Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

As you may already be aware …

Expand Messages
  • William Moral Greene
    As you may already be aware, my wife and I filed our Qui Tam (i.e., Latin for he who sues in this matter for the king as for himself ) Action against the IRS
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 2, 2008

      As you may already be aware, my wife and I filed our Qui Tam (i.e., Latin for "he who sues in this matter for the king as for himself") Action against the IRS directly because the IRS is NOT an Agency of the US/USA, and we now have a website up at www.greenes.us/ to keep others informed of the nature of the suit, our progress, and hopefully in the near future, the date we might expect to be accepting joiners.  Be that as it may, based upon the information that has been available to us through WTP, via the Petition on with respect to the Money Clauses and elsewhere, although my wife and I are not sure whether or not what is called the Department of the Treasury is a legitimate Agency of the US Government or a mere Government Contractor, the truth is we have a long way to go before we could truly say the fully know the issue and the law.


      It is very clear to us that the IRS is NOT an Agency of the United States and is instead a mere Agency (Preferred Contractor) of the Department of the Treasury, as reflected by Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953 operating as a judgment creditor (e.g., in accordance with 26 USC § 6331(h)(3) levying in terms of any specified payment due to a vendor of goods or services sold or leased to the Federal Government).


      Unlike most Qui Tam Actions which are based provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 USC § 3729 et seq., we filed our Qui Tam in the public interest charging the Government Contractor (Internal Revenue Service), in which "Jurisdiction is conferred upon District courts by 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1001, 1341, 1344(2), 1346, 1621, 1622, & 2113 in terms of the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the United States, … [more]" involving varying degrees of performance related issues that go beyond their scope of duty, such that we maintain that the IRS is not a proper party as an Agency of our Government and further submitted that the United States of America was created as a "Christian nation".  


      Of course, we have consistently argued that the United States is not a proper party as a Defendant where the IRS is being represented as an Agency of our Government and maintained that the government has admitted that the Internal Revenue Service

      ("IRS") is not an agency of the United States. (e.g., See Docket No. 19, at 3-33), submitting from the very beginning the sworn testimony of a United States Attorney and a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, stating that they both "Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government…" (Page #2 – Exhibit 1, 2 of 6) (See Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, UNITED STATES' ANSWER AND CLAIM).  To which the ONLY response by the government is that "The government has not made any such admission in this case. (See Docket No. 20, par 4).


      As such, without ever even attempting to offer any prima facie evidence in terms of meeting its' duty in terms of the burden of proof, the District Court took the matter one step further by making the case for the government, and as a result of the District Court's ruling, which has continued to rule that the IRS is an agency of the U.S. Government, our case has been held from moving forward for the United States cannot be both plaintiff and defendant at the same time.  As a result, on July 25th 2008 we filed our Notice of Interlocutory Appeal in the District Court and on August 4th the Notice of Appeal was also filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to certify the disputed question for the United States cannot be both plaintiff and defendant at the same time.  


      We will forever be indebted to Bob and Judy Schulz who gave us the money to pay the postal fees as well as the $455.00 needed to file our Notice of Interlocutory Appeal and LegalBear who pays for our monthly VersusLaw Account which allows us access to
      VersusLaw's search of case law in support of our ongoing case.  And finally, our thanks goes out to "
      Nick" who helped us with the language for the Interlocutory Appeal, in which we stated that the District Court's rulings only based upon "prima facie evidence" and that the "'Issues to be Raised on Appeal' [was that] Although it appears that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States, the evidence has been in the past and is today only prima facie.  Plaintiffs will discuss and will prove that there is and has been no evidence whatsoever in making that determination. The District Court relies on several issues in coming to this conclusion which can be overcome by direct evidence.  [And that] Plaintiffs will prove that the burden of proof of this decision can be overcome to not only challenge this decision, but also place the burden of proof back on the Government that the Internal Revenue Service cannot be sued in its own name which would once again put the Government in a position of Plaintiff in this action.  [With the] `Standard of Review to be Used' [being that of] Substantial Evidence. Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).


      As you might imagine, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals focused it's attention to the fact that our pro se appeal was from a magistrate judge's order denying our motion to strike the notice of appearance of the attorneys for the IRS and all pleadings filed by those attorneys in the name of the United States, and on September 29th 2008 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Remanded the case back to the District Court wherein the
      District Court is to construe our Application for an Interlocutory Appeal as an objection to the magistrate judge's first order and address such objection. 


      To date, the District Court has not responded to the direction of the Court of Appeals and it seems that our next move should be to request a hearing date, just to get things moving again.  After discussing this with others (e.g., Bob Schulz), we want to prepare for the worst, which would mean going through the whole process of bringing it back to the  Second Circuit Court of Appeals again.


      And, that's where it all stands to date. The ongoing case is available at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html and if we are able to move beyond the point where we are now, every member of WTP (as well as others who have had their bank accounts emptied without a court order, etc.) would have the right to sign onto our suit as plaintiffs at that time.  Please Donate to help us continue with the case until the day comes when anyone who has suffered under the IRS Enforcement Procedures can sign onto our Qui Tam Action.







    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.