# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jackson v. Rubin

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_1390%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1996
- **Citation:** 518 U.S. 1020

## 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
1.

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

iV

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?
V.

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

Vv
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. §

vi

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,

ix
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

x

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

xi
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?

X.

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

xv
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

xx
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 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

xl
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,

26
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: ) 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

li
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

lv

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

13
13
13
13
14
14

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)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
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

19

19, 20
20, 21

21

21, 22
22

22

22

22, 23
23
23
23
23, 24
24
24, 25

25
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)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)

App. No.

26
26, 27
27
27
27, 28
28
28
28
28, 29

29
29
29, 30
30

38-41

36-41

Ix

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)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)
Rule 14.1(i)(v)

Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

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

l

2

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

3

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)

4

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,

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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

10

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

1]

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

12
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.

~

13

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.

14

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

15

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.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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,

22

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,

23

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

24

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

25

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).

26

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

27

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 P

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_1390%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.