http://taxthemax.blogspot.com

Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Wm Greene Private Attorneys General's

If you have trouble opening and/or editing this "Private Attorneys General document you can use http://www.openoffice.org/ for free. All you have to do is have it notarized but make sure they use the Seal as well as the stamp. Then you would submit it in connection with our case if the 2nd Circuit Remands our case back to the District Court again. They did it once and the USDC ignored the USCA the last time, so I expect the USCA to remand it back again with prejudice against the USDC. You can also submit it in connection with your own case if you have one or any other case you decide to become a part of. The point, of course, is once it is filed in connection with any case you are from that point on "Private Attorneys General" (de jure) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and the object, of course, is for those who sue or sign onto a suit to guarantee one’s protection pursuant to Article 1 Section 8:10-11 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510, 18 U.S.C. 1512 and by virtue of Article No. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 September 24, 1789. 1 Stat. 73 Pursuant to and in accordance with your reservation of rights as established in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Now please understand, I’m not the origin of this document and to my knowledge it has undergone a number of edits towards perfection so no one person can take credit, but to understand the importance of said protections see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01729.htm References for further study include www.greenes.us/index.html, as well as www.greenes.us/aboutus.html, www.greenes.us/notanagency.html, www.greenes.us/truckdrivers.html, www.greenes.us/karenspage.html, www.greenes.us/karensmessage.html, www.greenes.us/Billspage.html, www.greenes.us/services.html, www.greenes.us/contactus.html, www.greenes.us/truth_attack.html, www.greenes.us/civildocket.html, www.greenes.us/Donate.html. Blessings, Bill --- On Sun, 3/29/09, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com wrote: From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Subject: Check out Sharon4PrivateAttorneyGeneral To: wm@greenes.us Cc: a_democracy@yahoo.com, nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, jon.roland@constitution.org, leslie@lesliedavis.org, BillDahn4@aol.com, AngelsAdvocates@aol.com Date: Sunday, March 29, 2009, 1:07 PM Click here: Sharon4PrivateAttorneyGeneral I download the Declaration, but cannot edit ? LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower,Candidate AG2010 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson AllMN Sharon Anderson's Blog neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26 The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers kare11.com_SA Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Managment v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/knowledge gained as financial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com/ securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.co

http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com

USA Private Attorney General Oo

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Private Attorney General 42USC1988_WmGreene NY

"Private Attorneys General" (de jure)

Posted by: "William Moral Greene" wm@greenes.us wmgreenesr

Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:47 am (PDT)

If you are interested in being individual litigants in our suit or
another and you plan on acting as "Private Attorneys General
<http://www.greenes.us/files/USA_Private_Attorney_General_3_.doc> " (de
jure) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 please download and save the file.

It will save in Microsoft Word and you can edit out the Yellow Wording
to insert Your Name, where reference to you is in terms of a Man or
Woman, his or her, and Your State.

By doing this you will also reserve your rights as "Qualified Criminal
Investigators" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510 and "Federal Witnesses"
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512, as well as "Next Friends" to
"The People of Your state" (or any other state in which you
reside or seek to represent) and "To The People of the several
states" by virtue of Article No. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
September 24, 1789. 1 Stat. 73 Pursuant to and in accordance with your
reservation of rights as established in the 9th and 10th Amendments to
the United States Constitution.

Of course, We (and you) cannot sit idly by while the IRS violates our
constitution-guaranteed rights. Violations that go unremedied signal
wrongdoers that they can continue to infringe upon the rights of others
with impunity. As a result the very first Exhibit in our case involved
the pleadings in the matter of: DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS, INC. v.
T-BOW COMPANY TRUST, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND STEVE MORGAN, Civil
No. 93-405-E-EJL in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho shows that in its ANSWER AND CLAIM by United States Attorney Betty
H. Richardson and Trial Attorney, Tax Division, U.S. Department of
Justice Richard R. Ward, Attorneys for the United States of America, the
Government stated under oath: "4. Denies that the Internal Revenue
Service is an agency of the United States Government...."

In our case, as set forth at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html
<http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html> , we identified the Trust
listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> simply because (1) it
preexisted the similar Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC §
1321(a)(62) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> and (2),
the Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(62)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> simply extended the
same Taxing Powers to Puerto Rico as another of the United States'
possessions since 1898, becoming a commonwealth in 1952, and because 50
USC § 1801(o)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----\
000-.html> defines the term "State" so as to have meanings
which include any "State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United
States" and because, (3) the Act of July 1, 1862 was repealed by the
adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873, and (4) that means in the
context of the various sections of US Code including 31 USC §
3801(6)
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=31&sec=3801>
and 26 USC § 7701(a)(1)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7701.html> the Trust itself is a
"person" liable for the acts of a Commissioner and/or Internal
Revenue Officers in which operations exist outside of the Trust's
geographical application (i.e., in this case even when the word
"State" its' meaning is such that it is limited in terms of
the nation's federal district(s) including District of Columbia relative
to insular possessions of the United States) and finally, (5) given that
(a) the Act of July 1, 1862 was repealed by the adoption of the Revised
Statutes of 1873, (b) the taxing authority authorized pursuant to
Article 4 § 3(2) involves a jurisdiction of the Trust listed at 31
USC § 1321(a)(2) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html>
which is limited in terms of the insular possessions of the United
States and/or the District of Columbia (i.e., the nation's federal
district(s)) as evidenced by the fact that (c), there are no
implementing regulations <http://www.tax-freedom.com/pubnotic.htm> for
26 USC 7621
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=7621>
which authorizes the President to establish revenue districts within the
States of the Union whereby pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 72
<http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/BriefRegardingS\
ecretary-4usc72.pdf> one might thereafter understand, under United
States Code
<http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/Tax_IR\
STable.htm> , such revenue districts within the 50 States of the Union,
and as such, qui tam Plaintiffs submit that cases like Norton v. Shelby
County, 118 U.S. 425
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vo\
l=118&page=425> , 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) are a testimony to qui tam
Plaintiffs' assertions that when Congress has never authorized the
Named Accused "Government Contractor (31 USC § 1321(a)(2)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> ) to operate or
encroach into 50 States of the Union. Under this definition it is
clear that the IRS is operating in an ancillary or other secondary
capacity under contract, memorandum or agreement or some comparable
device to provide services under original authority delegated to the
Treasury Financial Management Service or some other bureau of the
Department of the Treasury; that is, the IRS is a Government Contractor
which is contracted or otherwise authorized to provide services that are
limited in terms of the nation's federal district(s) including District
of Columbia relative to insular possessions of the United States and
extend only to government employees and employers, as defined at 26
U.S.C. §§ 3401(c) & (d), and is therefore the IRS is liable for the
acts of a Commissioner and/or Internal Revenue Officers which wrongfully
extend to private sector enterprise in States of the Union or otherwise
in which operations exist outside of the Trust's geographical
application (i.e., limited in terms of the nation's federal district(s)
including the District of Columbia relative to insular possessions of
the United States) which violate the fundamental rights of the People
for which there is protection in the Federal Constitution (see Chas. C.
Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vo\
l=301&page=548> , 581-582 (1937)).

Now, assuming that the 2nd Circuit will agree with what we put forth in
our Appeal <http://www.greenes.us/files/Appeal_Brief_08-6284.pdf> Brief
<http://www.greenes.us/files/Appeal_Brief_08-6284.pdf> and Remands our
case back to the District Court for a Second Time, you will have the
opportunity to sign onto our case. Whether you decide to sign on or
not, if you are interested in being individual litigants in our suit or
another similar suit and you plan on acting as "Private Attorneys
General
<http://www.greenes.us/files/USA_Private_Attorney_General_3_.doc> " (de
jure) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 we encourage you to download and save
the file, and then you can edit out the Yellow Wording to insert Your
Name, where reference to you is in terms of a Man or Woman, his or her,
and Your State. By doing this you will also reserve your rights as
"Qualified Criminal Investigators" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510 and
"Federal Witnesses" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512, as well as "Next
Friends" to "The People of Your state" (or any other state
in which you reside or seek to represent) and "To The People of the
several states" by virtue of Article No. 35 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 September 24, 1789. 1 Stat. 73 Pursuant to and in accordance with
your reservation of rights as established in the 9th and 10th Amendments
to the United States Constitution.

Blessings,

Bill

Back to top

Reply to sender Reply to group Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.