Please encourage others to attend a July 4, 2009 Tea Party!!!
"If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." Continental Congress To Inhabitants of Quebec, an Act passed unanimously by the Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113.
Please encourage others to
attend a July 4, 2009 Tea Party!!!
References for study include www.greenes.us, as well as About-us, Not-an-Agency, Truck Drivers, Karens Page, Karens Message, Bills Page, Services.html, Contact Us, Truth_Attack, Civil Docket which offers a free download of all our court documents, and our Please Donate Page.
Freedom to Fascism
Trailer (4 min)
Entire Movie (1:49)
"The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
"Give Me Liberty Not Debt Bondage Of Our Children And Our Children's Children"
THIS IS OUR THIRD E-MAILING/NEWSLETTER FROM WWW.GREENES.US ON BEHALF OF THOSE CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS WHO HAVE REFUSED TO ACT RESPONSIBLY!!!
Remember the meaning of Independence Day,
July 4, 2009, and Please encourage others to attend a Tea Party !!! http://www.teaparty day.com/
We maintain that the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, 4 - which directs the United States to "guarantee to every State . . . a Republican Form of Government." New York v. United States , 5112 S. Ct. 2408, 144 (1992) means that we are supposed to have a sovereign representative republic form of government where the government's primary job is to be the protector of our natural rights and to foster an environment where they can flourish. Yet, when any form of government becomes challenged to these ends it seems the people end up in the courts which also appear to function in a very destructive way rather than functioning in support of the constitution. In response, we developed our suit against the IRS in the spirit and intent that there is nothing so wrong with our government that what is right with our government can't correct and we filed our suit as a "public interest suit" not expecting very much from the courts in general but rather in the spirit and intent that we might find at least one good (wo)man.
Of course, we maintain that the Constitution of the United States prohibits a direct un-apportioned tax in a number of places including Article 1 § 2(3) and Article 1 § 8(1) pursuant to Article 1 § 9(4), but Congress' Article 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction has never been challenged in terms of that same direct un-apportioned tax which would otherwise violate the fundamental rights of the People, and the way we understand it, taxation without apportionment on the mainland is unconstitutional; under the constitution, the fed must submit to the states for permission on any given budget or even line items of a budget, and if not approved, the fed must go back to the drawing board; it is called accountability.
Accordingly, we maintain that if following the constitution leads to another civil war as before, well that is no excuse for not following the constitution, but if one were to look at Docket_Entry No. 20, par. #4 at lines 1-4, for example, you will find the IRS attorney arguing that we " erroneously contend that the IRS is not authorized to operate within the fifty states. (See Docket Entry 19, at 30-33.) The IRS' right to assess and collect federal income taxes is undisputed in law. "Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, there can be no question that Congress has the power to tax citizens of `the 50 states.' The
Sixteenth Amendment extended that power further to income taxes. Thus, the federal government exercises `sovereignty,' albeit dual sovereignty over the fifty states with respect to taxes." United States v. Webb, No. 06-CV-5317(SLT)(RER), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93491, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2007 ) (internal citations, quotations and footnote omitted)."
OUR SUIT AGAINST THE IRS
Never mind the fact that our "public interest suit" presents the fact that both House Report No. 1337 (p. A 18) and Senate Report No. 1622 (p. 168), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively (1954), specifically declared that the word "income" as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was to be interpreted in its "constitutional sense" rather than its ordinary sense. Never mind any other case which might suggest that "Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege." Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, 455-456 (Tenn.1960),
Never mind that our "public interest suit" presents that Article I § 9(4) of the Constitution for the United States of America reads
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." And never mind that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958), for at Docket_Entry No. 20, par. #4 at lines 1-4, for example, you will find the IRS attorney arguing that "The IRS' right to assess and collect federal income taxes is undisputed in law. "Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, there can be no question that Congress has the power to tax citizens of `the 50 states.' The Sixteenth Amendment extended that power further to income taxes. Thus, the federal government exercises `sovereignty,' albeit dual sovereignty over the fifty states with respect to taxes."
Got that folks, "Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution" and "The Sixteenth Amendment" which according to the IRS attorney is an instance where the US District Court for Northern New York had the right to ignore and act contrary to precedence set in "Stare Decisis" Doctrine Cases presented to the District Court (e.g., see Exhibit No. 60 which is a Copy of Pollack v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 556, 573, 582, and 436-441 (1895); Exhibit No. 57 which is a Copy of Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 161, 165 (1911); Exhibit No. 53 which is a Copy of Coppage vs. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 23-24 (1915); Exhibit No. 62: which is a Copy of Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-114 (1916); Exhibit No. 61 which is a Copy of Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918); Exhibit No. 54 which is a Copy of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-208 (1920); Exhibit No. 65 which is a Copy of William E. Peck & Co. vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 173 (1918); Exhibit No. 55 which is a Copy of Evans vs. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 263 (1920); Exhibit No. 49 which is a Copy of Bowers vs. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Exhibit No. 63 which is a Copy of Taft vs. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929); and, Exhibit No. 51 being a Copy of Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937) and that the protection in the Federal Constitution remains in full force and effect.
We are not talking about the right of government to tax in terms of legitimate services, but rather that to tax a man's labor is unconstitutional. The tax I protest is the individual income tax NOT THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX (a tax on the profit derived from the labor of others), and that most people are not a possessions corporations, do not have employees, and therefore are not "subject" in terms of the gains and profits "derived from" the labor of others, the average American does not have income as defined by Federal L1475 legislation and IRS Code and slavery and/or peonage is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, because even state ownership of their labor property is unconstitutional (See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988); Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1910).
But again, we developed our suit against the IRS in the spirit and intent that there is nothing so wrong with our government that what is right with our government can't correct and we filed our suit as a "public interest suit" which involves many Constitutional Rights Violations including Peonage, Major Fraud, Mail and Bank Fraud, and sets forth thirty-eight pages of Causes of Action, listing fifty-eight separate Causes of Action which have been developed against the IRS as a Government Contractor rather than the United States, further submitting that the United States of America was created as a "Christian nation."
Unlike the many who seek to file suit against the United States, we identified the Trust listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2) [Philippine special fund (internal revenue)] simply because (1) it preexisted the similar Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(62) [which is protected against such suits by Tile 27] and (2), the Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(62) simply extended the same Taxing Powers to Puerto Rico as another of the United States' possessions.
Causes of Action include that IRS Officials were involved in the suppression of evidence submitted to the Senate Finance Committee (Exhibit 3), following which IRS Officials publicly announced that our Petitions were being responded to with enforcement actions (Exhibit 4). All of this, of course, has been followed by many other enforcement actions essentially meant to overthrow the Constitution and have even been perpetrated upon the District Court in which falsified damages/and IRS falsification of damages (False Claims) includes Fraud upon the Court in a § 6700 suit against our participating organization (United States of America v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352)), in violation of our Rights of Privacy and Free Association.
In doing so, we did NOT file our suit against the United States but rather against the IRS which is listed as a Trust at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2), and in spite of this fact the District Court turned it into a suit against the United States and dismissed it accordingly.
As such, we filed our Notice of Appeal on December 24th 2008 and our case is now under appeal with the USCA in the Second Circuit. Our Appeal Brief and Appendix to Appeal Brief was filed in March, and the Government Attorney's Cover Letter for Brief for Appellee shows that the Government has brought another lawyer on board against us; who as it happens has the same last name as us (Smile; and I wonder what confusion will arise because of the same last name ???). In addition, the Brief for the Appellee and Supplemental Appendix for the Appellee are linked as well.
In response, we filed our Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply To Appellees' Brief which was notarized and mailed out on Monday along with Appendix D. Appendix D itself is Docket Entry No. 10, which was the one Docket that was used long ago in our attempt to address the subject of the ongoing fraud in connection with the IRS levying process.
Argument of the Appeal may be heard as early as the week of June 22nd 2009. Of course, we are asking the USCA to Vacate the District Court's most recent Order and REMAND the case back to the USDC For Northern New York, in Albany New York for a second time. If that happens, it will mean that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with us and allows us to sue the IRS independent of the United States, the case will be opened up for joiners wherein-by all joiners will automatically have the signatory status of "Private Attorneys General" (de jure) and guaranteed protections pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Qualified Criminal Investigators pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1510 and Federal Witnesses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
As you might imagine and as you can plainly see from all of the above, this has been a LOT for us (my wife and I) to do, and, at times, it is hard to fully realize that we are not so alone in all this.
Yet with God's help we have gone on, and because God works through others, it is with the help of others like you that we go on; to which, we owe a big THANK YOU to Each and Every One of You !!! And Please encourage others to attend a July 4, 2009 Tea Party!!!
You have received this message either because you have subscribed or another subscriber submitted your name to this mailing list. The purpose of this mailing list is to keep those interested up-dated on our case as presented at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from us, please click here to unsubscribe.