the people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!...the people are the victims of...
TRANSCRIPT
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 1 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
Arnie RosnerA sovereign American. A Californian
and NOT a U.S. Citizen
8905 Rhine River AvenueFountain Valley, California [92708-5607][email protected]
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 2 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
1). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
supremecourtcase
BONUS: How government justifies treating you as a subject and extorting you and
what you can do about it
July 6, 2018
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 3 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
2). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-1
Introduction.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “The United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
Notwithstanding this guarantee, the current form of government found in “every State in
this Union,” id., though seemingly republican in form, is ultimately municipal—because, as
shown herein below, every such State (i.e., body politic, not geographic area) has been
transmuted into a political subdivision of the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation, 16
Stat. 419, whose municipal law is Roman Civil Law.
Roman Civil Law equates to absolute, exclusive territorial, personal, and subject-matter
legislative power (and executive and judicial jurisdiction) over residents of municipal territory.
The best symbol of Roman Civil Law is the badge of authority borne before Roman
magistrates in ancient Rome, the fasces (Lat., from plural of fascis bundle)—a bundle of rods
with an ax bound up in the middle and the blade projecting—as displayed on the Seal of the
United States Senate, the wall behind the podium in the House of Representatives, reverse of the
Mercury dime, National Guard Bureau insignia, Seal of the United States Tax Court, etc.
Americans who do not physically reside in the District of Columbia today nevertheless
are treated as residents of that municipality for legal purposes based on certain unconstitutional
stealth legislation.
Click here to continue reading.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 4 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
3). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-2
Standard
US attorney ignores all his material failures and asks for a contempt Order;
Petitioner responds
June 8, 2018supremecourtcase Leave a comment
Until his recent May 17, 2018, motion for an order to show cause why Petitioner should
not be held in contempt for alleged violation of the Court’s September 13, 2017, Order, the last
time the US attorney made an appearance was December 20, 2017—a span of 148 days.
During that period the US attorney failed to respond to any of Petitioner’s four case-
dispositive (tending to dispose of) motions to dismiss with prejudice: a representation to the
Court that United States of America does not oppose Petitioner’s requests for dismissal with
prejudice of this alleged action in equity.
The respective essence of Petitioner’s four unopposed motions to dismiss with prejudice
is as follows:
• no constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction, exercise
“The judicial Power of the United States” (Constitution, Art. III, § 1), or enter an Order
against Petitioner in Harris County Texas (Document 30);
• failure to allege a contractual duty of Petitioner or damage (actual or threatened) to non-
governmental private-sector Internal Revenue Service, and therefore failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted (Document 32);
• United States of America’s fraud on the Court (misrepresentation that non-governmental
private-sector Internal Revenue Service is part of United States of America) and failure to
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 5 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Document 36); and
• United States of America’s lack of Article III-standing (no injury to United States of
America, actual or threatened) to bring this alleged suit in equity (Document 41).
Petitioner on June 5, 2018, filed Petitioner’s response in opposition to United States of
America’s motion for contempt of court.
The next day, June 6, 2018, Petitioner filed an objection for substitution of the real party
in interest—private-sector businessman Secretary of the Treasury, a.k.a. and DBA “United States
Treasury”—for alleged petitioner United States of America.
The day after that, June 7, 2018, Petitioner demanded disclosure of whether real-party-in-
interest Secretary of the Treasury is (a) a government officer seeking to enforce government
laws, or (b) a private-sector businessman seeking to enforce the terms of some private contract;
the motion docket date (date by which any response from United States of America is due) of
which is June 28, 2018.
The US attorney has previously demonstrated his inability to manage this case
(see Document 16) and now to deal with any of Petitioner’s several motions to dismiss with
prejudice without unfair (inequitable) assistance from the magistrate or judge or both.
The magistrate will make her recommendation/s to the judge regarding all the pending
motions before the Court sometime after each party has had the opportunity to respond to each
motion submitted by the other.
Whether the US attorney responds to the June 7 motion (demand for disclosure) by June
28 or not, Petitioner will be posting here again prior to that time.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 6 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
4). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-3
Standard
IRS attacks non-judicially; Petitioner punctures purported authority for said
attack, issues warning to IRS
May 5, 2018supremecourtcase Leave a comment
Background.
When IRS makes an assessment of tax allegedly due, such tax may be collected by levy
or court proceeding, but only if the levy is made or the proceeding begun within 10 years after
assessment of said tax liability, 26 U.S.C. § 6502.
If, however, a timely proceeding in court for the collection of said tax is commenced, the
period during which such tax may be collected by levy is extended and does not expire until the
liability for the tax—or judgment against the taxpayer arising from such liability—is satisfied, id.
Should an alleged taxpayer petition the U.S. Tax Court to challenge an assessment, all
collection activity is suspended while the court proceeding is underway.
Should an alleged taxpayer lose in U.S. Tax Court, a new assessment is made and IRS
and U.S. Department of Justice get a fresh 10-year period to levy or begin a court proceeding to
collect.
Petitioner petitioned U.S. Tax Court re alleged tax liability for tax years 1994-1997, but
shortly thereafter withdrew the petition; the USDOJ attorneys and judge, however, continued
without Petitioner’s consent and spent some 18 months “holding a trial” with Petitioner in
absentia, ultimately ruling for IRS (Commissioner of Internal Revenue).
After time was tacked on to the 26 U.S.C. § 6502 10-year collection period for “time
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 7 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
spent” in U.S. Tax Court, the collection period was extended to January 16, 2014.
Nine days before expiration of said 10-year collection period, United States Department
of Justice on January 7, 2014, began a court proceeding to enforce collection of the taxes
allegedly due for tax years 1994-1997 in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division Civil Action 4:14-cv-0027 (the “Houston Division Civil Action”).
The judge in the Houston Division Civil Action, United States District Judge Lynn
Nettleton Hughes, on May 23, 2014, entered an amended judgment against Petitioner.
Because the collection lawsuit was begun within the 10-year collection period, and
plaintiff United States of America prevailed, the period during which said alleged tax liability
may be collected by levy does not expire until the judgment is satisfied.
This story, however, is not over.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 8 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
5). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-4
Recent events.
Petitioner recently received in the mail four IRS Forms CP504, “Notice of Intent to seize
(levy) your property or rights to property,” dated April 2, 2018 (the “CP504s”), for alleged tax
periods ending December 31, 1994-1997.
The CP504s give Petitioner till May 1, 2018, to pay the amount demanded, make
arrangements to pay in installments, or submit an IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request or
face immediate seizure of property or rights to property.
The alleged authority for the CP504s, upon which they ultimately depend for their
authority, legitimacy, and enforceability, is the aforementioned judgment in the Houston
Division Civil Action.
As shown in Petitioner’s IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request (hyperlinked below),
however, the alleged judge in the Houston Division Civil Action, Lynn Nettleton Hughes, had no
authority to take jurisdiction, exercise “The judicial Power of the United States” (Constitution,
Art. III, § 1), or enter a judgment in Harris County, Texas.
The foregoing is not an insignificant statement.
If true, it also means that every judgment in every civil or criminal proceeding in every
United States district court throughout the Union is void for the respective judge’s lack of
authority to take cognizance of the matter in question, a condition known as coram non judice; to
wit:
“coram non judice . . . [Latin ‘not before a judge’] 1. Outside the presence of a judge. 2.
Before a judge or court that is not the proper one or that cannot take legal cognizance of the
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 9 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
matter.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., Bryan A. Garner, ed. in chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West
Group, 1999), p. 338.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 10 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
6). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-5
Petitioner’s Response to CP504s.
Petitioner followed the instructions provided in the CP504s and on April 26, 2018, sent
an IRS Form 9423 Collection Appeal Request and attached to it a Notice and Warning of
Commercial Grace and Affidavit of Mailing.
Petitioner subsequently revised said IRS Form 9423 and Notice and Warning of
Commercial Grace and on April 30, 2018, sent IRS a replacement response.
The Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace educates IRS as to the invalidity of the
alleged judgment upon which the alleged CP504s depend and tells IRS what Petitioner will do if
IRS undertakes any act in respect of the CP504s that results in damage to Petitioner or
Petitioner’s property or rights to property.
Because neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a
commissioned officer of the United States but a private-sector businessman: (a) Neither of the
organizations over which they administer, i.e., Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue
Service, respectively, is part of government but a private-sector business, (b) every employee
thereof a private-sector worker, and (c) any criminal offense committed in Texas by any such
private-sector employee properly a Texas, and not a Federal, matter.
Petitioner’s revised IRS Form 9423 and Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace spell
out the penalties should IRS damage Petitioner via the alleged CP504s, as well as penalties for
any retaliatory acts (e.g., criminal charges) taken against Petitioner should Petitioner enforce the
penalties set forth therein against private-sector Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue
Service or their respective employees.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 11 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
7). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-6
IRS summons-case update.
• New motion to dismiss
Petitioner on April 11, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss for United States of America’s
lack of constitutional (Article III) standing to.
The US attorney had until May 2, 2018, to respond, but stood mute.
Petitioner on May 3, 2018, filed with the Court a Notice of United States of America’s
representation of no opposition to respondent’s April 11, 2018, case-dispositive motion to
dismiss with prejudice and Request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
The US attorney failed to respond to any of Petitioner’s last four motions to dismiss—a
representation that he does not oppose what is requested in any of said motions (dismissal with
prejudice).
The last time the US attorney filed anything in the Court was December 20, 2017—four
and half months ago.
Under the rules of equity, the US attorney’s failure to prosecute or participate in the suit
operates to imply that the IRS summons case should be dismissed with prejudice immediately, as
requested by Petitioner.
• “United States Treasury”
As you may know, the payee listed in every IRS request or demand for payment is
“United States Treasury.”
Although Congress mention “United States Treasury” 14 times in Title 12 U.S.C. Banks
and Banking, three times in Title 26 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Code, and six times in Title 31
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 12 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
U.S.C. Money and Finance, there is no statute that expressly creates, establishes, or defines
“United States Treasury.”
The closest thing to identifying how “United States Treasury” was created or what it is or
means, is found in regulations written by non-officer of the United States, private-sector worker
Secretary of the Treasury at 31 C.F.R. Money and Finance, Part 203 Payment of Federal Taxes
and the Treasury Tax and Loan Program, Subpart A General Information, § 203.2 Definitions:
“Treasury General Account (TGA) means an account maintained in the name of the
United States Treasury at an FRB [Federal Reserve Bank].”
There being no congressional statute that creates, establishes, or defines it, “United States
Treasury” appears to be a fictitious name created by Secretary of the Treasury, in which certain
private business bank accounts are maintained for his personal use, either directly as a signatory
or by proxy (junior employee in private-sector Department of the Treasury).
If this is true, it means that ultimately every penny collected in so-called income tax goes
not to anyone in government but rather the exclusive, unilateral control of non-governmental,
non-officer of the United States, private-sector worker Secretary of the Treasury (see 31 U.S.C. §
321(d)(1) and (2) for verification of this point).[1]
It also would mean that governmental United States of America would have no
constitutional standing to sue any alleged taxpayer in any United States District Court for alleged
unpaid taxes for lack of a case or controversy between the litigants—because the actual party in
interest is not governmental United States of America but private-sector businessman Secretary
of the Treasury, via his DBA and alter ego “United States Treasury.”
And also that the instant civil action to compel Petitioner to produce books and records
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 13 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
for the ultimate benefit of private-sector businessman Secretary of the Treasury, would have to
be dismissed for United States of America’s lack of Article III standing (no case or controversy
between the parties) to bring suit against Petitioner.
Presently, Petitioner is waiting for the Court to grant Petitioner’s motion for an order
compelling the U.S. Secretary of State to produce for Petitioner’s inspection and copying, the
commission, as an officer of the United States, of current Secretary of the Treasury Steven
Terner Mnuchin (and former Commissioner of Internal Revenue John Andrew Koskinen).
When the U.S. Secretary of State is forced to comply with the subpoena (whether in the
current IRS summons case or some other civil or criminal proceeding in the future) and has to
produce the commission, as an officer of the United States, of the Secretary of the Treasury or, in
the alternative, certify that there is no document in his custody responsive to the subpoena,
there will be sufficient evidence on the table to resolve all disputes and rectify any discrepancy.
_______________________________
[1] This aligns with a previous official statement as to the nature of income tax; to wit:
“100 percent of what is collected [in income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the
Federal debt . . . . In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel
is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” J. Peter Grace,
“President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control: A Report to the President,” dated and
approved January 12 and 15, 1984, p. 3.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 14 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
8). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-7
Standard
Petitioner files three new motions to dismiss for other fatal defects; US attorney
silent for last three months
March 29, 2018supremecourtcase Leave a comment
Following the judge’s February 5, 2018, Order referring the case to the magistrate to
conduct all pretrial proceedings, Petitioner filed the following three separate motions to dismiss
with prejudice (i.e., dismissal barring prosecution of any later suit based on the same claim),
each with its own particular reason:
1. THE COURT LACKS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN HARRIS COUNTY,
TEXAS
Every act of every government officer, state or federal, must be authorized by at
least one provision of the Constitution; see Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct.
2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989); Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U.S. 800,
818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449
U.S. 368, 379-380, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676-677, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction
Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Case of th [sic] Sewing
Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587, 21 L.Ed. 914 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8
How. 441, 449, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845);
McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813).
Petitioner on February 14, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for lack of
constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 15 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas.
The US attorney had 21 days from date of filing of said motion, i.e., till March 7, 2018, to
file a response in opposition, but remained silent.
The reason the US attorney failed to oppose the above case-dispositive motion (i.e., a
motion that is divestitive in nature and brings about the extinction of rights and disposes of the
case) is that there is no provision of the Constitution that gives the Court the capacity to take
jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas.
The Court (and United States Department of Justice) is operating in Harris County,
Texas, without constitutional authority.
The US attorney’s failure to respond to said motion is the US attorney’s representation to
the Court that he does not oppose it—is sufficient ground for the judge to grant Petitioner’s
motion and dismiss with prejudice the case.
Upon the US attorney’s failure to respond to said motion, Petitioner on March 8, 2018,
filed a notice of United States of America’s failure to oppose respondent’s case-dispositive
motion to dismiss and request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
Whereas, the judge has no capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner
in Harris County, Texas, there is nothing that the US attorney could have said in opposition
without incriminating himself.
In this alleged equity proceeding, the “United States” district court is an instrumentality
of the District of Columbia, a Federal municipal corporation (see 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, §
3002(15) for definition of “United States” in every civil or criminal proceeding regarding an
alleged debt, such as alleged taxes, allegedly owed to the United States), and the judge is
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 16 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
usurping exercise of jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the corporate charter of said
municipal corporation, 16 Stat 419, which is limited to the territory within the exterior limits of
the District of Columbia.
2. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A PRIVATE-SECTOR BUSINESS WITH NO
AUTHORITY OVER PETITIONER
Petitioner on February 27, 2018, filed an amended motion to dismiss with prejudice
which asserts that, because neither the so-called Secretary of the Treasury nor his underling, the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is a commissioned officer of the United States: (a) Neither is
a government officer, (b) both are private-sector workers, (c) the organization over which each
administers and which issued the subject IRS administrative summons, i.e., IRS, is not part of the
government, (d) IRS is a private-sector organization (business), (e) the only cause of action a
private-sector business such as IRS could bring against Petitioner is for breach of contract, (e)
there is no evidence of any contract between IRS and Petitioner, and, therefore (f) the
government’s case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The US attorney had until March 20, 2018, to file a response in opposition to this motion,
but remained silent, whereupon Petitioner on March 21, 2018, filed a notice of the US attorney’s
failure to oppose said motion and request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
The US attorney’s failure to respond to this case-dispositive motion is his representation
that he does not oppose it and sufficient ground for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
Every justice and judge of the United States and every United States attorney knows that
the Internal Revenue Service is part of the private Federal Reserve.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 17 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
To provide evidence that IRS is not part of government, Petitioner on March 1, 2018,
served United States Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson (custodian of the Great Seal of the
United States) with two subpoenas commanding his production, at 10:00 A.M. on March 22,
2018, of the commission as an Officer of the United States, in effect as of May 30, 2017 (date
IRS administrative summons was served on Petitioner)—bearing the signature of the President of
the United States and Great Seal of the United States—of (1) current Secretary of the Treasury
Steven Terner Mnuchin, and (2) former Commissioner of Internal Revenue John Andrew
Koskinen.
The 10:00 A.M. March 22, 2018, deadline came and went, with no word from Secretary
of State Tillerson.
No commission, as an officer of the United States, exists for either man because each is a
private-sector businessman.
Because Secretary of State Tillerson failed to obey the subpoenas for production of
documents, Petitioner on the afternoon of the same day, March 22, 2018, filed a motion to
compel compliance with Subpoenas for the production of documents, and request for an order to
show cause why non-party Rex W. Tillerson should not be held in contempt and submitted a
proposed Order for the judge to sign.
Secretary of State Tillerson can avoid a contempt citation simply by providing Petitioner
with written certification that there is no document in his custody responsive to either of the
subpoenas.
3. IRS NOT PART OF “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”—WHO HAS
COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 18 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
“Fraud on the court” is defined as follows:
“fraud on the court. A lawyer’s or party’s misconduct in a judicial proceeding so serious
that it undermines or is intended to undermine the integrity of the proceeding, ● Examples are
bribery of a juror and introduction of fabricated evidence.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A.
Garner, ed. in chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999), p. 671.
The instant petition represents by inference that Internal Revenue Service is part of
alleged “United States of America.”
Being an organization whose senior executive is a non-governmental private-sector
businessman, IRS cannot be part of any government—either the alleged “United States of
America” (moribund since June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 223, 306, sec. 182) or District of Columbia, a
municipal corporation (16 Stat 419).
Whereas, only a duly commissioned officer of the United States can administer over a
government organization, Internal Revenue Service cannot be part of government and alleged
“United States of America” has made a false representation and committed fraud on the court.
Because alleged “United States of America” has no right to title or ownership of any
alleged claim of a private business (IRS), alleged “United States of America” has failed to state a
claim (of its own) upon which relief can be granted.
All the above monkey business is evidence of unclean hands on the part of alleged
“United States of America,” a factor which, according to the rules of equity, deprives alleged
“United States of America” of relief in this or any other such forum.
In respect of the foregoing, Petitioner on March 12, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice, to which the US attorney has until April 2, 2018, to file a response in opposition or
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 19 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
concede by omission that he does not oppose it.
Whereas, the last time we heard anything from the US attorney was December 20, 2017
(three months ago), and the likely reason for his failure to respond to either of the first two above
motions to dismiss is fear of self-incrimination, it is not likely we will hear from him on the
third.
SUMMARY
The judge is an impartial referee whose job it is to help the litigants resolve their dispute.
When one litigant files a case-dispositive motion and the other fails to oppose it, the
equitable thing for the judge to do is dismiss the case as requested by the movant.
Further, he who brings suit (in this instance alleged “United States of America”) has the
responsibility to prosecute it, and failure to prosecute (called non prosequitur) is ground for
judgment against him (and the US attorney seems to have disappeared).
Shortly after Petitioner provided evidence that IRS is engaging in evil practice against
Petitioner in this case, the judge on February 5, 2018, brought in the magistrate for the purpose
of producing reports and recommendations regarding all pending matters—and thereafter
Petitioner filed the above three case-dispositive motions.
Whether the US attorney responds to the third above motion by April 2, 2018, or not, the
magistrate will have at multiple sufficient reasons to recommend that alleged “United States of
America” be denied relief in this court of equity for unclean hands and evil practice against
Petitioner or that any one of Petitioner’s unresolved motions be granted and the case dismissed
with prejudice.
Conversely, there appears to be no equitable reason why this case should be allowed to
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 20 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
continue.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 21 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
9). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-8
Standard
After five weeks of silence, the judge makes a move
February 8, 2018supremecourtcase Leave a comment
Petitioner on December 28, 2017, filed Petitioner’s reply to the USDOJ attorney’s
response to Petitioner’s motion demanding the taxing statute to which Petitioner allegedly is
liable.
Because the judge’s deputy clerk removed three essential pages from Petitioner’s reply
before entering it on the docket, if Petitioner wanted the complete document to appear on the
record of the case Petitioner had to file another, “amended” version of the reply, which Petitioner
did 11 days later on January 8, 2018 (the only difference in Petitioner’s original and amended
reply is that the word “Amended” appears in the title of the latter version).
Both Petitioner’s reply and amended reply demonstrate that the Internal Revenue Service
is engaged in evil practice against Petitioner in this equity action and not entitled to relief in any
court of equity.
Upon the filing of Petitioner’s reply (December 28, 2017) the USDOJ attorney went
silent and has remained so since then.
Because the USDOJ attorney does not know what to do to overcome the substance of
Petitioner’s amended reply (showing that the Internal Revenue Service is engaged in evil
practice against Petitioner) and the judge needed another participant to carry out his wishes for
the case.
Five weeks after the initial filing, the judge on February, 5, 2018, broke silence by
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 22 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
entering an Order bringing in the magistrate to make determinations on the matters pending in
the case.
The judge knows everything and does not need the magistrate, Dena Hanovice Palermo,
for anything and can disregard or supersede anything the magistrate may recommend (28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C)).
The judge’s purpose in introducing the magistrate is to draw attention away from the
failures of the USDOJ attorney and, as an “unbiased” figure, make recommendations as to how
to solve “all the issues” before the Court.
In a previous such instance where Petitioner checkmated the USDOJ attorney, Petitioner
had demanded the constitutional authority that gives the judge the capacity to take jurisdiction
and enter an order in Tyler County, Texas and thereafter moved the court to dismiss, the USDOJ
attorney went silent and remained so for the next five and half months until the judge appointed a
magistrate to step in and make “recommendations” (dictated by the judge) that the judge could
use to salvage the case for the government.
In that case, the magistrate (carrying out the dictates of the judge) ignored material facts
on the record and material failures of the USDOJ attorney that were fatal to the government’s
case (which should have caused the judge to dismiss the case for the government’s failure to
object to Petitioner’s motion to dismiss) and cherry-picked from the record certain facts and
pieced them together so as to support the false picture he contrived and upon which his
recommendations were based.
The Internal Revenue Service is not entitled to relief in a court of equity (because it
comes with unclean hands) and judge and magistrate and USDOJ attorney all know it.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 23 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
What will the magistrate recommend?
We will have to wait to find out.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 24 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
10). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-9
Standard
Judge OKs lies, denies motion; Petitioner shows that IRS’s evil practice deprives it
of the right to relief in a court of equity
January 7, 2018supremecourtcase Leave a comment
As expected, the judge on November 22, 2017, entered his Memorandum & Order
denying Petitioner’s October 3, 2017, motion for a grant of immunity for testimony.
Notwithstanding that the USDOJ attorney is the point man in this proceeding, as in
virtually every other so-called “federal” (municipal) case, the judge is running the show and in
this one intends to see that Petitioner ends up behind bars; the USDOJ attorney is just along for
the ride to provide what the judge needs to accomplish his objective.
When the USDOJ attorney failed to respond to Petitioner’s motion for a grant of
immunity and give the judge the tool he needed to rule against and deny Petitioner’s motion for
immunity, he threw a monkey wrench in the judge’s plans and—having demonstrated
insufficient intellect to pull it off on his own—had to be bypassed and an alternative plan devised
to reopen the matter, so the judge would have the justification he needed to deny Petitioner’s
motion for immunity.
The process was effectuated by the judge who, by way of proxy, caused the USDOJ
attorney to sign and file certain documents which opened the door for the judge to get involved
again—based on a point so lame it would not support the weight of a dust mote: that the USDOJ
attorney was unaware that a request is a motion, even though the clerk knew it and docketed it as
the same (Document 24) and evidently knows more about the law than the USDOJ attorney, and
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 25 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
“motion” is defined as a request and taught as such on the first day of law school.
The USDOJ attorney’s failure to respond to Petitioner’s motion for immunity is a major
black mark on his record as a government lackey and he did exactly as he was told and filed the
documents that were given to him; the judge thereafter, in his Memorandum & Order, denied
Petitioner’s motion for immunity.
Following the judge’s November 22, 2017, denial of Petitioner’s motion for grant of
immunity, Petitioner on November 29, 2017, filed Petitioner’s amended motion demanding
disclosure of the taxing statute that makes Petitioner liable to tax, or dismissal with prejudice of
the case.
Twenty-one days later, on December 20, 2017, the very last day in which to file a
response to said motion, the USDOJ attorney filed his feeble Response in Opposition to the new
demand (motion) for taxing statute (the USDOJ attorney is not doing so well since his flub).
A week later, on December 28, 2017, Petitioner filed his Reply to Response in
Opposition to Motion—and 11 days after that, on January 8, 2018, his Amended Reply to
Response in Opposition to Motion, which filing was necessitated upon discovery that the initial
Reply on file in the Court was missing three of its 12 pages (8, 10, and 11)—easily crushing the
two points raised by the USDOJ attorney in his Response in Opposition.
More importantly, however, said Amended Reply shows that no matter what statutes may
authorize Internal Revenue Service to sue Petitioner, based on its own evil practice and
wrongdoing in this case, it is disqualified from using the Court any further; specifically: It is
deprived of any right to relief in a court of equity to which it previously may have been entitled
—meaning the case is essentially done.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 26 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
Petitioner is unaware of any previous case where the Internal Revenue Service was
barred from using the court as a consequence of its evil practice toward its target.
This development does not fit into the judge’s plans.
We shall see what he decides to do about it.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 27 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
11). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-10
Standard
Motion denied; summons enforced; audit conducted; motion for immunity; no
response, then lies; busted
November 27, 2017supremecourtcase Leave a comment
Please note: For the sake of consistency, in this website, John Parks Trowbridge, Jr. is
always the “Petitioner” (capital “P”), a practice first adopted when this webpage was opened
after Petitioner’s filing of a petition in the Supreme Court in 2014. In the current IRS summons
case, however, John Parks Trowbridge, Jr. is the “respondent” (lower-case “r”) and IRS is the
“petitioner” (lower-case “p”).
—
After the judge on September 13, 2017, enters his Order Compelling Compliance with
Summons, Petitioner on September 25, 2017, files a Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief from said
Order as void for the issuer’s (the judge’s) lack of constitutional authority to discharge or
perform the duties of a judge anywhere in the Union, in places like Harris County, Texas, for
failure to take an oath or affirmation that conforms to the provisions of Article VI, Section 3 of
the Constitution.
Despite no lawful authority to continue the charade, the judge the next day, September
26, 2017, declares the usual false generalities in his denial of the Rule 60(b)(4) motion and
subsequent Order compelling Petitioner’s appearance at the October 2, 2017, examination (the
“Examination”).
Petitioner appears as appointed at the Examination accompanied by a Certified Shorthand
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 28 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
Reporter (C.S.R.) (who produces a transcript of the Examination) and submits to questioning.
At the Examination, the United States Department of Justice attorney representing the
IRS notifies Petitioner that if Petitioner does not cooperate and answer questions and produce
documents that he will file a motion with the Court to have Petitioner held in contempt.
Petitioner answers certain of the IRS’s questions, but declines to answer others or
produce any documents.
Knowing that the USDOJ attorney representing the (private-sector) IRS was not pleased
with Petitioner’s aforementioned abstentions, Petitioner the following day, October 3, 2017, files
in the Court Respondent’s Notice of Readiness to Comply with the Orders of the Court
(Documents 11 and 13) and Request for Grant of Immunity against Potential Self-
Incrimination (the “Notice and Request”).
Local Rule 7.4 gives the USDOJ attorney 21 days to file a response in opposition to the
Notice and Request, but he neither files a response in opposition nor a motion to have Petitioner
held in contempt; instead: Silence.
What this means is that the USDOJ attorney did not know what to do.
Why would the USDOJ attorney not know what to do?
It is a simple motion to oppose the Notice and Request or for an order holding Petitioner
in contempt.
The reason Petitioner’s October 3, 2017, Notice and Request stultifies the USDOJ
attorney is that the USDOJ attorney ultimately is not interested in answers to questions and
production of documents which would allow the IRS to calculate Petitioner’s alleged tax liability
(as falsely propounded by the USDOJ attorney at the Examination).
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 29 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
The USDOJ attorney wants to set the stage so Petitioner can be charged with
“willful failure to file” and tried, convicted, and imprisoned—and a response in opposition or
a motion to have Petitioner held in contempt would throw a wrinkle in that process (the USDOJ
attorney wants Petitioner to volunteer testimony and records without a grant of immunity).
So, upon receipt of the October 3, 2017, Notice and Request the USDOJ attorney goes
deer-in-the-headlights, freezes in his tracks, and misses the opportunity for a timely filing of a
response in opposition.
Evidently, the next move comes from above (as does the intent to bring criminal charges
against Petitioner), because the USDOJ attorney evidently is not crafty enough to figure out how
to orchestrate the witch hunt within 21 days of the filing of the Notice and Request.
On the tenth day after lapse of the deadline, the USDOJ attorney files in the Court a
motion to file, out of time, a response to Petitioner’s Notice and Request.
The reason, says the USDOJ attorney, as to why he failed to file a response within the 21
days, is that he was “confused” by the title of Petitioner’s Notice and Request: He thought it was
only a “notice” and not a motion—even though a request and a motion are the same thing (a
legal fact which is taught the first day of law school) and the clerk labeled the filing on the
docket as a motion—and wants, therefore, to be granted relief, based on “excusable neglect,” to
file, out-of-time (late), a response.
A sworn declaration as to the veracity of such factual contentions is an essential element
of such filing, but the USDOJ attorney omits to include such evidence (declaration) or even an
explanation as to an alleged sequence of events that would support his factual contentions and,
apparently, just wants the Court to take his (unsworn) word for it and rubber-stamp his motion.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 30 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
The language of the USDOJ attorney’s motion to file a response out-of-time is all
“sweetness and light,” i.e., exudes utter innocence as to any wrongdoing and seemingly is written
by a babe-in-the-woods attorney.
Accompanying the USDOJ attorney’s out-of-time motion is the object thereof, his
proposed response to Petitioner’s Notice and Request, which is couched in terms, however, that
are anything but innocent and evidently written by a seasoned government attorney, experienced
in bringing down his prey.
To the USDOJ attorney’s two aforementioned filings, Petitioner responds with an exposé
of the USDOJ attorney’s guile:
1. A Response to IRS’s motion to be allowed to file, out of time, a response to the
Notice and Request; and
2. A Reply to IRS’s proposed response to the Notice and Request.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 31 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
12). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-11
Standard
Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court’s constitutional authority;
plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs,
restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45
October 1, 2015supremecourtcase Leave a comment
The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.
There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same Assistant U.S.
Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the
“Lufkin Case”).
Petitioner’s filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges and
magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has made no progress in 14
months.
When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case—Eastern District of
Texas Chief Judge Ron Clark—to recuse (self-disqualify) himself for incompetence by reason of
ignorance of law (and provided evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and
remained so. Six weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler Division)
under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin Division; Judge Clark is not
involved.
For any court to exercise jurisdiction in a particular geographic area, there is a
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 32 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
requirement that the Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it; to wit:
“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to
this tribunal [United States Supreme Court], two things are necessary to create jurisdiction,
whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take
it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . .” [Emphasis in original.] Finley v. United
States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).
That a lawsuit is authorized by the statutes of Congress, however, is not, in and of itself,
sufficient to vest jurisdiction in any Federal court; to wit:
“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes
so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal
courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the
statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.”
Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).
Article III of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to
ordain and establish inferior trial courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction—with no authority to
exercise general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject matter) anywhere in the Union.
Courtesy of Congress, however (since no later than June 25, 1948), every United States
District Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears and decides both civil and criminal
cases, an implied power granted only in the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article 4 §
3(2), and only in Federal territory, such as the District of Columbia and the territories; to wit, in
pertinent part:
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 33 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . .”
All Federal civil and criminal proceedings fall under Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and
Judicial Procedure Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure.
Congress define “judgment” in Title 28 U.S.C., Chapter 176, Section 3002(8) as follows:
“‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in
a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.”
On September 14, 2015, Petitioner files in the Lufkin Case, “Defendant’s Objection to
Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that
Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in
Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in
Tyler County, Texas” (the “Objection and Demand”) (hyperlinked below).
The statutory period for plaintiff United States to respond to the Objection and Demand is
14 days.
On September 29, 2015, 15 days after the filing of the Objection and Demand, the record
in the Lufkin Case is devoid of response from either plaintiff or the Court—and Petitioner
transmits to the clerk on that date, for filing September 30, 2015, “Demand for Dismissal, with
Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the
Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United
States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County,
Texas” (the “Demand for Dismissal”) (hyperlinked below).
The reason neither plaintiff nor the Lufkin Court could produce the constitutional
authority that allows the Court to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 34 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler
County, Texas, is because there is no such constitutional authority.
For the Lufkin Court to reveal that it is using Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution to take
jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and extend its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by
the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction into geographic area fixed by the
Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction, would be to
confess to usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction and treason to the Constitution.
“How can this be?” or “How can they get away with this?” you may ask.
The answer is simple.
When Congress define a word or expression by legislative act, the ordinary and popular
meaning (as found in the dictionary or encyclopedia) is stripped away and the new term means
only what Congress define it to mean—and there is no discretion for anyone to take such term in
any other way than provided in the statute.
In all civil and criminal proceedings in United States District Courts, “United States” is a
term with a special definition and meaning.
In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that
defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection
Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).
In the United States District Court conducting the Lufkin Case, “United States” means a
Federal corporation—and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over all other Federal entities
of any kind—is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[1]
Every appearance of “United States” in anything and everything relating to Federal
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 35 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
district courts means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:
• “Congress of the United States” means, literally, Congress of the District of Columbia
Municipal Corporation.
• “Title 28 United States Code” means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal
Corporation Code.
• “United States District Court” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal
Corporation District Court.
• “United States District Judge” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal
Corporation District Judge.
• “United States Attorney” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation
Attorney.
In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there is no discretion for anyone to take
“United States” any other way.
Actors in government rely on cognitive dissonance[2] on the part of victims of the
Federal word game to perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and subject the
American People to District of Columbia municipal law.
The hoax is protected by a culture of silence among all initiates in the Federal judiciary,
Department of Justice, and other key positions in government.
And that is how they get away with it.
In summation: United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2) District of Columbia
Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by
the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction (District of Columbia and the
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 36 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
territories only), into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional
courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).
There is no constitutional authority that gives any contemporary United States District
Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the
United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county in
America—and no one can produce such authority.
Objection and Demand, September 14, 2015
Demand for Dismissal, September 30, 2015
[1] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419,
February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for
the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as
a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March
2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to
the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as
amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District
of Columbia Code (1940)).
[2] In general, people cannot reconcile the 75 absurd, convoluted definitions of “United
States” scattered throughout the United States Code with what they believe is the United States.
For those few souls who manage to figure it out and speak up about it, actors in government
follow a culture-of-silence policy of “Never respond, confirm, or deny.” Examples of this are (1)
Chief Judge Ron Clark’s six weeks of silence following Petitioner’s motion for him to recuse
himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law, and (2) ZERO government progress in
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 37 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
the Lufkin Case in more than 14 months.
If a particular intended victim persists, government actors may mock / ridicule him by
implication by quoting him, as if to say, “Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He thinks the
United States is a Federal corporation!” (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to
impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society as to the truth of the matter.
Petitioner obviates the cognitive-dissonance factor in the Lufkin Case by going straight to
the supreme determinant, upon which the Lufkin Court’s very existence depends: the
constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments,
orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding
regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas. There is no such constitutional authority—and the
Lufkin Court and every other United States District Court located throughout the Union is a
kangaroo court with no lawful authority to do business in any county, borough, or parish in
America.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 38 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
13). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-12
Standard
Supreme Court declines to review case; Petitioner moves district court to vacate
judgment
September 10, 2015supremecourtcase Leave a comment
The origins of this case go back 20-plus years and involve an alleged tax liability of more
than $3 million, factors that evince a significant investment of time, energy, and resources on the
part of the Internal Revenue Service and government to acquire Petitioner’s property.
Only at the very end of the process, on June 8, 2015, when Petitioner first learns of the
Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner’s April 29, 2015, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, does
Petitioner find the last piece of the puzzle.
Said discovery merits a second petition, the June 30, 2015, Petition for Rehearing, which
the law clerks and justices of the Supreme Court review and accept for consideration, a rarity,
within one day of submission.
Although the Petition for Rehearing presents sufficient grounds for the justices to grant it,
it is not surprising that they decline to do so,[1] given what is at stake: willingness of the average
American to continue participating in the “voluntary tax system” (only thing that allows
principals of the Federal Reserve to maintain their private banking monopoly[2]).
The Clerk of the Supreme Court notifies Petitioner of the disposition of the Petition for
Rehearing in the Clerk’s August 10, 2015, notice of entry of order.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, at Rule 60, provide for relief in proceedings
of the character of that of the district court of first instance; to wit, in pertinent part:
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 39 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
“(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and
just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding for the following reasons:
“. . . (4) the judgment is void;”
It is well settled that final judgments and orders entered in a manner inconsistent with due
process of law—a Right guaranteed by the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution—are
void; e.g.:
“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144 [of Title
28 U.S.C.], but on the Due Process Clause. . . .” United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th
Cir., 1976).
“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with
due process. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102
S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447 (1982); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 502 F.2d 834
(10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1975). Mere error
does not render the judgment void unless the error is of constitutional dimension. Simer v. Rios,
661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, sub nom Simer v. United States, 456 U.S. 917, 102
S.Ct. 1773, 72 L.Ed.2d 177 (1982).” [Underline emphasis added.] Klugh v. United States, 620
F.Supp. 892 (1985).
“[I]f a ‘judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a
movant’s motion to vacate the judgment.’ United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip. from High
Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995). A judgment is void and should
be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if ‘the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 40 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
inconsistent with due process of law.’ Id. at 1316 (citations omitted) . . .” [Underline emphasis
added.] Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp., 505 F.3d 624 (7th Cir., 2007).
“[D]enying a motion to vacate a void judgment is a per se abuse of discretion.” Burrell
v. Henderson, et al, 434 F.3d, 826, 831 (6th Cir., 2006).
Whereas, the record of the district court of first instance is rife with violations of due
process of law, Petitioner documents the same in Petitioner’s September 9, 2015, Motion to
Vacate Judgment and Order (below) and moves the district court to vacate said court’s May 23,
2014, Amended Final Judgment and Order of Sale and Vacature.
Had Petitioner known at the beginning of this case what Petitioner knows now, it is
unlikely that Petitioner would have needed to take the measures chronicled in this website.
Petitioner’s motion to vacate (1) condenses into 19 pages the fruits of the last 18 months
of litigation, in both this and a sister case (USDC, E. Dist. Tex., Lufkin Div. No. 9:14-cv-00138,
which, following Petitioner’s filings, stagnated and has gone nowhere since beginning 14 months
ago), (2) reveals how Federal judges evade and defeat the jurisdictional limitations of the
Constitution in every civil and criminal action brought throughout the Union, and (3) provides
sufficient grounds for the judge in the district court of first instance to vacate the aforesaid May
23, 2014, judgment and order (basis of the Supreme Court appeal presented in this website), as
mandated by law.
The contents of the below motion to vacate have direct and intimate bearing on the life of
every American who resides without the exterior limits of the District of Columbia.
Motion to Vacate Judgment and Order, September 9, 2015
[1] “[T]he Supreme Court has admonished us [10th Circuit Court of Appeals] that ‘[t]he
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 41 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case . . .’
United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490, 43 S.Ct. 181, 182, 67 L.Ed. 361 (1923) (emphasis
added) . . .” Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441 (10th Cir., 1983).
[2] “The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking
monopoly. . . .” Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of
Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, p. 1260.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 42 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
14). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-13
Standard
Revocation of election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia
August 20, 2015supremecourtcase Leave a comment
“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one.”
John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by
Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn. 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2157
The Internal Revenue Code provides for one to revoke his (apparent) general election to
be treated as a resident of the United States—defined by Congress in Title 26 U.S.C. to mean the
District of Columbia[1]—and can be accomplished in as little as one sentence.
As any legal professional (other than one with a vested interest in the 26 U.S.C. 6013
general-election-facility hoax) can verify: No one can elect (choose) to be a resident of a
particular geographic area for purposes of taxation without also (1) physically moving there and
establishing his personal abode / dwelling / home, or (2) realizing earnings there.
There is no difference between “being a resident” and “being treated as a resident” of a
particular place; the legal effect is the same.
That government pretends that all of the American People are residents of the District of
Columbia—and treats them as such—gives one an idea of the magnitude of the situation.
“Quando lex est specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est intelligenda. When
the law is special, but its reason is general, the law is to be understood generally.” Bouvier’s, p.
2156.
“GENERAL. Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 43 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
which characterizes the species or individual. Universal, not particularized ; as opposed to
special. Principal or central ; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select.
Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally ; as opposed to particular. Universal or
unbounded ; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole or directed to the whole ; as
distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only.” Henry Campbell Black,
A Dictionary of Law (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1891), p. 534.
The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility is designated as “general” and therefore is
universal or unbounded (as opposed to limited) and is the ultimate inference used by actors in
government to subject its creator, the American People, to rules of conduct and regulations, in
the form of statutes, and deprive them of life, liberty, and property for alleged violation thereof,
under color of law, office, and authority.
There is no constitutional authority for any American legislature to impose any rule or
regulation on any American except residents of the District of Columbia or one of the Territories
—and no one can produce any such authority.[2]
Actors in government and the Internal Revenue Service follow the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code (which are grounded in fraud); they just did not expect that anyone would
figure out the true meaning thereof.
The meaning of the definition of the Internal Revenue Code terms “United States” and
“State” is the District of Columbia (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, p. 6, posted
August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).
Anyone can revoke his alleged general election to be treated as a resident of the District
of Columbia. To see Petitioner’s “Statement of Revocation,” click on the hyperlink below.
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 44 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
(Note: Revocation of election applies only to the current and future tax years; it does not
apply retroactively to previous tax years.)
[1] See Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 8-18, posted August 11, 2015, infra,
for proof.
[2] The wild-card in the 16th Amendment that fooled everyone is the meaning of the
operative definition of the statutory term “State,” which is used in the text thereof and
comprehends the District of Columbia and the Territories (see Memorandum of Law, August 10,
2015, pp. 4-8, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).
****
Petitioner’s July 20, 2015, “Statement of Revocation”
Correction
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 45 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
15). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-14
Standard
Memorandum of Law lays bare the hoax that is the Internal Revenue Code
August 11, 2015supremecourtcase Leave a comment
Breakthrough Memorandum of Law obliterates in 20 pages the fraud that has made the
3,837-page Internal Revenue Code a monolith of impenetrability. General knowledge of the
contents of the Memorandum ultimately will result in withdrawal of cooperation on the part of a
sufficient number of former victims of the fraud so as to lead to its elimination.
The commercial artifice known as “income tax” has its origins in 1622 in Amsterdam,
Holland, and is the creation of goldsmith-bankers of the private Bank of Amsterdam[1] (est.
1609), parent bank of the private Bank of England[2] (est. 1694), in turn, parent bank of the
private Federal Reserve[3] (est. 1913), and whose principals are the collective architect of the
Internal Revenue Code and, in this country, sole beneficiary of the object thereof: revenue from
collections of income tax (see Memorandum for evidence and proof).
When principals of the private Bank of Amsterdam in 1622 fail to sell the Dutch
government on the idea of income tax they decide to procure their own government and country
and thereafter hire Oliver Cromwell, finance and foment the English Revolution, orchestrate the
execution of King Charles I of England, and install their own puppet, the Dutch prince, William
III of Orange, on the British throne.
William’s most important act is the granting, on July 21, 1694, of the charter of
incorporation of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of England,” the world’s first state-
sanctioned “fractional reserve banking” institution, allowing the bank to masquerade as a
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 46 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
department of government (Bank “of England”) and circulate (lend) its own promissory notes,
each of which bears the bank’s promise to pay to the bearer on demand a certain quantity of
gold, but for which there is no gold in the bank’s vaults. The arrangement permits the private
Bank of England to loan its own paper currency at no cost to itself (i.e., Monopoly™ money)
under the protection of the government; to wit:
“The bank hath benefit of the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”[4]
William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England.
“It [the Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.”[5] James E.
Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics, Oxford University.
The difference between the promissory notes of the private Bank of England and Federal
Reserve Notes of the private Federal Reserve is that Fed bankers did away with the promise-to-
pay-gold nuisance a long time ago (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933), having
swindled and shipped to England and Germany nearly all of America’s gold between 1916 and
1932.
Enjoying a monopoly as they do, today’s banks “loan” computer-keypad keystroke
entries of digits, called “credit” (modern equivalent of the Bank of England’s hollow promissory
notes), at no cost to themselves. As explained by the senior government banking official, then-
Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson:
“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the
bank by the amount of the loan. This money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not
previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the
borrower.”[6]
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 47 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
The Federal Reserve banking system cannot endure without constant extraction–by way
of collection of income tax by the Internal Revenue Service to hide the fraud of inflation–of a
huge percentage of the digits created and injected into circulation by banks in the loan process;
hence the overwhelming complexity of the Internal Revenue Code and heartlessness of those
who enforce its provisions.
Notwithstanding the best-laid plans of the architects thereof, however, and efforts of their
enforcers, no one can stop a grass-roots movement and anyone can disabuse himself of the hoax
in the pages of the attached Memorandum.
[1] J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure,
and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
1997), p. 107.
[2] A. Andréadès, History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903, Fourth Edition (Reprint),
Christabel Meredith, translator (Frank Cass & Co., Ltd.: London, 1966), pp. 59-65, quoted in
David Astle, The Babylonian Woe: A study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of
their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (Published
privately: Toronto, 1975), p. 140.
[3] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election
Edition (Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization: Staunton, Va., 1992), p. 102.
[4] William Paterson, quoted in Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations: A Financial Study
of English History, First American Edition (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1936), p. 30.
[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England: An Enquiry
Into a Weekly Record of The Price of Bank Stock from August 17, 1694 to September 17, 1703
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 48 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
(Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1887), p. 9, quoted in Andréadès (supra, fn. 2), p. 82.
[6] Robert B. Anderson, quoted in “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with
Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 1959,
pp. 68-69.
* * * *
Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 49 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
16). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-15
Standard
Supreme Court denies the petition—but because of extraordinary intervening
circumstances the case is not over.
July 2, 2015supremecourtcase Leave a comment
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal
trial court in America is a territorial (not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the
District of Columbia or other Federal territory.
Notwithstanding this legal fact—which no one denies—the Supreme Court on June 8,
2015, issued an order denying certiorari.
This means that there is some other overriding non-constitutional (statutory) factor—
unknown to Petitioner at time of filing of the petition but known by all bench officers involved in
this case—that allows the Justices to approve of the judgment of the appeals court affirming the
judgment of the district court despite the fact that the district court is a territorial court with no
jurisdiction in Texas (where Petitioner resides).
Supreme Court Rule 44.2 provides that under certain extraordinary conditions a petition
may be presented a second time, through a “Petition for Rehearing.”
Such conditions have arisen since the original filing April 29, 2015.
Wherefore, Petitioner on June 30, 2015, filed a Petition for Rehearing.
The Petition for Rehearing, though only 14 pages in length, is comprehensive and
reveals, among other things:
• On what, exactly, the district court relies for authority to exercise jurisdiction, despite the
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 50 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
fact that Petitioner resides (and Petitioner’s property is located) without the territory over
which the court has jurisdiction;
• The particular section of the Internal Revenue Code that is used to ensnare American
nontaxpayers into an implied contract that makes them liable to Federal income taxes no
matter where they may reside, but also provides the exact procedure whereby any such
American can reverse the process, extinguish the implied contract, and be relieved of
liability to Federal income taxes;
• The precise meaning of the definition of the most important statutory term in existence,
around which literally everything else revolves: “United States”;
• The universal and simple but semi-secret rules of statutory construction (used by
Congress to legislate the law into existence and every Federal judge and magistrate and
Supreme Court Justice to interpret and pronounce it thereafter) that allow anyone to
determine the exact meaning of any definition (no matter how vague, complicated, or
confusing) of any statutory term in any body of law; and
• Documentary evidence in the record of the case that shows that the district judge is not an
impartial arbiter but rather an agent of the plaintiff, i.e., the United States, secretly
working in its behalf to defeat Petitioner—a setting known as a kangaroo court:
◦
▪ kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the
principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2.
A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures,
esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 51 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359
• * * * *
12 – Supreme Court denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari June 8, 2015
13 – Petition For Rehearing, filed June 30, 2015
14 – ‘Sua sponte’ defined
15 – Supreme Court Docket – June 30, 2015
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 52 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
17). The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!-16
Standard
Landmark Income Tax Case: Supreme Court No. 14-1305
May 21, 2015supremecourtcase
There are two kinds of federal trial courts: those of general jurisdiction (territorial,
personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) and those of limited jurisdiction (subject-matter
jurisdiction only).
Everyone is familiar with federal rules and regulations: Code of Federal Regulations,
United States Code, Internal Revenue Code, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare), National Defense Authorization Act, etc.
The only federal courts authorized by the Constitution to hear civil or criminal matters
brought against individual Americans for alleged violation of federal rules or regulations are
courts of general jurisdiction.
Today, every federal court located within the respective exterior limits of the 50 freely
associated compact states of the Union, e.g., Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, etc., is a court of
general jurisdiction.
The problem is that the only geographic area in which federal courts of general
jurisdiction are authorized by the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction is federal territory; e.g.,
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.
There is no constitutional authority for a federal court of general jurisdiction to hear a
civil or criminal matter against any American who resides and is domiciled in geographic area
occupied by one of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union—and no one can
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 53 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
produce any such authority.
Notwithstanding this discrepancy: Federal courts of general jurisdiction now blanket
every state in the Union and prosecute individual Americans residing there for alleged civil or
criminal violation of federal rules and regulations—such as the Internal Revenue Code.
The within petition displays incontrovertible legal evidence and proof of (1) felony
(fraud, i.e., gross negligence), by reason of dereliction of the jurisdictional provisions of the
Constitution, and treason to the Constitution, by reason of usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction
in extra-constitutional geographic area, on the part of every federal judge of every federal court
located within the Union, and (2) no jurisdiction for the district court of first instance to hear this
matter against Petitioner for alleged violation of the Internal Revenue Code.
THERE IS NO ONE ON EARTH WHOSE LIFE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS
SITUATION.
* * *
1 – Supreme Court No. 14-1305, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed April 29, 2015
2 – ‘Petition,’ ‘writ,’ and ‘certiorari’ defined
3 – Proof of Service on Solicitor General – April 29, 2015
4 – Solicitor General waives right to file response – May 12, 2015
5 – Update – May 18, 2015
6 – Supreme Court Docket – May 19, 2015
7 – Update – May 21, 2015
8 – Ad runs in Houston Chronicle May 29 – June 3
9 – U.S. naval, military legal offices provided with evidence of felony and treason to the
The people are the victims of misrepresentation and fraud!
www-scannedretina.com - 54 of 54 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056
Constitution on the part of certain federal judges
10 – June 1, 2015 – Joint Chiefs of Staff alerted of felony and treason to the Constitution
11 – June 1, 2015 – Thirty-four commanders of naval, military installations alerted of
felony and treason to the Constitution