barred by IRS refusal to answer petitioners objections, and barred

by statute of limitation. Petitioners objected to both of these

claims on 5/14/94. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court Chapter 13

Trustee (governmental unit) arbitrarily, capriciously, knowingly

conspiratorially, willfully, maliciously, recklessly, intentionally

and fraudulently distributed approximately $14,250 of petitioners

assets to governmental units-United States of America Treasury

Department and Internal Revenue Service, from 3/7/90 to

11/7/94, during Chapter 13 pendency, in violation of 11 U.S.C.

§ 726(a\(1). The Supreme Court has held that “This title, and not

state law, governs the distribution of a bankrupt’s assets to

creditors”. See American Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Sampsell, Cal. 1946,

66 S. Ct. 571, 327 U.S. 269, 90 L. Ed. 663. The question of

proper distribution of bankrupt estates is a “federal question” (see

City of New York v. Rassner, C.C.A.N.Y. 1942, 127 F.2d 703, 49

Am. Bankr. Rep. N.S. 219). Therefore. respondents’ actions

should be reviewed. 1] U.S.C.A, 502(b)(1): Respondents’

agents-governmental units filed (7/26/90) an amended proof of

claim, $56,500.02, 36 days after bar date expired, and collected

approximately $14,250 during petitioners’ Chapter 13 pendency,

from 7/26/90 to 11/7/94. Petitioners filed civil action 93-CV-

1318-N on 11/1/93 and objected in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on

5/14/94. U.S. Bankruptcy Court arbitrarily and capriciously failed

to disallow $21,760.06 of the illegal, untimely and fraudulent a-

mended proof of claim, which was barred by statutes of fraud,

FRBP 3002(c), IRS refusal to answer petitioners’ objections. It is

well-settled by case law that U.S. Bankruptcy Court abused its

discretion, as indicated: 1) “Bankruptcy Court could not accept

late-filed claim in Chapter 13 case”. See re Crooker, Bkrtcy. E.D.

Ky. 1993, 159 B.R. 790.; 2) “Bankruptcy rule filing cutoff date

for filing claims is “applicable law” which can render claim

unenforceable and hence constitute ground for disallowance. see

Gray, Bkrtcy. E.D. Ky. 1994, 174 B.R. 228.; 3) “Late-filed claims

Chapter 13 cases are not allowed and ear barred, thereby

precluding any consideration of late-filed claim under Bankruptcy

Code provision on allowance of claims”. See In re Tucker,

Bkricy. N.D. Ill. 1994, 174 B.R. 732. and 4) “If creditor does not

file its claim in Chapter 13 case within 90 day period specified in

Federal Bankruptcy Rules, then by negative implication, creditor

can no longer file enforceable claim, or at least one that will be

allowed for purpose of debtor’s plan, i‘ objected to by debtor. See

In re Osborne, Bkrtcy. C.d. Cal. 1993, 159 B.R. 570, affirmed

167 B.R. 698.

26US.C.A. § 721 4a 1), (a2), (a3), (a7), and (a):

Respondents agents-governmental units arbitrarily, capriciously,

knowingly, recklessly, intentionally, willfully, maliciously,

fraudulently, illegally and conspiratorially filed (6/14/90) and

collected (3/7/90 to 7/25/90) an original proof of claim,

$21.760.06, and filed (7/26/90) and collected (7/26/90) to

11/7/94) an amended proof of claim, $56.500.02, collecting

approximately $14,250 during petitioners’ Chapter 13 pendency,

2/7/90 to 11/7/94, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7214(a)(1),

(a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(7). The original and amended proofs of

claim are illegal, fraudulent, untimely, barred by statutes of fraud,

barred by statute of limitation, barred by FRBP 3002(c) and

refusal of respondent (IRS) to answer petitioners’ objections to

the claims. Respondents’ IRS agents violated 26 U.S.C. §

7214(a\(8) by failing to report, in writing, such knowledge of the

26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a2), (a3) and (a)(7) violations to the

Secretary of Treasury. The United States Supreme Court has heid

that “Statute requiring internal revenue agent to report wrong-

doing of fellow agent is not unconstitutional on theory that it

requires agent to report activities which might involve himself in

criminal charge”. see U.S. v. Weiser, C.A. N.Y. 1969, 428 F. 2d

932, Certiorari denied 9] §. Ct. 1606, 402 U.S. 949, 29 L. Ed. 2d

119.

1] U.S.C.A. 1305(a)(1): This section provides for the

filing of a proof of claim for taxes incurred after the filing of the

Chapter 13 was filed 2/7/90. Respondents’ agents-governmental

units filed the original proof of claim for 1982, 1983, 1985 and

1986 tax years, $21,760.06, on 6/14/90, and the amended proof

of claim, $56,500.02, for 1982. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988

tax years, on 7/26/90. Tax obligations for 1982, 1983, 1985,

1986, 1987 and 1988 tax years occurred on 4/15/83, 4/15/84,

4/15/86, 4/15/87, 4/15/88, and 4/15/89, respectively or prior to

the date the Chapter 13 petition was filed, 2/7/90. Therefore,

respondents’ agents claims are prepetition claims, not postpetition

claims. Respondents’ agents-governmental units arbitrarily,

capriciously, fraudulently, maliciously, knowingly, recklessly,

intentionally, and conspiratorially filed the prepetition, untimely,

fraudulent and illegal original proof of claim and the amended

proof of claim, which were barred by the statute of fraud, barred

by statute of limitation, barred by FRBP 3002¢c) and barred by

IRS refusal to answer petitioners’ objections to the claims. The

persons entitled to file proof of claim are well-identified in Case

law-i.e. “under provision of Bankruptcy Code dealing with

postpetition claims, only holder of postpetition claim, as opposed

to debtor, trustee, or other parties in interest, may file proof of

claim”. In re Roseboro, Bkrtcy. W.D.N.C. 1987, 77 B.R. 38.

Therefore, respondents’ agents original and amended proofs of

claim are barred by virtue of the cited case law and 11 U.S.C. §

1305(a)(1). Therefore respondents’ actions should be reviewed.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION TO AFFIRM U.S.

DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION IS PLAINLY ARBITRARY,

CAPRICIOUS, ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, MATERIAL

MISTAKES OF LAW, CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL

INTENT, VIOLATES AND DENIES PETITIONERS IST, 5TH

AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THREATENS AND

REVERSES CONGRESSIONAL PUBLIC POLICY AND EVIS-

CERATES THE PROTECTION CONGRESS ACCORDED

PETITIONERS WHEN IT ENACTED 18 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3),

(4), (5), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6) AND LINES 8

THROUGH 14, RULES 17 AND 17(a) OF FEDERAL RULES

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

a. Petitioner's complaint clearly shows that they

pleaded U.S. District Court Jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.S.C. §

152, where respondents willfully, knowingly and fraudulently

conspired and collected federal income taxes in violations of 1]

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), FRBP 3002(c), 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(1) and (a)(6). Case law states that “U.S. District Court in

district where bankruptcy was filed is court with jurisdiction for

prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 152, that it is not necessary to

bring 18 U.S.C. § 152 action at location of actual concealment

(see United States v. Schireson (1940, CA3 Pa) 116 F2d 881, 132

ALR 1157). The U.S. District Court abused its discretion by

arbitrarily and capriciously failing to assume its legal jurisdiction

under 18 U.S.C. § 152, 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and

18 U.S.C. § 3237, on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit, abused its discretion by affirming U.S. District Court’s

decision on 1/4/96. The cited U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit’s judicial act is illegal or is essentially irregular

or prejudicial and materially harmful to the petitioners, including

denial of freedom to petition for redress of grievances. The U.S.

Supreme Court held that “Right to petition for redress of

grievances is among most precious of liberty safeguard by Bill of

Rights and this right is intimately connected both in origin and in

purpose, with other First Amendment rights of free speech and

free press (see United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn.

(1967) 389 US 217, 19 L Ed 2d 426, 88 S. Ct. 353, 42 Ohio Ops

2d 394,66 BNA LRRM 2627, 56 CHHLC//12314). The arbitrary

and capricious collecting of federal income taxes, approximately

$14,250, in violation of FRBP 3002(c), 18 U.S.C. § 152, 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6), is

deprivation of property without due process of law, violation of

Sth and 14th Amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court held that

“deprivation of property without due process of law within mean-

ing of Fourteenth Amendment occurs when it results from

arbitrary exercise of power inconsistent with those settled usages

and modes of proceeding existing in common and statute law of

England before immigration of our ancestors, and which are

shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political

condition by having been acted on by them after settlement of this

country (see Tracy v. Ginzberg (1907) 205 US 170, 51L Ed 755,

27. S. Ct. 461). Therefore, this petition should be granted to

determine whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s

decision is without or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal or is

essentially irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to the

petitioners and to provide relief to petitioners.

b. Petitioners, as the 93-H-1318-N docket shows,

filed on 1/10/94, 68 days prior to dismissal (3/18/94) a Motion to

Amend their complaint, as authorized by Rule 17(a) of Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. District Court arbitrarily and

capriciously failed to grant or deny petitioners’ 1/10/94 Motion

to Amend the Complaint, which added United States of America,

as party defendant in Case #93-H-1318-N. On 3/18/94, U.S.

District Court dismissed petitioners’ case for not suing proper

party-defendant. The dismissal is contrary to lines 8 through 14,

Rule 17(a)-Real Party in Interest of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which states that “no action shall be dismissed on

grounds that it is not prosecuted in the names of the real party in

interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection

for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or

substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification,

joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action

had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest”.

Clearly, U.S. District Court violated petitioners’ Ist, 5th, and 14th

amendment rights. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

arbitrarily and capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court’s

decision on 1/4/96. Therefore, this petition should be granted to

determine whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s

decision is without or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal or is

essentially irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to the

petitioners and to provide relief to petitioners.

II. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION TO AFFIRM USS.

DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION IS PLAINLY ARBITRARY,

CAPRICIOUS, ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, MATERIAL

MISTAKES OF LAW, CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL

INTENT, VIOLATES AND DENIES PETITIONERS’ 1ST, 5TH

AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THREATENS AND

REVERSES CONGRESSIONAL PUBLIC POLICY AND EVIS-

CERATES THE PROTECTION CONGRESS ACCORDED

PETITIONERS WHEN IT EN ACTED 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1)

AND (b), 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) and FRBP

3002(c).

a. Respondents, Secretary of Treasury,

Commissioner of IRS, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter

13 Trustee and respondents’ Internal Revenue Service agents-the

governmental units, during the 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6)

automatic stay, 2/7/90 to 11/7/94, filed (6/14/90) and collected

(3/7/90 to 7/25/90) a false and fraudulent original proof of claim,

$21,760.06, and untimely filed (7/26/90), 36 days after 6/20/90

bar date expired, and collected (7/26/90 to 11/7/94) a false and

fraudulent amended proof of claim for $56,500.02, in which

approximately $14,250 was falsely, knowingly, and fraudulently

collected. Petitioners’ complaint clearly shows that they pleaded

U.S. District Court jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 1001,

where respondents, Secretary of Treasury, Commissioner of IRS,

U.S. Attorney, U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Trustee, respondents’

Internal Revenue Service agents, governmental units, willfully,

maliciously, intentionally, recklessly, illegally, knowingly, and

fraudulently collected the false and fraudulent original and

amended proof of claim, from 3/7/90 to 11/7/94. The U.S.

Supreme Court held that “knowingly and fraudulently making a

false oath or account in, or in relation to, any proceeding in

bankruptcy, constitutes a punishable offense under former section

52 of title 11” (see Kowoloff v. U.S., C.C.A. Ill. 1912, 202 F475,

cen den 33 S. Ct. 217, 226 U.S. 609, 57 L. Ed. 380 and Edelstein

v. U.S., C.C.A. Minn. 1906, 149 F 636, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 649,

Car den 27 S. Ct. 791, 205 U.S. 543, 51 L. Ed. 922). U.S. District

Court had jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 violations by virtue of

18 U.S.C. § 3237, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)

and (a)(6) violations by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 362(h). U.S. District

Court abused its discretion and arbitrarily and capriciously

dismissed petitioners’ case on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for

the 11th Circuit abused its discretion and arbitrarily and

capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court’s decision to dismiss on

1/4/96, which violates petitioners’ Ist, 5th and 14th amendment

rights. Therefore, this petition should be granted to determine

whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s decision is

without or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal, or is essentially

irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to the’ petitioners

and to provide relief to petitioners.

b. Petitioners, as the 93-H-1318-N docket shows,

filed on 1/10/94, 68 days prior to dismissal (3/18/94) a Motion to

Amend their complaint, as authorized by Rule 17(a) of Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. District Court arbitrarily and

capriciously failed to grant or deny petitioners’ 1/10/94 Motion

to Amend the Complaint, which added United States of America,

as party defendant in Case #93-H-1318-N. On 3/18/94, U.S.

District Court dismissed petitioners’ case for not suing proper

party defendant. The dismissal is contrary to lines 8 through 14,

Rule 17(a)-Real Party in Interest of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which states that “no action shall be dismissed on

grounds that it is not prosecuted in the names of the real party in

interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection

for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or

substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification,

joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action

had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest”.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit arbitrarily and

capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court’s decision on 1/4/96.

Therefore, this petition should be granted to determine whether

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s decision is without

or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal or is essentially irregular or

prejudicial and materially harmful to the petitioners and to

provide relief to petitioners.

c. The original and amended proofs of claim are

false, fraudulent, illegal, improper and untimely, violating 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 1001, FRBP 3002(c) and 11

U.S.C. § 502(b)(1).

d. U.S. Bankruptcy Court erred in not disallowing the

entire amended proof of claim, $56,500.02 as required by FRBP

3002(c) and 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), because the claim is un-

enforceable against debtors and property of the debtors due to

fraud, untimeliness and falseness, statute of limitation 11 U.S.C. —

§ 1305(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 152 and 1001, and 26 U.S.C. § 7214

violations. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1 1th Circuit abused its

discretion by affirming U.S. District Court’s dismissal decisions

on 3/18/94. Therefore, the decision to allow $21,760.06 of the

illegal, untimely, false, improper and fraudulent amended proof

of claim should be reviewed ( 11 U.S.C. § 502(j)).

Ill. |. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION TO AFFIRM U.S.

DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION IS PLAINLY ARBITRARY, |

CAPRICIOUS, ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, MATERIAL

MISTAKES OF LAW, CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL

INTENT, DENIED PETITIONERS’ IST, 5TH AND 14TH

AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THREATENS AND REVERSES

CONGRESSIONAL PUBLIC POLICY AND EVISCERATES

THE PROTECTION CONGRESS ACCORDED PETITIONERS

WHEN IT ENACTED 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a\(1), 11 U.S.C: §

1305(a)(1) AND (b), 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2) AND(a)(7),

26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and 7433, AND 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) AND

(b) and 26 U.S.C. § 6502.

a. Paragraph 2, lines one (1) to five (5) of US.

District Court’s order, Appendix 6, filed 3/18/94, states that “This

court lacks jurisdiction to entertain actions for recovery of any

internal revenue tax or penalty unless the taxpayer has paid the

amount of the tax assessment in full and also has filed a timely

claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service”.

b. On 2/7/90, petitioners filed a Chapter 13 petition

for period 2/7/90 to 11/7/94. Respondents, Secretary of Treasury,

Commissioner of IRS, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter

13 trustee, and respondents’ Internal Revenue Service agents-

governmental units, iilegally, intentionally, recklessly,

knowingly, wiilfully and fraudulently filed (6/14/90) and

collected (3/7/90 to 7/25/90) a false and fraudulent original proof

of claim, $21,760.06, and untimely filed (7/26/90) and collected

(7/26/90 to 11/7/94) a false and fraudulent amended proof of

claim, $56,500.02, collecting approximately $14,250, in violation

of 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1), 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), FRBP 3002(c),

18 U.S.C. § 152 and 1001, 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11

- U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) automatic stay.

c. Case law states that “Internal Revenue Service

(IRS), by filing proof of claim in Chapter 13 proceeding, was

deemed to have waived its sovereign immunity with respect to

that claim, and thus could be held liable for willful violation of

Stay arising out of its postpetition collection attempt, even though

debtors’ claim for damages arose after confirmation of plan for

discharge of their debts” (see In re Price, N.D. Ill. 1991, 130 B.R.

259). Therefore, in petitioners’ case, Secretary of Treasury, Com-

missioner of IRS, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 13

trustee, Internal Revenue Service-governmentai units, are liable

for fraudulently, willfully and knowingly violating 11 U.S.C. §

362(a)(1) and (a)(6), the automatic stay and FRBP 3002(c), 18

U.S.C. § 152 and 1001, 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b).

d. Case law states that, “waiver of sovereign

immunity with respect to claims against the United States applies

when claims against the United States is property of estate, when

United States has filed claim against estate, and when claim arises

out of same transaction or occurrence giving rise to United States’

claim” (see In re Malmart Mortgage Co., Inc., Bkrtcy. D. Mass.

1989, 109 B.R. 1). Consequently, the United States and the other

governmental units previously cited are liable. Petitioners filed

civil action 93-H-1318-N on 11/1/93. U.S. Court of Appeals for

the 1 1th Circuit arbitrarily and capriciously affirmed U.S. District

Court’s dismissal on 1/4/96.

e. Case law states that “waiver of sovereign

immunity contained in Bankruptcy Code may be asserted by

claimant in Bankruptcy Court or district court, of which bank-

ruptcy court is a unit (see Anderson v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.,

C.A. 4(S.C.) 1990, 918 F2d 1139). Petitioners filed civil action

93-H-1318-N on 11/1/93. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit arbitrarily and capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court's

dismissal! on 1/4/96.

f. On 11/1/93, petitioners, under duress for Internal

Revenue Service, collecting (from 3/7/90 to 11/7/94) false and

fraudulent proofs of claims for federal income taxes, in violation

of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6); 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and

(b); 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2), (a(7); 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h);

26 U.S.C. § 6501(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and 18 U.S.C. § 152(2),

(3), (4) and (5), and in PROTEST filed Civil Action 93-H-1318-

N, as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).

11 U.S.C. § 362(h), 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and

18 U.S.C. § 3237. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

arbitrarily and capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court's

dismissal on 1/4/96.

g. Case law states that “By statutes authorizing suits

for tax refunds, United States waived its sovereign immunity

from suit and did away with necessity of payment under protest

in all actions for the recovery of taxes, but no statute enlarged

collectors common-law liability to suit; taxpayer had common-

law right recognized by statute to sue collector in Court of United

States for recovery of taxes wrongfully collected” (see Howard v.

United States (1942, CA 5 La) 125 F2986, 42-1 USTC//10134, 28

AFTR 1198).

h. Petitioners, as the 93-H-1318-N docket shows,

filed on 1/10/94, 68 days prior to dismissal (3/18/94) a Motion to

Amend their complaint, as authorized by Rule 17(a) of Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. District Court arbitrarily and

capriciously failed to grant or deny petitioners’ 1/10/94 Motion

to Amend the Complaint, which added United States of America

as party defendant in Case #93-H-1318-N. On 3/18/94, U.S.

District Court dismissed petitioners’ case for not suing proper

party defendant. The dismissal is contrary to lines 8 through 14,

Rule 17(a)-Real Party in Interest of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which states that “no action shall be dismissed on

grounds that it is not prosecuted in the names of the real party in

interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection

for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or

substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification,

joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action

had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest”.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit arbitrarily and

capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court’s decision on 1/4/96.

Therefore, this petition should be granted to determine whether

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s decision is without

or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal or is essentially irregular or

prejudicial and materially harmful to the petitioners and to

provide relief to petitioners.

i. The facts of this case unequivocally show that U.S.

District Court arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed petitioners’

case on 3/18/94. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

arbitrarily and capriciously affirmed U.S. District Court’s

decision on 1/4/96. Therefore, this petition should be granted to

determine whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s

decision is without or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal or is

essentially irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to the

petitioners and provide relief to petitioners.

IV. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION TO DENY THE

FILING OF PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR REHEARING

UNLESS: 1) THEIR 13-1/2 PAGE PETITION IS REDUCED TO

15 PAGES; 2) REMOVAL OF ALL EXHIBITS, ADDENDA

OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM THE PETITION FOR

REHEARING; INCLUDING EXHIBITS #11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

22 AND 23 (EVIDENCE OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

OFFENSES PERPETRATED UPON PETITIONERS BY

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS-GOVERN-

MENTAL UNITS) AND 3) PETITION BE FILED BY 3/26/96,

IS PLAINLY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ERRONEOUS,

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ILLEGAL, MATERIAL

MISTAKES OF LAW, DENIAL OF PETITIONERS IST. 5TH

AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, ABUSE OF

DISCRETION, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, THREATENS

AND REVERSES CONGRESSIONAL PUBLIC POLICY, AND

EVISCERATES THE PROTECTION CONGRESS ACCORDS

PETITIONERS WHEN IT ENACTED 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 18

U.S.C. § 152(2), (3), (4), AND 5), 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 11 U.S.C.

§ 106(a)(1) and (b); 26 U.S.C. § 7422(b), 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a)

AND (b), RULE 3002(c) OF FEDERAL RULES OF

BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE, 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) and

7433(a), 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (a) AND (b), 11

U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. §

1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(2) AND (3), 1986, 1987, AND 1988; 11

U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) AND (a)(6); 11 U.S.C. § 726 (a)(1),; 11

U.S.C. § 1141(a); 11 U.S.C. § 1143; 11 U.S.C. § 1205(b)(4); 11

U.S.C. § 105; 18 U.S.C. § 2, 3, AND 4; 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A),

(1B) AND (1)(D), 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (EXTORTION); 18 U.S.C.

§ 1513(RETALIATION),; 11 U.S.C. § 525; 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 26

U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), (a)(2) AND (a)(7); 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1),

(a)(2) AND (a)(4), FREEDOM TO PETITION FOR REDRESS

(1ST AMENDMENT), DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITH-

OUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (STH AMENDMENT), EQUAL

PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (14TH AMENDMENT),

FRAP 31(b), 32(a), 40 AND 40(b).

a. The regulatory, statutory and constitutional

authorities, cited in paragraph IV above, have been violated and

the related civil and criminal offenses have been perpetrated upon

petitioners, violating and denying petitioners’ civil rights,

statutory rights and constitutional rights, resulting in more than

$14,250 for federal income taxes being knowingly, fraudulently,

recklessly, willfully, conspiratorially, EXTORTED and COL-

LECTED from petitioners during their Chapter 13 pendency,

2/7/90 to 11/7/94, in violation of FRBP 3002(c), 18 U.S.C. § 245, .

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), 18 U.S.C.

§ 1513 (b)(2) (Retaliation), 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(6)

automatic stay, by respondents, Secretary of Treasury,

Commissioner of IRS, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter

13 trustee and respondents’ agents-governmental units, from

3/7/90 to 11/7/94, while petitioners sought to put their financial

affairs in order.

b. United States Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit, by its Order of 3/12/96, Appendices 3, 4, 9 and 10, has

suppressed the evidence of the civil offenses and criminal

offenses of the government officers and employees (see exhibits

11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Appendices 60 & 61) by

ordering it removed from petitioners’ Rehearing Petition, as a

condition to FILE the petition, although punishable 18 U.S.C. §

152 and 1001 violations and jurisdiction was pleaded on

petitioners’ complaint. Therefore, this petition should be granted

to determine whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1 1th Circuit’s

decision is without or in excess of its jurisdiction, illegal,

obstruction of justice, unconstitutional, abuse of discretion, or is

essentially irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to

petitioners and to provide relief to petitioners.

V. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISIONS CANNOT BE

RECONCILED WITH OTHER DECISIONS MADE BY THE

TEN (10) OTHER CIRCUITS WITH RESPECT TO

ASSUMING JURISDICTION OF 18 U.S.C. § 152, 18 U.S.C. §

1000 AND 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) CASES AND ABUSE OF

DISCRETION IN ACCEPTING STATUTORILY LEGAL

PETITIONS FOR REHEARING, AS AUTHORIZED BY FRAP

31,32 AND 40.

a. Shepherd's’s United States Citations show that:

l. All the circuits processed 18 U.S.C. § 152 cases

related to bankruptcy (i.e. BRW).

ps Only the seventh circuit had processed an 18

U.S.C. § 1001 case related to bankruptcy (i.e. BRW). .

3. Only the second circuit and seventh circuit had

processed a 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) case related to bankruptcy

(i.e. BRW). b. Petitioners did not locate any evidence

relative to abuse of discretion in accepting statutorily legal

petitions for rehearing, as authorized by FRAP 31, 32 and 40. The

conflicts between the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh

Circuit Court of Appeals, and various other Circuit courts,

coupled with the importance of the issues, including extortion of

more than $14,250 in federal income taxes from petitioners’

warrants review by this Court.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Ruan ackson, sel of Record

K Mar

Rogefs Mae Jackson

225 Conrad Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36110 3/25/96

App. |

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6766

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. CV-93-H-1318-N

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) DIVISION

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY JNO. 94-6766

OF TREASURY, )

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. )MUNDER SEAL)

) (Filed

) Jan. 4,

1996)

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and CARNES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond and Rogers Mae Jackson filed a civil complaint pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). They appealed from the District

Court’s dismissal of that complaint, or depending upon resolution

of a jurisdictional issue, from the District Court’s dismissal of

their motion for a new trial. Having read the briefs and considered

the pertinent parts of the record, we conclude that decision of the

jurisdictional issue is not necessary to disposition of this appeal.

App. 2

Assuming the notice of appeal was timely, we hold that the

Jacksons’ civil complaint was properly dismissed. Assuming the

dismissal of the motion for a new trial is what is before us, we

hold that the district court did not err in that respect either.

AFFIRMED.

DATED: JANUARY 4.1996

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6766

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) DIVISION

Vv. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY ) NO. 94-6766

OF TREASURY, )

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ) (UNDER

SEAL)

) ~° Filed

) Jan. 4,

1996)

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

ORDER:

Appellants’ motion for entry of judgment is DENIED

App. 3

AS MOOT.

/s/ Ed Carnes

United States Circuit Judge

DATED: JANUARY 4, 1996

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6766

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) DIVISION

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY )NO. 94-6766

OF TREASURY, )

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ) (UNDER

SEAL)

) (Filed

) Mar 12,

- 1996)

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

ORDER:

Appellants’ “Response to U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit’s Allegation...,” construed as a motion to accept

App. 4

Appellants’ rehearing petition as is, is DENIED. Appellants are

ORDERED to file a rehearing petition not in excess of 15 pages

within 14 days of the date of this order. Appellants are further

ORDERED not to attach any exhibits, addenda or other materials

to their rehearing petition.

s/s Ed Carnes, United States Circuit Judge

DATED: MARCH 12, 1996

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6766

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) DIVISION

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY ) NO. 94-6766

OF TREASURY, )

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ) (UNDER

SEAL)

) €iled

) Jun 02,

1995)

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

BEFORE: KRAVITCH, COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

App. 5

Appellants’ motion for relief from judgment is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal in the district court.

DATED: TUNE 2, 1995

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs ) NO. 93-H-1318-N

)

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, as Secretary )

of the Treasury of the )

United States of America ) (UNDER SEAL)

) (Mar 18,

Defendant ) 1994)

ORDER

This Court has considered defendant’s motion to dismiss

and plaintiffs’ objection to said motion. For the following reasons,

this case is due to be and is hereby DISMISSED.

1. The proper party defendant to such a claim as

plaintiffs seek to bring in this Court is the United States of

America, not Lloyd Bentsen.

y This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain actions

for recovery of any internal revenue tax or penalty unless the

taxpayer has paid the amount of the tax assessment in full and also

has filed a timely claim for refund with the Internal Revenue

Service. Plaintiffs’ complaint makes clear that they are seeking a

refund of taxes, interest and penalty which are allegedly “due”

rather than paid. Plaintiffs have filed a brief opposing the motion

to dismiss, but again do not assert such payment, nor do they

App. 6

claim that they have filed any claim for refund with the Internal

Revenue Service. The claims filed by the United States in the

bankruptcy court are subject to challenge in said court. Plaintiffs

cannot, by calling such a challenge a refund suit, create jurisdiction

in this court.

DONE this 18th day of March, 1994.

/s/ Truman Hobbs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: MARCH 18, 1994

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs ) NO. 93-H-1318-N

)

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY )

of the Treasury of the )

United States of America. ) (EOD

) Apr 8,

Defendant ) 1994)

ORDER

On March 18, 1994, this Court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit

because (1) plaintiffs had sued the Secretary of the Treasury rather

than the United States and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction to

entertain actions for a tax refund unless the taxpayer had paid the

amount of the tax assessment in full. On March 21, 1994, plaintiffs

filed “Objections to Opposition of United States to Plaintiffs’

Motion to Amend Complaint,” and on March 28, 1994, plaintiffs

filed a motion to amend complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend

tule beak ae fe pe ge ee a

bare ashen Noss

cea

App. 7

their complaint sought to add the United States as a party

defendant. Plaintiffs also sought ¢» re-argue that cheir suit is for

fraud and extortion by the Internal Revenue Service in that the

IRS is seeking to collect a wrongful tax assessment of $9,771.02

from plaintiffs which is a “fraudulent, arbitrary, malicious abuse of

power”. However plaintiffs describe the conduct and assessment

of the IRS, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this

suit for the reasons hereinbefore stated. Plaintiffs can challenge the

assessment in the United States Bankruptcy Court which has

before it the IRS claim.

The motions of plaintiffs filed subsequent to the dismissal

of this suit are DENIED.

DONE this eighth day of April, 1994.

/s/ Truman Hobbs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: APRIL 8, 1994

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON; )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs ) NO. 93-H-1318-N

)

I. )

I LOYD BENTSEN, Secretary )

¢. the Treasury of the )

wnited States of America ) (UNDER SEAL)

Defendant )

ORDER

On April 25, 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their

complaint and “make additional findings of facts.” This Court

App. 8

previously on March 18, 1994 had granted defendant’s motion to

dismiss CA No. 1318-N for the reasons stated in said order. On

March 21, 1994, plaintiffs filed objections “to opposition of

United States to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint. In

response thereto this Court issued a second order on April 8, 1994

advising plaintiffs that this case had been dismissed on March 18,

1994. This Court appropriately cannot entertain plaintiffs’ motions

filed on April 25, 1994, as plaintiffs were previously advised that

a final order had been entered on march 18, 1994.

DONE this 9th day of June, 1994.

/s/ Truman Hobbs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: TUNE 9, 1994

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs ) NO. 93-H-1318-N

)

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, as )

Secretary of the Treasury )

United States of America. ) (UNDER SEAL)

Defendant ) (Aug 1,

) 1994)

ORDER

On July 21, 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion styled Motion

for a New Trial. This Court cannot entertain plaintiffs’ motion

filed on July 21, 1994, as a final order dismissing plaintiffs’

complaint was issued on March 18, 1994. See Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(b). Plaintiffs’ motion on July 21 is dismissed.

App. 9

DONE this Ist day of August, 1994.

/s/ Trumar Hobbs, UNITED STATES D: 5TRICT JUDGE

DATED: aUGUST 1, 1994

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6766

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL ACTION

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) NO. 93-H-1318-N

)

Vv. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY )

OF TREASURY, )

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ) (UNDER SEAL

) Mar 12,

) 1996)

On Appeai from the United States District Court for the ~

Middle District of Alabama

ORDER:

Appellants’ “Response to U.S. Court of Appeals for th

Eleventh Circuit’s Allegation...,” construed as a motion to

accept Appellants’ rehearing petition as is, is DENIED. Ap-

pellants are ORDERED to file a rehearing petition not in excess

of 15 pages within 14 days of the date of this order. Appellants

are further ORDERED not to attach any exhibits, addenda or

other materials to their rehearing petition.

App. 10

/s/ Ed Carnes, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

DATED: MARCH 12, 1996

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6766

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. CV-93-H-1318-N

RAYMOND JACKSON, )

ROGERS MAE JACKSON, ) CIVIL ACTION

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) NO. 93-H-1318-N

)

V. )

LLOYD BENTSEN, SECRETARY )

OF TREASURY, )

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ) (UNDER SEAL

) Jan 4,

) 1996)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and CARNES,

Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause came to be heard on the transcript of the

record from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Alabama, and was taken under submission by the

Court upon the record and briefs on file, pursuant to Eleventh

Py ae ye se Rar TR PE OMIM FOr»

mes OE GOGOL PAE OS ee

7) ie

App. 11

Circuit Rule 34-3;

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now

hereby ordered and adjudged by this Court that the order of the

said District Court appealed from in this cause be and the same

is hereby AFFIRMED;

If is further ordered that plaintiffs-appellants pay de-

fendant-appellee the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of

this Court.

Entered: January 4, 1996

For the Court: Miguel J. Cortez, Clerk

By: Matt Davidson, Deputy Clerk

ISSUED AS MANDATE: 4/8/96

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

LLUS.C. § 106. Waiver of sovereign immunity, provides:

(a) Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity,

sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a government unit to the

extent set forth in this section with respect to the following:

(1) Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 303, 346, 362, 363,

364, 365, 366, 502, 503, 505, 506, 510, 522, 523, 524, 525,

542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553,

722, 724, 726, 728, 744, 749, 764, 901, 922, 926, 928, 929,

944, 1107, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1146, 1201, 1203, 1205, 1206,

1227, 1231, 1301, 1303, 1305 and 1327 of this title.

(2) The Court may hear and determine any issue arising

with respect to the application of such sections to governmental

units.

(3) The Court may issue against a governmental unit an

order, process, or judgment under such sections or the Federal

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including an order or judgment

awarding a money recovery, but not including an award of

punitive damages. Such order or judgment for costs or fees

App. 12

under this title or the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

against any governmental unit shall be consistent with the

provisions and limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).

(4) The enforcement of any such order, process, or

judgment against any governmental unit shall be consistent with

appropriate nonbankruptcy law applicable to such governmental

unit and, in the case of a money judgment against the United

States, shall be paid as if it is a judgment rendered by a district

court of the United States.

(5) Nothing in this section shall create any substantive

claim for relief or cause of action not otherwise existing under

this title, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, or non-

bankruptcy law.

(b) A governmental unit that has filed a proof of claim in

the case is deemed to have waived sovereign immunity with

respect to a claim against such governmental unit that is

property of the estate and that arose out of the same transaction

or occurrence out of which the claim of such government unit

arose.

immunity by a governmental unit, there shall be offset against a

claim or interest of a governmental unit any claim against such

governmental unit that is property of the estate.

LLUS.C. § 362(a1) ve .

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a

petition filed under Section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an

application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor

Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. § 78eee(a)(3)), operates as a

stay, applicable to all entities, of (1) the commencement or

continuation, including the issuance or employment of process,

of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding a-

gainst the debtor that was or could have been commenced

before the commencement of the case under this title, or to

recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the

commencement of the case under this title.

App. 13

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a

petition filed under section 301, 302 or 303 of this title, or an

application filed under 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor

Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. § 78eee(a)(3)), operates as a

stay, applicable to all entities of (6) any act to collect, assess, or

recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the

commencement of the case under this title.

26 U.S.C. § 7422(b) provides:

Such suit or proceeding may be maintained whether or

not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or

duress.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction,

concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims of:

(1) any civil action against the United States for the recovery of

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.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 provides:

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any

department or agency of the United States knowingly and

willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or

device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or

fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any

false writing or document knowing the same to contain any

false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

A person who knowingly and fraudulently makes a false

oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11 shall

be fined not more than $5000, imprisoned not more than 5

years, or both.

App. 14

18 U.S.C. § 152(3) provides:

A person who knowingly and fraudulently makes a false

declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty

of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in

relation to any case under title 11, shall be fined not more than

$5000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §

152(4) provides:

A person who knowingly and fraudulently presents any

false claim for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any

such claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or

as or through on agent, proxy, or attorney, shall be fined not

more than $5000, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.

18 U.S.C. § 152(S) provides:

A person who knowingly and fraudulently receives any

material amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a

case under title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of title

11, shall be fined not more than $5000, imprisoned not more

than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 3057(a), provides:

Any judge, receiver or trustee having reasonable

grounds for believing that any violation under Chapter 9 (i.e.

Bankruptcy, 18 U.S.C. § 152) of this title or other laws of the

United States relating to insolvent debtors, receiverships or

reorganization plans has been committed, or that an

investigation should be had in connection therewith, shall report

to the appropriate United States attorney all the facts and

circumstances of the case, the names of the witnesses and the

offense or offenses believed to have been committed. Where

one of such officers has made such report, the others need not

do so. 18 U.S.C. § 3057(b) provides:

The United States attorney thereupon shall inquire into

the facts and report thereon to the referee, and if it appears

probable that any such offense has been committed, shall

without delay, present the matter to the grand jury, unless upon

inquiry and examination he decides that the ends of public

App. 15

justice do not require investigation or prosecution, in which

case he shall report the facts to the Attorney General for his

direction.

Rule 3002(c) of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

In a Chapter 7 liquidation, Chapter 12 family farmer’s

debt adjustment, or Chapter 13 individual’s debt adjustment

case, a proof of claim shall be filed within 90 days after the first

date set for the meeting of creditors called pursuant to 11

U.S.C. § 341(a).

No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any Court

for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been

erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty

claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum

alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully

collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed

with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that

regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in

pursuance thereof.

26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) provides:

If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with

respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal

Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally disregards any

provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this

title, such taxpayers may bring a civil action for damages a-

gainst the United States in a district court of the United States.

Except as provided in 26 U.S.C. § 7432, such civil action shall

be the exclusive remedy for recovering damages resulting from

such actions.

28 U.S.C. § 1340 provides:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any

civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing for

internal revenue, or revenue from imports or tonnage except

matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International

App. 16

Trade.

LULUS.C. § 1327(a) provides:

The provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and

each creditor, whether or not the claim of such creditor is

provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has

objected to, has accepted, or has rejected the plan.

The district courts of the United States shall have

original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all

offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this

title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the

courts of the several States under the laws thereof.

28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) provides:

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the

district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all

cases under title 11.

28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) provides:

Notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers

exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than district

courts, the district courts shall have original but not exclusive

jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or

arising in or related to cases under title 11.

18 U.S.C. § 402 provides:

Any person, corporation or association willfully

disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or

command of any district court of the United States or any court

of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or

thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such

character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any

statue of the United States or under the laws of any State in

which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such

contempt as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3691 of this title and shall

be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment or both.

26US.C. § 7214 (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(7) provides

(a)(1): Any officer or employee of the United States

App. 17

acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States-

who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color

of law; or

(a)(2): Who knowingly demands other or greater sum

than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation,

or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of

any duty; or

(a)(3): Who with intent to defeat the application of any

provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his

office or employment; or

(a)(7): Who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any

book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or

statement; shall be dismissed from office or discharged from

employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not

more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or

both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so

imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the

use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the

judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment

against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages

sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by

execution.

11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) and (b), filing and allowance of post-

TROT 4

(a)(1): A proof of claim may be filed by any entity that

holds a claim against the debtor (1) for taxes that become

payable to a governmental unit while the case is pending.

(b): Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section,

a claim filed under subsection (a) of this section shall be allowed

or disallowed under section 502 of this title, but shall be

determined as of the date such claim arises, and shall be allowed

under section 502(a), 502(b), or 502(c) of this title, or

disallowed under section 502(d) or 502(e) of this title, the same

as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the

petition.

App. 18

26 U.S.C. § 6503(h). Cases under title 11 of the United States

Code provides:

The running of the period of limitations provided in

section 6501 and 6502 on the making of assessments or

collection shall, in a case under title 11 of the United Code, be

suspended for the period during which the Secretary is

prohibited by reason of such case from making the assessment

or from collecting and

(1) for assessment, 60 days thereafter, and

(2) for collection, 6 months thereafter.

(a): A claim or interest, proof of which is filed under

section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless a party in

interest, including a creditor of a general partner in a

partnership that is a debtor in a case under Chapter 7 of this

title, objects.

(b)(1): Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g),

(h), and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made,

the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount

of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the

date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in

such amount, except to the extent that

(1) Such ciaim is unenforceable against the debtor and

property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law

for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or

unmatured.

LLUS.C. § 301, Voluntary Cases, provides:

A voluntary case under a chapter of this title is

commenced by the filing with the bankruptcy court of a petition

under such chapter by an entity that may be a debtor under such

chapter. The commencement of a voluntary cases under a

chapter of this title constitutes an order for relief under such

chapter.

LLULS.C. § 302 Joint Cases provides:

(a) A joint case under a chapter of this title is

App. 19

commenced by the filing with the bankruptcy court of a single

petition under such chapter by an ‘sdividual that may be a

debtor under such chapter and such individual’s spouse. The

commencement of a joint case under a chapter of this title

constitutes an order for relief under such chapter.

(b) After the commencement of a joint case, the court

shall determine the extent, if any, to which the debtor’s estates

shall be consolidated.

42 U.S.C. § 1981. Equa) Rights under th« Law, provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States

shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make

and enforce contact, to sue, by parties, give evidence, and to the

full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the

security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,

and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,

licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

42 U.S.C. § 1982, Property Rights of Citizens, provides:

All citizens of the United States shall have the sam

right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white

citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey

real and personal property.

provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or

Territory or District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United or other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the constitution and laws,

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.