We thank you for your support!!!
As many of you know, we have a website up at www.greenes.us and everything we have submitted to the District Court so far has been done without the benefit of an attorney, and your contributions enabled us to move forwards with Case No. 1:08-cv-0820, our Interlocutory Appeal 2nd Circuit 08-04726-cv, and now that the District Court simply ignored the USCA Mandate and Dismissed our case, we are moving into our Appeal with 2nd Circuit 08-06284-cv, we are asking the USCA to Vacate the District Court’s Order Of Dismissal And Remand Case Back to The USDC For Northern New York, in Albany New York. All of the docket history so far is viewable at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html.
Of course, we had hoped that to build a fund toward financing a seasoned professional(s) dedicated to our mission of institutionalizing vigilance in taking on the IRS in the defense of the state and federal Constitutions but that didn’t happen. Nevertheless, we are VERY GRATEFUL as the total amount donated via PayPal last year (2008) was $1005.00 and the total amount donated by mail or in person is $870.00, for a grand total of $1,875.00. Of course, we also raised moneys in other ways, and for example, my wife started stuffing her filtered cigarettes and we frequently made the rounds to truck stops handing out our Freedom Flyers (Side #1 & Side #2) for free, and at the same time we would give a copy of Larkin Rose's "The 861 Evidence" disk to anyone who would donate a dollar or more, and because of my wife's stuffed filtered cigarettes, we were able to offer a pack of cigarettes to anyone who donated three dollars and a carton to anyone who donated twenty-five or more, and all in all, that brought in another $825.00 for last year.
That was last year, and although there has been a total amount donated via PayPal of $0.00 and the total amount donated by mail or in person is $100.00, for a grand total of $100.00 for the year (2009) to date, we remain hopeful that others will continue to be supportive. Enclosed is our Working Draft for Appeal which is a VERY UNFINISHED document, but we have till the 20th of this month to get it figured out. But my point in posting it now is that we wanted others to know that we are far from dead in the water so to speak. But again, we are moving into our Appeal with 2nd Circuit 08-06284-cv, where we are asking the USCA to Vacate the District Court’s Order Of Dismissal And Remand Case Back to The USDC For Northern New York, in Albany New York . If that happens, it will mean that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with us and allows us to sue the IRS independent of the United States .
If that happens, we will immediately open the suit up for joiners to sign on with us in our “Public Interest Suit” against the IRS and all joiners will automatically have the signatory status of “Private Attorneys General (de jure) and guaranteed protection as stated in Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 6 ¶ 13 such that that the Supreme Court held, “It would also be preferable to Plaintiffs if the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department intervened in this Qui Tam Action, but in the event they should not, Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Supreme Court held that, “…This and other federal courts have repeatedly held that individual litigants, acting as private attorneys-general, may have standing as "representatives of the public interest." Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm'n, 316 U.S. 4, 14. See also Commission v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477; Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694; Reade v. Ewing, 205 F.2d 630; Scenic Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608; Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994. Compare Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 137 -139. And see, on actions qui tam, Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 225 ; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 546 . The various lines of authority are by no means free of difficulty, and certain of the cases may be explicable as involving a personal, if remote, economic interest…” See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 120 (1968).”
No matter how it all works out, I want to Thank You for your support!!! My wife says to say a BIG Thank You too!