Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/61214207/7-28-11-3-26pm-Rod-IRS-Objection-to-Motion
Timestamp: 2017-10-18 02:02:57
Document Index: 383964876

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1652', '§ 1652', '§ 1361', '§ 1361', '§ 2671', '§ 2671', '§ 1631', '§ 1631']

7.28.11 3.26pm Rod IRS Objection to Motion | Complaint | United States Courts Of Appeals
9001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-9001 Employee of Corporation GASTON COUNTY dba Corporation TAX DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1578 Gastonia, NC 28053-1578 Defendants CLERK OF COURT OBJECTION TO DISPOSTIVE MOTION
28 USC 610 - Sec. 610. Courts defined As used in this chapter the word "courts" includes the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade. TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 111 > § 1652 § 1652. State laws as rules of decision The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.
NOW, COMES, the Petitioners, David Lee; Buess and Rodney Dale; Class, with this OBJECTION TO DISPOSTIVE MOTION before the CLERK OF COURTS as well as to the Court on the following grounds. The Petitioners will point out these issues to the Clerk of Court as well as the Court. Number 1, the Petitioners, or the Defendants, are not dealing in Gold or Silver, "BUT" Federal Reserve Notes. They are defined in Black's Law Dictionary. Number 2, the UNITED STATE ATTORNEYS' MANUAL (USAM) addresses the choice of law in the "Clearfield Trust Doctrine." The Defendants seem not to wish to debate this issue with the Petitioners, because they will lose, and they know it. 1. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition Federal Reserve Note "Form of currency issued by Federal Reserve Bank in the likeness of noninterest bearing promissory note payable to bearer on demand. The federal reserve (e.g. one , five, ten, etc. dollar bill) is the most widely used paper currency. Such have replaced silver and gold certificates which were backed by silver and gold. Such reserve notes are direct obligation of the United States" 2. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS' MANUAL CIVIL RESOURCE MANUAL 210 choice of law
"Federal statutory law, enacted pursuant to constitutional authority, is clearly controlling over state statutory and decisional law. U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2. Frequently, the federal law applicable in government litigation is decisional rather than statutory. See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U.S. 580, 590-94 (1973); United States v. View Crest Garden 884 Apartments, Inc., 268 F.2d 380 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. (1959). Thus, the rights of parties to government contracts and negoti able instruments are to be determined by federal rather than state law. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944); United States v. First National Bank of Atlanta, Ga., supra; cf. Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663 (1962). The rationale for this rule is found in the necessity for uniform con struction and application of such contracts and instruments throughout the United States. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, supra; T.H. Rogers Lumber Co. v. Apel, 468 F.2d 14 (10th Cir. 1972). The relationship between federal and state law was significantly affected by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., supra. See Commercial Litigation Branch Monograph "Choice of Laws Decisions in Federal Courts after Kimbell Foods" (November 1983)."
1. The Defendants have not served the Petitioners with such a court filing (DISPOSTIVE MOTION) to ask the Court to do what is asked under CASE
#11-5083. Instead, the Defendants have been using CASE 2011-1318 (U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT) either intentionally, or in error. 2. The Petitioners will point out that the Defendants are part of the Administrative and lack the right to have any dismissal on the grounds of 12 (b)(1), (2), (6) when there is administrate abuse of a public office. 3. The Defendants have Failed to follow FRCP Rules 7 & 12. Rule 7 requires the Defendants to “Answer the complaint,” and NOT place a Motion to have the case dismissed. By all rights the Defendants have Defaulted for “failure to answer the Complaint.” The Defendants, being lawyers, know that they Can Not “answer” a “Complaint” with a “Motion For Dismissal.” FRCP, Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers (a) Pleadings. Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint;
(6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing (a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading. (1) In General. Unless another time is specified by this rule or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive pleading is as follows: (A) A defendant must serve an answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint; or (ii) if it has timely waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent, or within 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States. (B) A party must serve an answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim within 21 days after being served with the pleading that states the counterclaim or crossclaim. (C) A party must serve a reply to an answer within 21 days after being served with an order to reply, unless the order specifies a different time. (2) United States and Its Agencies, Officers, or Employees Sued in an Official Capacity. The United States, a United States agency, or a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity must serve an answer to a
complaint, counterclaim, or crossclaim within 60 days after service on the United States attorney. (3) United States Officers or Employees Sued in an Individual Capacity. A United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States’ behalf must serve an answer to a complaint, counterclaim, or crossclaim within 60 days after service on the officer or employee or service on the United States attorney, whichever is later.
4. The Petitioners will point out that the Ruling from The U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT (28 USC 1631) gives this Court (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT) jurisdiction on an Administrative issue. This is an Administrative issue of “abuse of a public office.” 5. The Petitioners will point out that the Defendants have, again, tried to sidetrack this case into the wrong court (U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT) in order to get a dismissal in their favor because the Petitioners are not Bar Card Attorneys, but merely "Joe Citizens" and may not know the proper procedures. 6. The Petitioners are entitled to due process of law as the Defendants have misused Acts of Congress to abuse the Petitioners and the People of the
united States of America. The Petitioners are now using the provisions of Title 28, Section 1652, “...the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress...,” and, "Any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia." (Title 28 USC. Sec. 1343) "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." (Title 28 USC, Sec. 1331). 7. The Petitioners will point out the State of Emergency of 1933 was an Act of Congress and is still in Full Force and Effect as of today. The Defendants not only have violated their public office under the Constitution, but violated their office under the State of Emergency clause as well. 8. The Defendants have used their position as Judges and Attorneys, and their status as Bar members, to misuse and abuse the courts and the Congressional Acts against the unsuspecting public for years. The Petitioners are now trying to address these abuses by the Defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 60 stat 237, S7, also Title 5 USC, and the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947) with a petition for review.
9. The Defendants are not entitled to their "DISPOSTIVE MOTION" as this issue is Administrative and is of public interest and the abuse of public office(s) as defined in Title 28 USC, chapter 176, section 3002, clause 2 and clause 15 Title 28 Sec.2671.
CONCLUSION The Petitioners could enclose pages and pages of reasons of why the defendants are not entitled to their Motion. But the Petitioners instead seek action to compel the Defendants to do the jobs they have sworn an Oath to up hold, and Respond to the Petitioners Complaint in the proper and lawful venue. The Defendants' job duties require them to follow the Acts of Congress as written and not the way they wish they were written. The issue before the Court is misconduct and abuse of these public offices by the Defendants. The Defendants abuse of the statutes and law seems to be because they hold public office and their opinion is that they can never be held accountable for abuse of their public position. Congress (with the obvious help of their staff lawyers) wrote the Statutes and defined them with definitions as to how these codes are to be interpreted. But, the Defendants are failing to follow their own Rules, Regulations and definitions of their
own codes. The issue is not if taxes are legal or illegal or constitutional or unconstitutional; that has never been the issue. The issue is the abuse and misconduct on how the agency is collecting it. The Petitioners have filed administratively to address the abuse of these public offices. The Defendants are using their positions to sidetrack, sidestep and abuse the law and deny the Petitioners a fair and unbiased hearing. The Court (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT) has subject matter and jurisdiction to force the Defendants to comply with the letter of the law when it comes down to abuse and misconduct of a public office. The law is to be read whether we're under a Constitutional form of government or under a declared State of Emergency government. Both scenarios are covered by Acts of Congress as is the UNITED STATES CODES which dictates how the Defendants are to perform their duties to that public office and to the People. TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1361 § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 171 > § 2671 § 2671. Definitions As used in this chapter and sections 1346(b) and 2401(b) of this title, the term “Federal agency” includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States. “Employee of the government” includes (1) officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 115, 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation.
Title 28, section 1631 addresses the issues, 1. it is an Administrate petition for review, and, 2. in the interest of justice. Now comes the question: is justice only for Bar Card holders, such as judges and attorneys, and not for “Joe Public" when those who hold a Bar Card abuse and misuse the Statutory laws against "Joe Public" ? TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 99 > § 1631
§ 1631. Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred. The Petitioners pray that the Court places sanctions on the Defendants as they are Attorneys (and Bar Card holders) and because they are aware of proper court jurisdiction (and procedures) and twice the Defendants have place this case into the wrong jurisdiction and venue, as the U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT points out, resulting in the transfer of this case to this court under 28 USC, 1631. The Defendants got their dismissal as planned, but were not planning on the U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ultimately transferring this case over to this Court (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT).
The Defendants knew the U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT was the wrong Court and that's why the Defendants filed into it. The Defendants also knew that Judge Kennedy's Court was also the wrong venue. The Petitioners originally had the Defendants in a Title 26, App., Rule 10 Administrative Court. The Defendants are abusing the fact they are Bar Card holders and the Petitioners are "Joe Citizen" without a "Membership Card. " So, does this gives them the Right to obfuscate and dodge justice, and violate Congressional Acts whether in a Constitutional form of government or a Declared State of Emergency form of government ? The obvious answer is NO ! The Defendants ARE accountable to a public office and so are their lawyers. The Petitioners can not make it any plainer as to why the Defendants' Motion should be Overruled and why the Defendants, and their lawyers, should be striped of their right to practice law in a Court or hold an office in the public trust. Also, note: Aiding and abetting in fraud, and abuse of a public office, is a crime. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT
David Lee; Buess Private Attorney General 22014 Delaware Township Road 184Arlington, Ohio [45814] 419 694 579 __________________________ Rodney Dale; Class Private Attorney General P. O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077] 704 742 3123
PROOF OF SERVICE I, David Lee; Buess, and I, Rodney Dale; Class, come with this OBJECTION TO DISPOSTIVE MOTION, this filing being placed before the Clerk of the Court of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT on this day of _____________ and month of_____________ in the year of our Lord 2011 AD. The Defendant's service of this document will be by U.S. MAIL ___________________________ David Lee; Buess Private Attorney General 22014 Delaware Township Road 184Arlington, Ohio [45814] 419 694 5796 _____________________________ Rodney Dale; Class Private Attorney General
P. O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077] 704 742 3123
Documents Similar To 7.28.11 3.26pm Rod IRS Objection to Motion