# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Carter v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_0709%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1993 - **Citation:** 510 U.S. 870 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_0709%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.