- As some may know, we have come before the United States District Court (USDC) for Northern New York in the spirit and intent that there is nothing so wrongMessage 1 of 1 , Nov 29, 2008View Source
As some may know, we have come before the United States District Court (USDC) for Northern New York in the spirit and intent that there is nothing so wrong with our government that what is right with our government can't correct have further submitted that the United States of America was created as a Judeo-Christian Nation and supported the same by presenting the historical context of the formation of our Nation as a "Christian nation" (Docket Nos. 1 and 6 ï¿½ï¿½ 91-140&) as well as to have presented other historical reference (Docket Nos. 1 and 6 ï¿½ï¿½ 141-144) of the Talmud which supports our belief that the council or Sanhedrin in fact tried the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jahushuwah) for commanding His followers to not pay taxes when those taxes go to pay for things which are not in compliance with the Laws of the Creator , and we are now in the battle over the subject of the IRS not being a proper party as an Agency of our Government in which "Jurisdiction is conferred upon District courts by 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 1031 upon the United States, ï¿½" and our entire case to date is presented at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html
On November 25th 2008 the United States District Court (USDC) for Northern New York Docketed our 11/24/08 REQUEST for a Hearing Date Regarding the United States Court of Appeals (USCA) September 29, 2008 Mandate (Docket #29) and Our Right to a Proper Party in Our Suit as Docket #30. Then, on November 26th 2008, the USDC set the Deadlines as to Docket #24, which was our Application for Interlocutory Appeal, which per the USCA September 29th 2008 Mandate, Docketed as Docket #29, the USDC is to construe as objections to US Magistrate Judge's Order Docketed as Docket #23, and, well, it appears that our Application for Interlocutory Appeal (Docket #24) is being treated by the USDC as a Motion because the November 26th 2008 Docket Entry indicates that a "Response to [the] Motion [is] due by 12/12/2008. [With the] Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2009 09:30 AM in Albany before Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. This motion will be considered on the submission of the motion papers, only. No oral arguments will be entertained. (sas) (Entered: 11/26/2008 )"
As a background, on September 29th 2008 the USCA issued it's Mandate and the following week I had asked the Clerk for the USDC how this was to be handled, following which I was told that they had not received the Mandate, and following which I contacted the Clerk for the USCA and had asked that another copy be sent to the USDC. After that, I remained silent and watched as this MANDATE of USCA was not even Docketed until October 23rd 2008 . This was followed by the November 18th 2008 Docketing statement that "Motions No Longer Referred: 10 MOTION Preliminary Injunctive Relief pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b)(1)."
If you will remember, in connection with our case we have submitted many Exhibits, including one example of the documents submitted to the United States Senate Finance Committee Meeting which was later suppressed (Exhibit 3), following which it was publically announced that WTP Petitions were being responded to with enforcement actions (Exhibit 4), following which retaliatory enforcement acts essentially meant to overthrow the Constitution has even been perpetrated upon this Court in which falsified damages/evidence admitted to not once but twice (Exhibit 70) the US Attorneys was used to involve others from the US Department of Justice to deprive us of our natural Rights, and although peonage is unconstitutional in the context of Article 1 ï¿½ 2(3) and an Article 1 ï¿½ 8(1) pursuant to Article 1 ï¿½ 9(4) and criminal in the context of 18 USC ï¿½ 1581 and 42 USC ï¿½ 1994 Plaintiffs not once (Docket No. 3) but twice (Docket No. 3) have been denied Injunctive Relief to allow us to return to work so that we can begin to pay our bills again and feed ourselves and our son as the case proceeds. And, as a matter of the paperwork submitted, on November 24th 2008 we finally were moved to submit our REQUEST for a Hearing Date Regarding the United States Court of Appeals September 29, 2008 Mandate and Our Right to a Proper Party in Our Suit, which was Docketed as Docket #30.
One of the people (Macwildstar macwildstar@...) who operates one of the legal forums we participate presented something of a synopsis of our suit which was also reposted on other forums as well. His (Mac's) message is presented below.
--- On Mon, 11/17/08 , Macwildstar <macwildstar@ yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Macwildstar <macwildstar@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Natlawmandisc] Thank You for making My Day!!!
To: Natlawmandisc@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, November 17, 2008 , 5:20 PM
As Group Owner of this group, I plead with everyone here, to please make a donation to William. His case is historical. IF he succeeds he will set precedence that the IRS is NOT and never has been an agency of our government and is SUE-ABLE!
The Ramifications of this case will echo for the next 5 decades - The nearly 100 years of terror imposed by the IRS will come to an end, if William is successful.
So dig into your wallets.. even 5 bucks helps. We all have an interest in how this case will come out.
 In keeping with their belief systems with respect to the teachings of the monastic order of Pharisees (i.e., Nazarean) known as the Essenes, recognition is given to the fact that the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jahushuwah) was after all a Jewish Rabbi.
 Also See Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 Feb. 29, 1892.
 "Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by the Creator, who commands us to stand fast in it." Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774ï¿½75, (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu:80/founders/documents/amendI_religions21.html). (Bolded Emphasis Added)
 "ï¿½under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from the Creator whereas persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be' perpetrated ad infinitum."
 The Government Contractor's transparent motive was to use We The People's Speech related to the Blue Folder as a front, or pretext for its real objective -- to fully silence We The People and thereby shut down the Right to Petition program, and the Government Contractor (IRS) clearly knew or had reason to know that when they estimated cost to the U.S. Treasury, listing damages attributable to filing substitutes for the 2991 unfiled returns equaling $4,806,537 to the distribution of the "Tax Termination Package" as part of "Operation Stop Withholding," for in order for the IRS to be able to associate and list said damages as being attributable to the said "Tax Termination Package" as part of "Operation Stop Withholding" they clearly would have had to have some idea of the names to which the Blue Folder had been distributed, and in this context evidence of the falsification of damages was provided to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept 18, 2007 through the statement of the Government assigned Counsel in which she reveled that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants or the Government could know whether those individuals used the materials ï¿½ the IRS obviously can't investigate whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of individualsï¿½" and this statement alone is evidence of the fact that the IRS's claims to the effect that its efforts to develop alternate tax returns were as a result of We The People's "Blue Folder" and the Government Contractor's claim of harm caused by the distribution of the "Blue Folder" is not only totally groundless but because it was used to falsify damages to qualify in terms of an Article III complaint it constitutes yet another serious crime.
 In addition, although Arthur Catterall of the Justice Department refused to admit error in the District Court's opinion within his Oral Argument Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (United States v. Robert L. Schulz, et al., Docket 07-3729-cv) on February 4, 2008, he also provided much the same evidence of the falsification of damages by stating "Oh, becauseï¿½I thinkï¿½and againï¿½I don't know exactly what's in the record. My understanding was the need to get the names of the people who received these material is, in part, to be able to contact them to find people who have been taken in by this plan and, uh, alert them, look you need to file your returns, pay your taxes, withhold from your employees or there is going to beï¿½"
 In Footnote No. 1 (Docket No. 24) qui tam Plaintiffs stated that "Should the Court deny the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion For Preliminary Injunctive Relief, dated May 30, 2008, Plaintiffs would request this Court to certify those claims for interlocutory review as well" with the Motion Hearing date having being set by the Court for July 18th 2008 at 09:30 AM. However, qui tam Plaintiffs were notified on July 23rd that by the truck leasing company that the bank that holds the lease-purchase will not accept any more delays/excuses and is demanding the immediate repossessed of the truck Plaintiffs worked and lived out of which makes the subject of their motion for Injunctive Relief moot for without the truck and trailer used in their job there is no job; and because plaintiffs live in the truck that we work out of plaintiffs and their 14-year old son will be forced to enter a program for the homeless as well.