Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Carter v. United States

ip ?

panies

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1992

James E. Carter &

Shirley L. Carter, Petitioners,

Vv

United States of America and

-Gary Jones, Revenue Officer of the

Internal Revenue Service, Respondenis.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

James E. Carter and

Shirley L. Carter, Pro Se

Route One, Box 524

Harrisonville, Missouri 64701

(816) 869-3278

July, 1993

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

i Do the constitutional standands of duo

process horn nleading, as annicahle toa tax

investigation action. nequine a netitionen

to aver:

a. the Legal authority that inkorms tho

respondent what individual conduct on

hit part imposes Leqal rersnonsibivity

for, orn makes him subject to, a snecisic

tax, and submit this authority/issue of

Law (64 whether the respondent is a

"Laxpayer”) to contestation ?

6. what must be proven at trial/hearina

in clear and unequivocal Panquaae ?

a [4 true, (and neither the qoveranment’s

brief nor any court document has ever

Auggested they ane not true), can these

constitutional standards properfu be neaqated

orn 4gnored by the court of anneal, by

rneLiance on a Atatute and upon obiter dicta

by this court ?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (continued)

IA fiurisdiction (contingent by

Atatute upon "appropriate process” )

properly invoked by a form identified asa

petition but void of legal substance

nequirned by due process ?

4. In addition to statutory authorization,

must a federal taxing aqencu trace anu

asserted authority for taxation dinect@u to

a constitutional provision to invoke the

jurisdiction of a court ?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS AAA

CITATIONS v

OPINION BELOW 1

JURISDICTION, LAWS [INVOLVED 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 16

CONCLUSION 2&

APPENDIX

OPINION BELOW Ae

ORDERS DENYING REHEARING & A= 7

REHEARING EN BANC

PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC a: <4

PETITION TO ENFORCE [.R.S. SUMMONS A - 29

IN DISTRICT COURT

FIFTH AMENDMENT; 26 USC §§ 7402(6),A -_35

7604(a).

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION buy A ~*~ 37

Honorable John T. Maughmer, Chieks

U.S. Magistrate Judae, Nov. 14, 19917

CITATIONS

Cases Page

Bek v Burson *6z US 533 11

Berger v US 29S US 78 «C12

Brown v Walker 161 US 591 16

Cakifsornia v Taylor 353 US 553 24

Dent v West Virginia 129 US 114 18

Eisenstaddt v Raind 405 US 438 18

FRona v US 362 US 145 26

Garrett v Louisville NR Co 235 US 308 §

Giaccio v Pennsylvania 3§2 US 399 §&

Ingraham v Wright _ 430 US 651 17

Jones v S. & E. Commission 298 US 1 21

Kay v US - 303 us 4 k

Kinsella v US 361 US 234 19

Knoxville [non Co v Harbison 153 US 13 17

Loan AsAociation v Topeka §7 US 655 22

Lopez v US 373 US 427 20

Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 26

Michigan v Tucker 417 US 433 18

Maloy v Hogan 3786 US 1 a7

Mugler v Kansas 123 US 623 16

Vv

CITATIONS

Cases Page

Mullane v Central Hanover BR339 US 306 17

Munn v Lekinorias 94 US 113 16

Ochoa v Monales 230 US 139 16

Nat. Mutua Ins. v Tidewater337 US 5&2 26

Powell v ALabama 287 US 45 1k

Robertson v RBakdwin 165 US 275 16

Serews v US 325 US 91 19

Snyder v Massachusetts 297 US 9F 23

Sprecklesr Suqarn v McClain 192 US 397 26

Stanley v [kRinois 405 US 645 22

Tehan v Shott 3§2 US 406 18

Upjohn v US 449 US 383 25

US v ChasALC 313 US 299 18

US v Euge 444 US 707 26

US v Hi@e 123 US 6&1 27

US v LaSa@le Nationa Rank 437 US 298 7+

US v MerrLam 263 US 179 23

US v Powell 379 US 49 7+

Watson v Memphis 373 US 526 26

Whitman v Oxford National Rk 176 US 55918

vi

|

CITATIONS

16A Am Junr2d Constitutional Law §£06 .

16A Am Jur2d Constitutional Law §&16 10

61A Am Jur2d, PkReading §32 4

61A Am Jur2d, PReading §71 11

Cooley, Constitutional Limitations &

T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional

[Interpretation |(1969)

Magna Charta 5

10

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

The petitioners James E. and Shirkey L.

Carter respectfully requests that a Writ of

certiorari issue to review the opinion /

deniak of rehearing / denial of r~ehearing en

banc of the United States Court of Appears

for the Eighth Circuit entered An this

proceeding on March 17, 1993, Aprik 16,

1993, and June 2, 1993, nespectively.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Appeaks i

dn the appendix ( A - 1) ané is neported as

995 F2d - The orders denying rehearing

and rehearing en bane are on page A - 7,

The Report and Recommendation by Chied U.S.

Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer 44 at page

AP oT

eee

JURISDICTION

The opinion of the Court of Appeaks was

entered on March 17, 1993. A timeky petition

$07 rehearing was denied on April 16, 1993.

A petition for rehearing en bane wars

delivered to the court within 14 daya of

Aprik 16, and was denied ars untimeky on

June 2. This petition 40or certiorari 44

presented to this court within 90 days of

Aprie2 16. This court's juresdaction $062

review 4A Anvoked under 26 USC §1254(1).

LAWS [NVOLVED

The Fridth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States of America and Atatutes

26 USC §7402(6) and §7604la) are reproduced

An the appendax.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Two cases were initiated by Aervice of

"Petition to enforce internal revenue

service summons” ( p. A - 29), on the

Carters by maik on or about June 5, 1989.

Jurisdiction 44 averred to be invoked

pursuant to 26 USC §§7402(b6) and 7604(a).

The petitions reser to "an investigation

into the tax Liability of" the respondents

(para IV) and "cokLectl(ing) the Federal tax

Liabihity of" the respondents (para xX) as

the ultimate objectives.

Carters filed motions to consokidate on

Juky 5, 1989 and the cases were consolidated

by order dated August 7, 1989.

Carters abhso filed motions for a more

definitive pkeading and/or motion to dismiss

on JuLy 5, 1989, porAnting out that there was

no Legak authority cited “that may impose a

Legak Liabikity on the respondent” nor an

averment that "the respondent may be

Lawhully subject to a specific Legiskated

3

tax Amposed by TAtle 26 and as authorized by

Apecrific constitutionak provision,” and that

"no cause of action has been stated.”

The magistrate denied the motions on

the grounds that enforcement of the summon,

would not viokate Fourth Amendment right,.

A hearing was held on November 25,

1989, and Carter again brought to the

court's attention that no Apecifsic tax has

been Adentified. The court responded: "Akg

rAgnrt. We'khL address that in just a

moment.” Tran. p5. Carter pointed out that

the grounds raised in the motion to dismiss

(there was no ckaim the Carters had a Legal

nesnonsrbilvity to pay any tax) had not

neceived a definitive wkling by the court.

Tran. pé. Upon request by Carter "to

Adenti4y in the petition where (the

pLainti44) requests the information 407 an

income tax” (Tran. p7), the court responded:

"(W)eke, Tithe 26 of the United States Code

4A4 the provision of the United States Code

4

which imposes fsederak income tax and 4t’'’sA my

belies that that’s the tax which they are

investigating in this case. Mr. Josephson,

ane you in fact investigating income tax 40%

these two individuals for the years

Apecified in the petition?” Mr.

Josephson: "Yes, Ain, (and the evidence

wil show) the Carters’ income wars An excer4

of the statutory minimums 40% 4iling

neturns.” Tran. p7. and aqau their Levels

—

of income were Auch as to put them Aan excess

of the minimum §rLing nequirements ...” Ad

ps. There are no fsiking requirements

mentioned in the petition.

The Carters objected that such

statutes should be cited in the petition

where they could be contested. id p9. The

count responded: "Mr. Carter, the wees of

federal and civil procedure are very Renient

in what they require in the statement of a

complaint or petition 4iled in 4ederar

count. Under the rules and standards

r

J

appkicable to the

and

AUS 4

goin

ab@e

DLOVA

Piab

nho

—_

mnNnoGo

that *

ition

complaint, ,

iciently

g sorward

Carter

to find

AALON AN

ie Wow

Fa Are

orcement 4

4 the ba

defsin

a

in

t

4iled by

the

&

a+.

I have determined

this

2)

=f

2)

the

continued:

make

itive 40%

care.

"We

~+.

7

aii

on

Le

©

filing of those

Unzted States 4

purposAes

have

ndividua?

ok

~+

©

A,

of

id p9.

what

aoccd

Tito

~

.

3

+

not be

1

~

petitions

that the

The government's witness then Antroduced

evidence of bank deposits made by the

Carters. The evidence does not relate to

any averwmnent.

Carters filed a motion to dismiss on

November 14, 1990, pointing out Chast “she

sAatute that delineate, tre event/occurnrzence

VU

a)

AMP GAANG Legak Liabikhity 04 the unstated

tax nas not been 4denti4red, that there has

been no chaim at Law (that Orings the

Andividuak invokved within the ambzt of

Y

LD jeCL L0) the IRS,” and that absAence of

(nese Legak provisions Cconstitut 1 deniak

4 LU } LOCe4AA

T ILC Mm L 4x 4 x LAL = ence “ I LA . z ; ]

X rT endation tnat tL} x A 4 x x ¢ ‘

ij N « 7 4 7 Cc 2Y FL x yy f

4 x + x 2 ry v Tt ; T ¢

+ + + ¥ ¥ ¢ . > g nas rLi 4 f

+ f 4 t¢ ] zi C¢ < « 1g $9

‘A rs 4 7Ld

Carters 4iled objections January 16,

1992, quoting the Magna Charta: "No 4reeman

Ahakk be (bothered by the king except) by

the Law of the Land,” and that this right

haA been ancorporated into contemporary due

process (id p3); that due process requires

goverinment Aampose burdens on the citizens

onky An accordance with vakhid Laws of the

Land citing Giaccio v Pennsylvania, 382 US

399, and no Law has been averred/shown that

makes the Carter's subject to an income tax

(Aad. p5); that respondents are "to be abe

to prepare his defense without making

An4erence or deductions from pkeadings and

much £e4sts to rely on assumptions fr0m

attached exhibits. 61A Am Jurn2d Pkeadings

#32, criting Garvrett v Lourcsville N.R. Co.,

235 US 308" (Ad p5); that "due process

nequires Legislation to be sussiccioently

expkicit to ansoram those who are subject to

At what conduct on their part will render

them @iablLe to its provisions” citing Kay v

uS, 303 US 1, among others. Ad po.

On February 5, 1992, Judge Whipple

ordered the report and necommendation be

adopted.

Canters 4iked a motion to modify

judament and motion to dismiss and

"neitenated the Lack of any Law being cited

by the Petitioner that imnoses any tax or

avering the respondents are Legally Liable

hor any tax”; that "the right to due procert

and be inkormed of the Law that imposes a

duty upon a ceritizen” is appkLicable to a tax

summons; and that a chalLenge to an

"ossontial allegation that the night to be

enforced is consonant with the (aw)

constitutes a primary issue of Law whtceh

must be determined at the outset of

Ritiaation,” and "Ait i4 the nesponsrL bility

of the court to wee on questions of Law.”

citations omitted.

g

Judge Whipple denied the motions on

April 27 and notice of anneal war filed on

June 26, 992.

Carter's Briefs on appeal presented five

questions relating to the leqal adequacy of

the petition. LaSalle and Powell were

wnalyzed to have established the legal

nesAponsAcbilhities under the tax code with

Apecifiic references to taxes within

Subtitles A thru F as pnart ok the

"Reqitimate purpose” prior to discussing

factual irssucs. The additional sAtandarnds

were Auggested to be sAunnpLemental criteria

for factual i44AUCA. A neading of the

cases that negates a petitioner's obligation

to plead the Lawful authority required by

due process war Auggested to not be

Aupported by the cases. Ad 7 - 10.

The historic origin of 26 USC §7602 was

neviewed and revealed that prior to the

necompiking in 1954 (which was done without

materiak change), the statute clearly

10

nequired the qoveranment to show the citizen

war biable-by-flaw behorne enhkhorcement cha

Aummonsa. Recent annelPate court

adjudications of Aummons enhorcement were

Ahown to construe "fiablhe” as nehkherring to

an A44AUC of Liabikhity-in-fact (books and

necords of respondents) and Auch

adjudication i+ hense inapplicable to the

instant questions of Law The cases were

questioned as maintaining the leqislative

Antent. id 11 - 14.

The requirements of due process were

discussed on pages 14 to 20 and included "it

iA a proposition which hardly Aeems to need

expLication that a hearing which excludes

consideration of an element essential to the

decision...does not meet (the due process

Atandand of MulRane v Centrak Hanover Rank,

339 US 306) Rell v Burson, 402 US 535,

547: and "A variance between pleading and

prook that aksfsfects the substantial nights of

parties 44 ground for reversal.” citing

Berger v US, 295 US 7§&.

The government's Briek identified the

Carters as "taxpayers" over 70 times on the

basis they were respondents (id pl) and

AuagqesAted on pages 10 to 12 that a mere

exhibit attached to the petition 4ulhills

notifacation requirements but was unable to

offer even one Aupportative authority. The

government adknowkedged that no Atatute

imposing a tax Ciabikhity had been previously

cited by Auggesting, ina footnote on page

13 (where it war Long past the point of

bering Aubmitted to contestation) that

Section 1 of Tithe 26 may be one of the

missing Legal authorities. The government

AUgGgeAted that Lack of fihed forms was

AUsficient cause to enhorce the swnmons,.

The brniek additionally relied heavilu upon

numerous appellate carer folLowing United

States v Powell, 379 US 45, and the use of

affidavits attached to petitions.

12

Pony viaqaonousluyu ohbiected to

Carter,

the annellation of "taxnpauvers” on the basses

that the identliication, Atatutori~u defined

by 26 USC §7701(a)(14) as an individuak

ALbjiect to a tax, war an isAuUC before the

court. id pnoé. Powell's use of akfidavits

war analyzed to be relevant to an issue Of

fact but that an affidavit of Law 44 an

inane concept; that if the folLowrzna

anneflRate cases may be interpreted to apne@u

to an issue of Paw, it i4 an inadverntant

ovenr-extenasaton. The aqovernment’s Roarc

appears to be that akhidavits ok fkact

nehieve/4ulhill nequinements to n@ead Peaae

nmeAnonsALbiPitu. id 7 - 10. Caser nelatina

to a Pack of hiked horms were analyzed to

indicate the action raised Auspniction, but

was nowhere found to aflter/ negate a

constitutional right or relieve the

qovernment's responsibility to aver a Leaal

neAponsrc bility. The concent that a prima

facie case (a case neady for the fjuru) haa

13

been Ahown when there has never been anu

Raw averred/ evidenced that imposes a Leaal

neAsaponsrbibity on the respondent was

questioned. Ad p&.

The Opinion of the court of appears

nelied on the summons authority of 26 USC

§7602 and on fulhilhing the standards of

LaSallLe/ Powell to abkhinn the district

court's enfsorcement. Due process and

constitutional nriqhts were not addressed.

page A - 1.

The court denied Caxnters' petition hor

nehearing and a Aubsequent netition hon

nehearing en banc was denied as untimely.

page A - 7. The question of whether the

Atatutory requirement for jurisdiction to be

acquired "by appropriate process” includes

petitions that do not fulhikh due process

Atandards war presented. The Petition for

Rehearing En Rance it neproduced in the

appendix (page A - &) to show due process

cRaims were presented.

14

This petition for writ of certiornart 4/

nresented to the court within 90 dausr of

April 16, 1993

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The anstant 444uce4 transcend a mere

conflict with innumerable holdings of this

court. Wwe are confronted with a rnenudiation

of a most baric right of 4xree men, evolved

over more than Aeven hundred eiaqhty yeara,

wrested srom obstinate monarchs at the point

of a Awonrd, and enshrined in Accurned

enclaves of Paw in the manner of a civilized

hocAeLtY. 16A Am Jur2d Constitutional Law

§§06; Ochoa v Morales, 230 US 1393; Mugler v

Kansas, 123 US 623; Munn v [@einor,, 94 US

fia Robertson v Baldwin, 165 US 275; Brown

v Walker, 167 US 591.

The due process clause of the

Constitution of the United States 44 one of

the few rights that can be dinecthy traced

to a Anecifiic cause of the Maaqna Charta.

The 39th Chanter reads: "No A4£nooman Aha Fe

be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, on

16

outlawed, or exiked, or anuwirse destroyed,

nor Ahakl we qo upon him, nor Aend upon him,

but by the Lawhul judgment of his peers or

by the faw of the land.” This nriqht was

extended to all British citizens in 1354 and

has been Ancorpnorated into the due process

chause of the Fifth Amendment. KnoxviklLe

,[ron Co v Harbison, 183 US 13; Ingraham v

Wright, 430 US 651.

It wa4 a quarantee that the king would

not dare Aet his hoot across the threshold

of a neasrant'’sA hove. No matter how Ahaku

the door Ative or how Leaky the rook, the

king could not impose. The power that the

king had at his beck and call was

insubsicient; the requirement was that the

peasant's tranquility war not to be

disturbed unless he had violated a Law on

faikhed to fulfhill a Lawhul responsibility.

Cookey, Constitutional Limitations, pn 351,

355. The entine purpose for Magna Charta

17

i

was to prevent anbitrary actions by the

king, and the 39th. chapter in nanticular

was Antended to prevent arbitrary

conktscation of pronertu/imprisonment under

guise of a tax enkorcement: that the

individual i4 to be left alone unless the

government shows good cause to disturb his

tranquikity. Tehan v Shott, 382 US 406,

416; Dent v West Vinginia, 129 US 114;

Ecsenstaddt v Baird, 405 US 438. This

court, in construing the Law, will harken

back to the purposes for the creation of the

aw. Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433;

Whitman v Oxford National Rank, 176 US 559:

US v CRasAic, 313 US 299; PowekR v Alabama,

287 US 45.

The government has the power of a

AumMonA and claims, upon that power alone,

access to the innermost privacy of the

peasant’sA possessions. When we consider a

pokice department, we approve the power of

18

deadly force, but the exercise of Auch

power must be for authorized objectives.

neh. Sernews v US, 325 US 91. Similarly,

when we consAider a tax colhection agqencu,

we approve the power of a AummOnNA. Rut the

exercise of thirA nower must also be for

authorized objectives---AsAuch as the

colRection of taxes. The use oh power

without Ahowing a Pawhul objective 44 an

abuse of power. The Rawhul objectives of

the [.R.S. ane the determination and

collection of taxes in Subtit&@es A thu E

and none of these authorized

objectives/"Legitimate purposes” have been

averred and put into contestation bu the

government in thiar care. This court 144

neither concerned with power or

jurisdiction, but with their exercise

pursuant to authorrcty. Kinsella v US, 3617

uS Zs.

19

In coflonia® times, our forefathers were

faced with officials who could enter any

building without anu Ahowinag of probable

cause and ransack the premises in Aearch of

evidence that the occupant may be involved

im a crime or may owe taxea. The qenernal

warrant used by the Crown has been Auqaested

by thts court to be one of the maior reasons

that Pead to the Revolutionarnu War.

JY

~

Lopez v US, 373 US 427, 4 Dis. on. [ft

would annear that the enkorcement of a

AummonsA that does not Anhorm the citizen of

the Legal authority for the demanding of

personal documents, and akLow the citizen to

challenge that Legal authority, bears a

Atnong rnesrsembLance to a general warrant.

nek. T. Taylor, Two sAtudies in

Constitutional Interpretation, 41 (1969).

The qoveranment cried: "To colhect

taxes!!!" but rnehuses to identify a tax.

The qoveranment crics: "To determine

20

ernment

rnoduct4

be told

be no @a

470m a @q

6)

J

me

="

or extran

KoPfL-Aony

a manne”

DUAUNGAe O

arbzstnari

Hogan, 37

ConAtitut

The

adament?y

be

can

It iA the

COMMAAAAON,

contested

a tax

es Se ore Se ,

and

book A,

relevant Law

d have

Je

vernment of Paw

onesA v Securit

75 US Fi

~GArny NO

manner and

be

ito t

f du

NOCCAYA 4

i by

actiLo

§ US 1; 16A Am

Lona |

very fact that

nekhuser to dec

tends, ¢t

reANPONALHLiLity

21

aQo0ve7

MS

he compe

T2CONdA,

, there

educed

to

a

. is

e+4

who can

VLAG

have Be

-ontesAto

4 TO pre

nment.

Jux72d

the qove

Pane the

0 aroure

of the

Ou

qovernment

QL

a.

Led

but never

nealely

AocrLety

chanae

interpret -

arbitra

enhLoncod i

sent

Malloy

riment

Paw A

need

ok

1

VU

AULADLCLON.

netitionen

to aver the law that imposes a

neAPONnALHALity. 61A Am Junr2d, PkReadina

§71. Does fear that the tax may be

vulnerable motivate a fnenzy of

AtonewakRing? On i+ it mene efhficienci?

This court has declared "the Due Process

Clause in particular (i+) destaned to

protect the fragile vakhues of a vulnerable

citizenry from the overbearing concern for

efficiency and efficacy that may

characterize praiseworthy qovernment

oh4hficia&ls no 0244, and perhaps more, than

mediocre ones.” Stanley v [kRinoris, 405 US

645. It has Long been recoanized by this

court that the nower of taxation, when

abused, can become a most destructive sorce

to sAsels-dertroy a viable society. Loan

AAAociation v Toneka, &7 US 655.

WAthout an averment of Legal

reA+ponsrL_bihity, and the acts that impose

Regal rnesnponsrcbility, the procedure of a

22

hearing i4 AupershLucua. Regardless of what

facts ane evidenced at a hearing, they can

be nuled to fulfill Leqak requirements (that

have never been established) and the

nespondent is Left with no Leqak recourse.

And duc process esAcontia® ohoment of

fundamental fairness has been totally

annihilated. Snuder v Massachusetts, 291 US

oT

Let's be candid: the instant action AA

Atyled as the enhorcement of a Awnmons, yet

the purpose is to enforce a tax but the tax

is not even identified. The adiudication buy

this court that the constitutional guarantee

of due process requires a nheading to have

Auhhicient charity so that- it can be

contested on esao the count cannot

judicially act unon them a4 a quound sor

decision (US v Merriam, 263 US 179, 188)

and a multitude of other due nr0cerss

nequinements as adiudicated bu this court

23

were presented to the court of appeals Ain

the Bries anda few were reproduced in the

Petition 407 Rehearing En Banc. (The

petition for nehearinag en banc 44 nenrnoduced

in the appendix to show due process L444uU0e4

were presented to the apnelPate court as

NEGuined. California v Taylor, 353 US 553,

557) These numerous holdinas of duc nr0cesA

noquinementsA were not considered bu the

court of annoal,s.

14 basic constitutional rights cannot

be obtained by fitiaqation, they are

obviously not available to the citizens. [4

constitutional rights ane unavailable, the

constitution has become a worthless scrap of

paper and our form of aqovernment har been

fundamentally altered. If our government

has been Ao changed, citizens Ahould not be

teased with sanctimonious phatitudes as

justice. Pibentu,. and s4necdom. [f

qovernment can fsorce a citizen to prekorm an

24

act,

jUAti fication hor its

in the

of the

unds

PoAA

wrth

any act

Rand

47ee.

Atunbed

CAALONA,

the wh {

bureaucrat,

neku

than

sAAng to

the pou

without

of the

Wwe ar

LiL OUuN

only 4

permitted,

2

h

f

not the

euLdencina

permztted to

omeaA, Ou"

LnY

nequinrement,

We

be

perAon,

we Aervilely

mand caprice od

an

Reaal

Piveo

Rand

OUW7L

comply

a7tmuy

waving administrative

Ancearcenation, and,

of an aaent’

has

not

not "CQ"

The act

consider

of

forms but

evidence their authority other

en of conksirscation

ultimatelu. the muz720eo

A QU. Let tA prnauv our nation

eAACKM to Auch a tyranny.

Lon by the court of apneals in

ing consAtztutiona

of due process whe

enforcement

dinect conh?

court. In

count Atated

tax

AULMMNOtHtA

of a

{ ct Ww { ¢

Up ohn

"She

LEOMAALNA

nN

h

V

adiudica

government

dinocti

US 449

obL4 aqat {On

4ubiect

25

j

p

nmequixrement,

fr

amr

q

the

tnaditional privileges and limitations." at

39§, and in US v Euqe, 444 US 707, thia

court declaned the authority claimed bu

#7602 i4 not to be "in denoagqation of anu

constitutional rights." ie iy Go a

Constitutional rights ane the paramount

authority of the land. Marbury v Madison, 5

US 137; Watson v Memphis, 373 US 526;

Nationa? Mutual Insurance v Tidewater, 337

US 582.

The court of anneal's’ Atated the

Canters4 ane "taxpayers" (without any leqak

juUAtif*fication) and hense, via 26 USC

H7701(a)(14), they ane subiect toa tay

without the government Aubmitting any Peaa

authority to conterstation/ajiudication. This

conkhhicts with FRora v US, 362 US 145, and

Spreckhes Sugar v MeCLain, 192 US 397. The

court additionally did not comply with the

holding of this court that a hedernal nevenue

agency must dinecthy trace their authority

26

to a constitutional provision to sAnvoke the

jurisdiction of a court. United States v

Hill, 123 US 681, 686. Res. Carters’ Rriek

pZzz.

The action of the court of appeals

appears to even be inconsistent with each

justice's oath of office "to uphokd the

Constitution of the United States.”

{A discussion of jurisdictional issues 44

made in the Petition for Rehearing En Banc,

page A 10 to 15, Angra. [4 this court

does not take judicial notice that usurping

jurisdiction is the quintessential of

tyranny, additionak discussion woukd be

bLowing An the wind. |

27

CONCLUSIONS

For these reasons, it i4 Aubmtted a

writ of certiorari should issue to review

the judgment and opinion of the Erghth

CAncuit.

a]

co