Source: https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/american-net-twine-co-v-worthington/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:06:33+00:00

Document:
(His name was Charles F. Conces, and he died after giving this notice of rights to the US Justice Department and the IRS. He came out of a restaurant that he’d attended a meeting at and he died. I personally believe he was poisoned, but what do I know since I was not there.
Memorandum and Assertion of Rights, to this Honorable Court.
The United States District Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (see Black’s Law Dictionary – Seventh Edition) and their power is limited by precedent decisions.
“While in a court of general jurisdiction, there is a presumption that the judge has subject-matter jurisdiction, such is not the case in courts of limited jurisdiction. In all courts of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction.” State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986).
1. Defendant asserts his right to reject the Magistrate Judge, Hugh Brenneman, as the presiding judge in this civil case. See Rules of Civil Procedure. Charles F. Conces has previously done so, and does, here and now, reject said Magistrate Judge as the presiding judge in this case.
2. Defendant is entitled to his Constitutional rights. Charles F. Conces does, hereby, assert his 4th Amendment rights to be secure in his person, property, papers, effects, etc. and further asserts that he will not violate any other person’s Constitutional rights to be secure in their person, property, papers, effects, etc.
“It is true that the constitutional claim would warrant convening a three-judge court and that if a single judge rejects the statutory claim, a three-judge court must be called to consider the constitutional issue.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 528 at 545, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S Ct, 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974).
“Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). “It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583.
3. The record shows that DOJ attorneys violated Charles F. Conces’ due process rights by not obtaining the prerequisite authorization for the civil suit as per 26 USC 7401 and falsifying the record. Thomas Curteman and Michael Raum committed fraud thereafter by covering up the lie, stated by Michael Raum in the complaint and amended complaint that the authorizations had been obtained.
Shushan v. United States, 117 F.2d 110 (CA5): “No trustee has more sacred duties than a public official and any scheme to obtain an advantage by corrupting such and one must in the federal law be considered a scheme to defraud.” 117 F.2d, at 115.
This Court should have dismissed this case, as the jurisdictional authorization was challenged, and the DOJ refused to respond. Judge Quist is presumed to know the law. Conces repeatedly challenged the DOJ attorneys on that jurisdictional question and repeatedly asked if the DOJ attorneys had obtained the 7401 authorizations, and repeatedly they refused to answer until Conces was able to gather enough information to prove that they had not done so.
The record was falsified by the DOJ attorneys.
“The record must show that the statute was complied with”; In re Marriage of Stefiniw, 253 Ill.App.3d 196, 625 N.E.2d 358 (1st Dist. 1993).
“Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v Buist, (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.
The record of the case shows that the DOJ attorneys falsified the record.
“A judgment is characterized as void and may be collaterally attacked at any time where the record itself furnished the facts which establish that the court acted without jurisdiction.” People v. Byrnes, 34 Ill.App.3d 983, 341 N.E.2d 729 (2nd Dist. 1975).
The April 11, 2006, filing by Charles Conces, challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court disregarded those challenges, and in doing so, denied the rights of Charles Conces to a settlement of those jurisdictional challenges, in violation of Due Process.
“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”,Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.
The DOJ attorneys committed fraud by falsifying the record.
“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.” State v. LaPier, 961 P.2d 1274, 289 Mont. 392, 1998 MT 174 (1998).
“Ruling made in absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity.” State v. Dvorak, 574 N.W.2d 492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998).
“Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity.” People v. Rolland 581 N.E.2d 907, (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).
“Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.” People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990). Conces also finds that Judge Quist’s statements at the June 21, 2006, hearing, reveal that Judge Quist had not read nor understood the pleadings of Conces. Quist stated, “And I just rejected the most recent documents. It is the same stuff that I see all the time from people that believe for one reason or another they don’t have to pay their taxes.” None of Conces’ pleadings have ever stated or inferred that people should not pay their taxes. Then Quist listed a number of tax protester arguments, and Conces had to repeatedly state that he has never used those arguments. Quist had his mind made up before he had even looked at the Conces pleadings and court rulings that Conces had presented to the Court.
6. Charles Conces, hereby asserts his right to challenge jurisdiction and the right to have the Court follow precedence and stop all proceedings until the jurisdictional questions are settled. See April 11, 2006 filing for “undisputed facts”, numbered 8 through 18.
The United States Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have ruled that when jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven, on the record, or the case must be dismissed.　See: Melo v. U.S. , 505 F 2d, 1026. “Once jurisdiction has been challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction.　The court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the case.”　and see Joyce v. U.S. , 474 F2d 215.
7. Charles Conces asserts his right to have this Court of limited jurisdiction, adhere strictly to its statutory authority, and be presented with statutory authority for actions.
“Whereas a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to have jurisdiction to render any judgment in a case arising under the common law, there is no such presumption of jurisdiction in cases arising under a specific statutory grant of authority. In the later cases the record must reveal the facts which authorize the court to act.” Zook v. Spannaus, 34 Ill.2d 612, 217 N.E.2d 789 (1966).
8. Charles Conces asserts his right to have all jurisdictional matters and questions on jurisdiction settled before the Court proceeds further. Judge Quist denied my request to settle jurisdictional questions and proceeded without even a pause or serious reflection on the jurisdiction matters.
Judge Quist and Judge Brenneman have denied every motion that Charles Conces has made, without providing opportunity for any corrections and without even stating that any corrections were necessary. Such violations of precedence, violates the rights of Charles Conces.
10. Charles Conces asserts his right to substantial justice. Substantial justice requires truth as to facts and law. The DOJ attorneys lied and made many false statements in the complaint and amended complaint, in violation of Rule 11 and Rule 8.
“Following the simple guide of Rule 8 (f) that “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,” we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.
303 U.S. 197 . Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957).
Charles Conces asserts his right to conclude that the precedence law, stated in the “factual Inquiry” and presented to the DOJ attorneys, is good case law and has not been overturned. Those precedence cases established that the requirement of “apportionment” is still operative in the U.S. Constitution, and that the 16th Amendment did not grant any additional taxing powers to the federal government, nor did it bring any new subjects under the federal government’s taxing powers. The DOJ attorneys remained silent on the factual inquiry.
11. Charles Conces asserts his right to know the cause of action that gave rise to the case. Without a cause of action listed, the case cannot be filed in District Court. The DOJ attorneys cited 28 USC section 1340, as the cause of action. “Einhorn” clearly states the fallacy of such a claim. The DOJ attorneys are presumed to know the law, and show incompetence or deceit, by making such a claim.
Section 1340 does not give rise to a cause of action, because if it did so, then the United States would have a “cause of action” against every citizen of the United States. That is total and utter nonsense.
“Only by the filing of an information which complies with this mandatory statutory requirement can the district court obtain subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance which then empowers the court to adjudicate the matters presented to it.” Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 at 431, (Okl. Cr. 1990).
Charles Conces asserts his right to have the District Court adhere to precedence. There was no true plaintiff name on the complaint, and no verification by a complaining party. As such, no action has been commenced.
“Complaint must identify at least one plaintiff by true name; otherwise no action has been commenced.” Roe v New York (1970, SD NY) 49 F.R.D. 279, 14 FR Serv 2d 437, 8 ALR Fed 670.
12. Charles Conces asserts his right to confront witnesses against defendant. The DOJ never presented any witnesses.
“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245 at 250, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2.
“And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel.”DOLBEAR v. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. MOLECULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY V. MOLECULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY. CLAY COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. PEOPLE’S TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. OVERLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. (PART TWO THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1 , 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.
“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
13. Charles Conces asserts his “Due Process” rights under the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Conces has the right to the conclusion that the judgments and orders of Judge Quist are null and void, because the DOJ attorneys did not obtain the required authorizations under 26 USC 7401. Additionally, Judge Quist, at the June 21, 2006, hearing made an unexplainable statement, “Well, we’re way past that now because you didn’t respond to the complaint. And so there was a default…” Contrary to Judge Quist’s statement, Conces did, in fact, respond to the complaint and also responded to the amended complaint, paragraph by paragraph, rebutting the many false statements by the DOJ attorney, Michael Raum. The complaint should have been dismissed right there and then, if for no other reason than the many provably false statements by the DOJ attorneys who had no witnesses or evidence for their allegations.
“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 -733 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 US 286, 291 (1980); National Exchange Bank v. Wiley , 195 US 257 (1904); Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1878).
“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.
“Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered”, B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).
14. Charles Conces asserts his right to the truth, concerning 26 USC 7608 language, which states that (all) enforcement revenue agents, by whatever title, are authorized to enforce only subtitle E and the commodities subject to tax, and that only Criminal Investigators of the Intelligence Division are authorized to enforce the other subtitles. The DOJ attorneys and Judge Quist falsely stated that the whole of 26 USC 7608 was a criminal statute and did not apply to all Internal Revenue enforcement agents. This was a deliberate distortion of the truth by the DOJ attorneys and Judge Quist, and Quist did not explain his dismissal of Conces’ Motion, other than the use of that false statement.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917): “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington , 141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. U S , 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.” Also see Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 417 (1904).
15. Charles Conces asserts his right to honest representations and authorized representatives of the Department of Justice. Michael Raum and Thomas Curteman have been actively engaged in the subversion of the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and under Amendment 14, section 3 of the Constitution, cannot hold Office, having committed perjury on their Oaths to defend and uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States. The subversion of law and violation of Due Process under the 14th Amendment, were not mere oversights, nor mere neglect; they were deliberate, calculated, willful, and knowing acts of subversion and rebellion against the laws, i.e., 26 USC 7401, against the common law, and against the Due Process of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Wherefore, Defendant, Charles F. Conces, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court inform him of any errors in this pleading, as per Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972) and Plaskey v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, so that any needed corrections can be duly made.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.