- where do you turn for help, when justice in South Carolina has been
denied for nearly a quarter of a century and no attorney will touch
your case. could this happen to you?
I was released from prison November 23, 2005 this was after spending
more than twenty three years behind bars for a crime I did not
I can not get the State of South Carolina to do an investigation
into this injustice and make their finding public.
This is all I have ever asked.
I have openly stated that the Solicitor, who would later become
Attorney General of the state, "conspired to put and innocent man in
the electric chair" This statement has never been denied, only
I ask you, why would a person make such an accusation, knowing the
conquenses of such a statement, if it were a lie.
I am now asking that all members become involved in my fight for the
justice I have been denied of so many years.
Will you help? please click on my petitions.
- Today I received the DOJ response to my Petition for Rule to Show Cause against the U.S.A. As expected, they have filed a Notice of Removal. I properly used the caption of their Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing which lists the USA as Plaintiff and Joseph P. Schiaffino as the Defendant. Wait until you read their response. I know some people have successfully challenged removal and kept their case in state or local court. PLEASE forward this to any other tax honesty lists (i.e. Florida Lawmen) you are on and ask for a copy of what they filed in answer to this REMOVAL. Time is of the essence. Thank you! Joe Schiaffino.
NOTE: They misspelled my name throughout the Notice.
P.S. A copy of my original filing follows the DOJ Notice. I do know to stick with state laws that govern the filing of these documents, and the IRC also states that filing must conform to state rules. I also have decisional law that states unrebuttable presumptions on the part of the government are invalid and a violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments, so we know we have an absolute right to challenge these fraudulent documents. And of course, they are talking about a "fedreral tax lien" while what they FILED is a "notice of federal tax lien." As JURISDICTIONARY likes to say, "A thing similar is NOT the same."In the United States District Court for theUSA
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Joseph P. Schiaffino
DefendantNOTICE OF REMOVALPLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the United States of America, defendant, through undersigned counsel and pursuant to 28 USC 1442 and 1446, removes this action from the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on the following basis:
1. Joseph P. Schiaffin, incorrectly identified as "defendant" in the caption, initiated the above captioned civil action in an attempt to contest the validity, efficacy, and/or propriety of certain federal tax liens against Schiaffin and attached to Schiaffin's property and rights to property under federal law. (Pet. Paragraph 8.)
2. Schaiffin's complaint alleges that federal revenue officers failed to "rebut" an "affidavit of non-liability" allegedly filed by Schiaffin, and that as a result, certain federal tax kliens became and are invalid. (Pet. paragraph 9 - 14.)
3. Federal tax liens and the filing of federal tax liens are lawful devices for the enforced collection of overdue and unpaid federal taxes. See 26 USC 6321, 6323, and 6331 (2000).
4. A civil action commenced in any state court against the United States, for any act in connection with the collection of the federal revenue may be removed to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein the suit is pending. 28 USC 1442(a)(1) (2006).
5. Schiaffino's civil action is filed against the United States in connection with collection of federal revenue. Schiaffino's action is filed in a state court, viz., the Court of Common Pleas for Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
6. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the district court of the United States for the district embracing the place wherein the suit is pending. 28 USC 118(a) (2000) (Eastern District of Pennsylvania includes Bucks County).
7. Annexed hereto as Exhibit NOR-A is a true and accurate copy of Schiaffino's civil petition for rule to show cause filed in this proceeding.
8. No previous application for removal has been made in this case.
WHREFORE, the United States removes this case from the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Date: May 30, 2007
Patrick L. Meehan
United States Attorney
Michael J. Salem
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
Wash. D.C.COURT OF COMMON PLEASUnited States of America )
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
) Docket Number 2004-20075
Joseph P. Schiaffino ) RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendant ) IN JUREPETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSEDefendant Joseph P. Schiaffino petitions this Court for a Rule ordering the Plaintiff to Show Cause why the document alleging to be a Notice of Federal Tax Lien on file in the Prothonotaryâs office of Bucks County should not be nullified and removed from the Courtâs records; stating in support the following.
I. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendant Joseph P. Schiaffino is domiciled at 205 Wyckford Drive, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, 18944.
2. Events giving rise to this Petition occurred in Bucks County.
3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Article I, Sections 1, 8,
& 11, and Article V, Sections 5 & 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and numerous court cases including Masloff v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 531 Pa. 416,613 A.2d 1186 (1992), quoting Commonwealth ex rel Duff v. Keenan, 347 Pa. 574, 33 A.2d 244 (1943). see also Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329 (3rd Cir. 1990); In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3rd Cir. 1982). This trial court has the power to correct its own records; Albright v. B & G Development Co., 64 Pa. D. & C. 595 (1973), Com. v. Liscinsky, 195 Pa. Super. 183, 171 A.2d 560 (1961).II. JUDICIAL NOTICE4. Judicial Notice is hereby given of matters that must be judicially noticed under Rule 201, Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, as well as under the authority of the Pennsylvania Constitution at Article I, Sections 1, 8, &11, and Article V, Section 5 & 10(c).
5. âAs the court in construing a statute must ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent as expressed in the language of the statute, the court cannot, under its powers of construction, supply omissions in a statute, especially where it appears that the matter may have been intentionally omitted. It makes no difference that the omission resulted from inadvertence, or because the case in question was not foreseen or contemplated,...â: 59 Corpus Juris, Sec. 576, p. 974.â Commonwealth ex rel. Cartwright, Appellant, v. Cartwright et al. 350 Pa. 638, p. 645 (1944).
6. âStatutes imposing taxes receive, at the hands of the courts, a strict construction. The words used should be clear and unambiguous, their meaning not extended by implication. If a doubt arises, the construction should be against the government.â - Commonwealth v. P.R.T. Co., 287 Pa.190.III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT AND LAWCOMES NOW, Joseph P. Schiaffino, Defendant in this action and prays that this Honorable Court shall issue a Rule upon Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE WHY the alleged Notice of Federal Tax Lien document filed against the Defendant by Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane Badge #59-00605 in the Office of the Prothonotary of Bucks County, which are contrary to the rules, statutes, public law, regulations, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution, all of which govern this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a violation of Defendantâs right to due process, should not be nullified with prejudice and removed from the Courtâs records.
Specifically, Plaintiff should be issued a Rule to Show Cause for the following reasons:
7. Defendant received a document alleging to be a Notice of Federal Tax Lien from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), dated February 9, 2004, said document signed under the alleged authority of Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane, Badge #59-00605.
8. Defendant immediately challenged the validity of the alleged Notice of Federal Tax Lien.
9. Defendant filed a notarized Affidavit of Non-Liability under Docket #2004-20075 on August 29, 2006.
10. Defendant sent Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane Badge #59-00605 a Presumptive Notice on November 13, 2006 via first class U.S. mail.
11. Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane Badge #59-00605 failed to rebut within thirty days any of the factual allegations contained in the Presumptive Notice.
12. Defendant sent Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane Badge #59-00605 a notarized affidavit of Truth via certified mail which was received by Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane Badge #59-00605 on January 23, 2007.
13. Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane, Badge #59-00605 failed to rebut within thirty days any of the factual allegations contained in the notarized Affidavit of Truth he received on January 23, 2007.
14. Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Laneâs failure to rebut within sixty days any of Defendant Schiaffinoâs factual allegations, represents Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Laneâs lawful, legal, and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in Defendant Schiaffinoâs Presumptive Notice and Affidavit of Truth is true, correct, legal, and lawfully binding upon Plaintiff, in any court, anywhere in America, without its protest or objection or that of those who represent it.
15. Defendant, by this Petition, is exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and his right to be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to issue a Rule upon Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE WHY the alleged Notice of Federal Tax Lien document filed against the Defendant by Plaintiffâs agent Peter S. Lane, Badge #59-00605 in the Office of the Prothonotary of Bucks County, which is contrary to the rules, statutes, public law, regulations, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution, all of which govern this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a violation of Defendantâs right to due process, should not be nullified with prejudice and removed from the Courtâs records, and order the Plaintiff to pay all of Defendantâs costs in bringing this action. Further, Defendant requests of this Court that should the Plaintiff fail to answer this Show Cause demand, that Defendantâs request for relief be granted with prejudice and with no further legal action of any type to be implemented against the Defendant.
Joseph P. Schiaffino
- (sui juris)
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.