Sunday, March 29, 2009

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

5.

No comments:

Post a Comment